It’s long been discussed that prescribing intervals over FTP based on % of FTP is not optimal for some people (the reason a lot of people fail VO2 workouts) According to the article above (produced by a company that individualises training) the answer is it could be pretty sub optimal for a high percentage of TrainerRoad users. Would be great if TR used their data to debunk this and prove their method was optimal over a method like 4DP.
What do we think? My question is not whether TrainerRoad makes us better it’s whether % of FTP workouts provide optimal benefits compared to individualised workouts?
I am thinking of doing the same. Do you personalise TrainerRoad workout targets, or do you replace them completely with optimised intervals for FRC or higher workouts?
TR never claims the ramp test is the optimal test to base all FTP related training off of. TR uses the ramp test because it is the easiest repeatable FTP test that is less dependent on pacing, fatigue, motivation, etc. and doesn’t cause excessive fatigue effecting future training. Basically it works for most and slight adjustments in intensity depending on the workouts will dial each individual user in. TR relies on educating the user to make these adjustments.
TR is moving towards an adaptive model that will adjust workouts based on past performance and less dependent on the users’ knowledge on how to adjust intensity. This is probably a bit of a ways out, but this is the future rather than a 4dp type test.
Xert is only on the money when you feed maximum efforts into it. Max equals test. Not in the same way as a ramp, but smacking yourself until you’ve exceeded MPA for 5 sec is a trip to suckville nonetheless.
This is my concern, the interface is really good but seems like they’re hanging too much marketing on the plan builder which is really cool but just a plan time saver. I’d be interested in understanding more about different testing beyond FTP tests (something has always felt incomplete about that, in any protocol), as well as xerts take on non-testing and dynamic workouts. Imagine a TR interface with a smart workout.
And I think TR needs to respond to that sooner than later. If a smart workout or non-testing, or a 4D style test is inferior, why?
End of the day, my question is what’s better. Of course there’s no avoiding a ridiculous hard effort to test fitness. In the same way Garmin spits out an estimated FTP increase after a 20 min power PR, that wasn’t free or easy but there might be something to getting that number from a ride versus a ramp test. Or any other scheduled FTP test.
I don’t believe there will be an always in any type of adjustments via IA. I see it more as a pop-up that would be state “You’ve turned down or cut short your last 3 VO2 max workouts, consider reducing intensity by 5% for the beginning intervals and increase if needed.” Basically its learning your ability for better training.
I have used SF/4DP and XERT, and do use WKO4 for analysis (but don’t use iLevels… seems over the top and I can never remember them). I gave up on XERT because I was too far into TR/TP/WKO and didn’t see the added value or enough of a reason to change (may have been different as a new user of everything though).
I definitely see the benefit of individualized zones / workouts, and think that is the future. But from my perspective, I know my relative sprint/v02max/FTP power (I still do power profile testing focusing on 12sec to 5 minutes), and know that I should bump up TR vo2max workouts. As mentioned above XERT/WKO4/SF all require max efforts to get a decent power profile and parameter estimates, so you need to be doing that anyways to get valid training zones/targets for high intensity work. Those programs/algorithms help translate your profile into targets, and while it would be a nice to have, I don’t need TR to do that for me. I like the simplicity of TR.
So the question was whether TR % FTP approach provides an optimal workout. considering that people are tweaking these based on wko,experience or something else, I’d say this static % based one size fits all does not lead to optimal workouts for users.
Why does any profit driven entity make a big deal out of its perceived factor of differentiation?
Perhaps the question should be: how much of a difference does the “optimal” training provide vs “generic”? So what if the MAP zone is wrong for 44% of people if the optimally calculated zone makes only 10% of those people 5% faster.