Bingo!
We could probably eliminate 99.99% of the posts on this forum if we just gave the FTP one uses to set training targets a different name than the FTP one uses to set 40k TT pacing. I guess it’s not as sexy to talk about how one’s “training threshold” has increased by 20 watts, though.
If that were true then why do so many people post about their struggles completing workouts?
They are not setting their workouts as a percentage of MAP are they? There’s this intermediate guess what percentage their ftp step is in between.
Yes, they are. It is simple math.
Prescribing an effort at, for example, 100% of FTP when FTP has been calculated as 75% of MAP is exactly the same as prescribing it to be done at 75% of MAP. That is true for everyone who uses the ramp test and for all workouts.
I’m not sure I understand your question. Can you explain a bit further what you’re looking for?
Here’s my issue with that though - I see “following a plan consistently” and “listening to your body” as mutually exclusive.
Are we supposed to follow the plan consistently? Or are we supposed to listen to what our body says? If they both recommend the same thing, that would seem to be by dumb luck.
I think that that problem is caused by the way that TrainerRoad does it’s plans. You plug in your event dates and it lists every workout for you up to that date. That’s not how an actual expert manages a season. They take the dates and set general goals that shift as you get closer to the event and prescribe workouts that meet the athlete at where they are in the season. Are you going to be flat or fresh in 6 weeks? TR doesn’t know, a coach wouldn’t know, but by god you have a ramp test scheduled on that day.
There is value in having structure and a plan for your season but the minutia that the TR plan builder takes it to makes it overly inflexible.
So this came across my playlist during my long Z2 ride today…
Feb 25th Podcast: TR to DJ –
A few people here have touched on this, but many more are completely missing the point.
If you are a newbie starting TR from scratch, there is nothing in the plan descriptions that push you towards the LV plans. Please put yourselves in the shoes of a new TR user:
- You haven’t read any blog posts
- You haven’t read any forum posts
- You haven’t listened to an podcasts
Even using plan builder can potentially push a newbie into a HV plan. If you’ve been putzing around in Z1/Z2 rides for 10+ hours a week, not an inconceivable task having done it myself, the plan builder might suggest a HV plan.
Yes, absolutely long time users know to stay away from HV plans unless they’re absolutely sure it’s appropriate, and many long time users are aware of the potential issue for MV plans to be too much, but the new user doesn’t know, not yet. To blindly suggest they should just intuit it or figure it out the hard way does a disservice to TR and it’s entire user base.
There is plenty the TR team can do to address this.
The easiest is to start with new descriptions for the plans. At the moment the only distinction here is time, and for a new user they may well assume more is better. TR can be much more explicit about this, pushing users to the LV plans until they are absolutely sure a higher volume plan is appropriate.
They can make new plans with distinctions in both volume an intensity. They can officially add a version of their LV plans with extra Z1/Z2 to match the volume in MV and HV. This could go a long way in providing good will to the user base, steering people away from the existing HV plans who have the time but not he physiological capacity to follow them.
They can add dynamic text to the workouts to check in with the user. Imagine instead of the same old 'instructions" each workout, the text is based on where you are in the plan. They can help the user guide themselves, check in on how they’re feeling, remind the user about ability to adjust the plan as a whole to better suit the individual.
I’m sure there’s a million other things they can do to address this, but that’s a start.
I say this all as someone who appreciates what I’ve accomplished following TR plans, and someone who has also felt burn out twice now following MV plans.
They both actually agree. If you listen to Chad on the Podcast he pretty much pleads with everyone that almost everyone does best on 2 hard days per week, not 3. The problem is . . . TR doesn’t do that in their plans. They put in 3 hard days no matter what plan you are in. The first question in any plan builder should tease out which direction the rider wants to go - 2 hard days per week or 3? Then build-out the plan based on that very first decision.
Are you talking about me 
Yea, that is a problem. I entered Beginner (to structured training) currently training 10+ hours/week, with a Gran Fondo in the summer and Plan Builder put me in HV all the way. Ouch!
I agree with this 100%, that the plan builder makes it hard to follow the advice given on the podcasts
I will put this out there. Polarized is not a training plan or training method. Polarized is a logical outcome for individuals that have bike raiding as there day job.
Don´t think it needed to take the deep study of a sports scientist to figure that out.
I do think that for some people (me included) sometimes the TR plans are a bit to hard, but everyone can change them as they go along if needed.
But saying that polarized is “the way” is (imho) nonsense.
I think that Pol/Pyr is going to be the logical outcome for anyone with the time or inclination to spend more than c.14 hours a week on the bike (rough/guesstimate time, don’t @ me).
But either can also work for people with less time. As can SS, HIIT, etc. N=1, ymmv etc.
I think there are some flaws with some aspects of the TR plans/approach, but they can and do work.
Personally, I’ve finished 2 weeks of c.600 TSS on a polarised plan and don’t feel beaten up, which is a nice change from SS, but then I’m 40. While I have a full time job and a family, it is possible for me to find c.12 hours a week to ride/train (and possibly 15 in the summer with lighter evenings): not everyone is in that boat.
I guess you don’t know sports scientists. They can turn just about anything into a publication. One recent gem led to the shocking conclusion that it is hard to win a sprint at the World Tour level if you start too far back. 
What would be the point of these plans? I don’t think this is a good idea, because consistency will be lower. It just seems to be a reaction to overinflated egos — I should be doing more volume. Or I did more than that just riding outside, so I should be able to handle this. Going up each level in volume requires adaptations of your life around that training — sleep, nutrition, stress, etc. That is not at all obvious from the app.
I take your larger point that for beginners, this is daunting. But I would say this is just because it really is complicated. Users can override good judgement of the app by selecting plans they are not yet ready for. A personal coach would gently steer the athlete in the right direction.
Plenty of people have the free time available to do more than 3.5 hours a week, but definitely not he capacity to handle an existing HV plan with up to 4 hours of threshold, 2 hours of sweet spot and 1.5 hours of Vo2max in a single week.
Surely there must be some benefit to providing a gentle “HV” plan, this very concept seems to be touted quite often by the TR team as they often suggest adding Z2 rides to the LV plans. Why not just make it official? Or better yet, make the Plan Builder much more sophisticated and able to fill in the gaps?