This article seems to be based on a false premise, that people actually use the values for NM, AC, and MAP based on precise percentages of their FTP.
When I do a TR VO2 max session or 1 min max efforts, I’m doing what I can do for each interval, opposed to sticking to the value prescribed to me. Isn’t this the case for the majority of us? I suppose if you always use ERG that isn’t the case. For NM sprint efforts, is anyone looking at their PM and sticking to a wattage?
On the flip side, if you use the values specific to those markers from best efforts as the article discusses, then I’d question how accurate they are for that days session. There are too many variables that can influence your effort of the day, and you likely need to base your efforts on feel while being aware a general zone those efforts should reside in.
I’m not questioning TR. But if they are asking for user input , how do you define what you should be adjusting too. SF are saying they base theirs off your performance for that system you are training. When you tweak, what’s your benchmark… That you can finish the workout… But that could mean going to easy and not training hard enough. Tweaking so you finish but a balls out effort. What is your requirement for the workout and why are you adjusting then?
I’m not confident that SF’s underlying premise is going to apply to THAT many people. Specifically, even if it’s true that FTP-based zones are different than a 4dp metric for an individual, it’s unlikely that more than one of the zones are off. And it’s even more unlikely that all three zones are wrong. (This is basic probability.) So for the “average” competitive rider (and many racers, I’d suspect), undertraining in one area isn’t going to have THAT huge of an effect.
The second confusion I have is that, as we’ve seen in the forums, more users seem to report difficulty with VO2 max workouts…of course, the sample is probably biased, because how many folks are walking around saying “yeah man, VO2 max workouts are SOOOO easy.” However, the chart in the article suggests FTP-based apps are UNDERestimating how hard a VO2 max interval should be. If SF’s assertion that FTP-based apps are incorrect is true, we would expect FTP-based apps to overestimate more intense efforts.
No I agree but again I’m not dissing TR I’m looking at optimal. So hypothetically IF sufferfest was correct and doing a VO2 workout in 4DP is 115% of FTP and the workout is 5 X 4 mins. You finish it, it is tough but you finish it.
That workout in TR has you are 120%. SF 4DP thinks you will struggle (and remember hypothetically we are assuming 4DP is correct). So in TR 1st interval you struggle to complete the first interval and you are crushed. So the next interval you knock it down to 115%. But due to the additional fatigue from the 1st interval you can’t complete this. 3rd interval, you put it at 112% and you can finish the workout but you are crushed. In this scenario IF 4DP is correct it provides the optimal workout. All hypothetical but an individualised system if it works, must be optimal over system that treats everyone the same, that people are adjusting workouts on the fly?
I used TR for 3 years, platued in my 3rd. Xert last year, lower training volume based on TSS, better figures in my 90, 60, 20, 5 and 1 min power numbers.
This is spot on. Intervals.icu does its FTP estimation from any max efforts exceeding a min duration. So while you have to do max efforts, the advantage over formal testing is that you can get these from fast group rides or anytime you are feeling good and just smash it. Personally I can get a pretty good feel for where my FTP is at from looking at my HR on sub-max efforts.
I don’t quite buy the 4DP thing. I know my 1m power is better than my 20m power relatively and thats enough. If I am doing short intervals I go for the higher end of the % FTP band.
My point is I’m not going to trust the prescribed number by either method to a “T”. I’m always going to self adjust as there are way too many variables on any given session day.
Part of being an athlete is understanding your body and mind, and I believe that honing those self adjusting skills are a big part of anyone’s success.
As an aside, there is no way I’d want to use by best effort outside numbers for 1s, 5s, 1min or even 5min efforts. They are way to high for what I can generally do on the trainer, and they are from a higher fitness time of the year.
I tried Xert but I didn’t like the “black box” approach. I like to know whats going on with the models and so on. I also don’t have power for races or MTB rides, only heart rate and that completely hoses Xert. I found its FTP estimates very good.
I’m not sure that the ‘optimization’ of our intervals is going to result in us having a more superior workout. TR caters to the center of the bell curve for cyclists. So, for 80% of people you’ll probably get a fine workout with TR without having to spend too much energy optimizing your intervals. If your on the tail end of the bell curve on either side you’d probably be better off optimizing.
However, the downside to optimizing your intervals is that it takes additional effort in the form of testing and keeping your model fresh. If you’re a big cycling nerd, and are at the tail ends of the bell curve, you won’t mind doing the additional tests and analyzing your data with something like WKO5. But, how many cyclists fit into this category?
I’ve been using WKO5 myself and have not really been pressed to use the iLevels for changing my workouts.
So, my takeaway is that these other products are fine. Maybe even slightly better than TR with their customization of workouts. I feel that by now if people were getting blown away with better results from these other programs we’d all be hearing about how our buddy got huge results from these other programs.
Its also not great fit endurance riders who never go over threshold. Did a 200 mile 15ft Fondo…xert 2.5 stars…easy. A 40 min zwift race 5 stars difficult. But it is very accurate for me knowing when I’m going to crack in a short intense climb or over threshold efforts.
It seems that 4DP is anchored to their “Full Frontal” test and is also prone to error due to a bad assessment.
I already skip mid-season ramp tests because I can easily adjust ride intensity and/or user account FTP based on RPE. If I’m going to do that anyway, then what’s the benefit of 4DP?
I think people spend too much time trying to find out what “optimal” is…the reality is that there probably is no way to find out. Each person’s reponse to training stimuli is different, and moreover, you are never at the same point in conditioning again, so you can’t really compare how one program works vs. another.
Some riders respond well to volume (gello!!) and others to intensity…plus a million other variables. And just because a certain strategy worked one year doesn’t mean that it will be a good choice next year, etc.
research enough ti find a program that has generally provided good results for a large number of people…implement it and follow it. If you don’t see results, adjust. as needed. But don’t worry about finding “optimal” because you will never know if you have ever achieved it. You may achieve “better” but that still may not be optimal.
I think it’s more important to know how much and when you should be doing VO2 workouts vs worrying if they should be at 115% or 120%.
That said, one thing I think TR needs to do better is develop a methodology to allow a rider to “profile” themselves, vs leaving it up to the rider to figure it out.
This could be used to inform training zones, but more importantly inform training plans.
This is one of those things where, a bit like the 8min and 20min FTP tests, you don’t know what level to test at because you don’t know how you’ll perform at any given level. So you need to test to find out that your proposed level isn’t correct. Rinse and repeat.
Unless you regularly do similar efforts in races or club rides then you simply aren’t going to know what FTP+ efforts should feel like. Maybe some workouts outside plans that are low TSS so don’t tire you too much but let you characterise your power curve, a bit like the old 8min test but shorter, a warm up and then a couple of VO2 max efforts that you are encouraged to adjust the level. Maybe do them shortly after the Ramp Test. This value either then gets added to TR’s algorithm for the subsequent workouts or you remember it to up/down the intensity at the appropriate points. It might need doing for several durations, 5sec, 30sec, 1min, 3mins, etc.
Whether the above is self profiling or letting the rider figuring it out for themselves is a moot point.
Agreed. For example right now in vo2max workouts you either need to:
read the workout description
pay attention to the notes during workout
feel like you have a problem (too high or too low) and post on the forum
And then once you determine your individual % above FTP, which changes based on interval and fitness, that is where you are left hanging dry on the next workout. For example lets say I drop intensity to 94% during vo2 workouts (120% becomes 113%). Annoyingly TR doesn’t retain the setting for next vo2max workout. You have to either remember it, or trial and error again. Frankly that sucks and I’d really like to see TR get busy and fix that as part of the mobile app update. If fixing “no support for personalized % above FTP” requires using current Plan Builder then it hasn’t been fixed because current Plan Builder is too rigid if you are modifying plans (and I do). The lack of custom TR workout syncing to headunits is annoying as hell but not a deal breaker for me.
I’ve built a lot of custom workouts in TrainingPeaks and Garmin Express. Really prefer searching TR workouts, modifying one in WorkoutCreator, and using TR app on the indoor trainer. And then do analysis in WKO5. Still very happy paying TR annually for that convenience. Proper performance analytics would largely avoid the need for WKO5 in my workflow, however from hint dropping I think TR has set its priorities on some good stuff. Time will tell.
