I think what TR is saying is that the burnout is not due to the fact you do three key workouts a week, it’s due to the fact that people have different strengths and don’t fit into the bell curve that TR was using and therefore they weren’t doing 3 sweet spot workouts a week, they were doing 3 threshold or possibly even 3 vo2 max workouts per week. What we saw yesterday clearly showed the TR was addressing the one size fits all approach and also that they were providing suggestions for progressions that were clear options to a user who can choose whether to stretch themselves or ease off. Both of these things should provide relief to those claiming burnout.
The separate discussion is whether polarized is more effective than sweet spot. I don’t think that is as pertinent to the burnout discussion and they did address that somewhat by saying they will create polarized plans so that theory could be “tested.”
I think TR burn out is partially caused by intensity but also mostly because of fact that regardless of intensity TR has you doing intervals of some sort on every workout and most people do them in ERG mode. Reality is most people do with the TR plan are doing ERG mode for every workout, even if some of the workouts are in lower intensity.
I’m doing a non-TR sweet spot plan. The TSS it’s very similar to the sweet spot mid volume TR plan. The plan does have a little bit less intensity though. But the biggest difference is that only two of the five weekly rides are done in ERG mode. Weekend rides are specifically supposed to be outdoor group rides. You are given loose targets as to how much time to spend in the specific zone and other general direction but how you get there is up to you. In the winter I do those workouts as free rides or group rides on Zwift
Either way you get the training in but the plan I’m doing now is much more refreshing and less mentally taxing. Feels like you’re actually riding your bike a lot of the time not training following an interval target or worse being forced to follow individual targets in ERG mode.
This is not a problem for everybody but for me it was a game changer to get out of 100% ERG targeted interval all the time mindset. Actually, I loved TR, until I got a smart trainer …
@Captain_Doughnutman, @jarsson I thought this was an issue as well until I simply tried Pioneer +2, Cumberland +2, Phoenix +2, Gibraltar +2, and Polar Bear +1. They were all very doable. Yet the longest interval I had done beforehand was 30 minutes (Wright Peak).
That’s a big sticking point…the TR plans progress far too slowly w/ far too much “intensity”. Most people would be very surprised at 1) just how little intensity they require to progress, esp. with those newb gains; and 2) just how much low intensity volume they can handle.
Of course the above is N/A to those only having 5hrs/wk to train…so I guess TR fills that hole with 30+ short interval workouts (vs a 12 session long interval progression).
I guess the intensity bit is very individual. I would say they are not too intense. I add running and additional bike time to all their plans and it never was much of an issue. Not even with a little baby in the household and a stressful job.
Here is what that week looked like I did Polar Bear +1. Couldn’t fit the VO2 max and active recovery session on the screenshot.
My point was more that those many short intervals will put you in a place that you can complete workouts like Polar Bear +1 without much trouble. That’s at least what I did and ended up doing. Average Joe by all means.
Perhaps. But we also have to consider the condition in which you arrive at the result.
I’ve done both TR HV plans and POL structured training, both resulting in ~300 FTP. I can tell you that with POL I was much stronger and much more fresh — mentally and physically — than when I did the HV plans (which basically cooked my heart). During my mega Z2 block over Xmas, I drove my “fatigue” [edit: let me finish this sentence!] to all-time highs, yet I didn’t feel fatigued at all, polar opposite (ha ha) of when I did HV plans.
I know many TR users will never get to experiment with HV POL training and I think that’s a real shame, if for no other reason than to give them (somewhat) empirical first-hand experience so they can make truly informed decisions about their own training.
That said, just as TR plans might have too much intensity for some, POL structure might have too much volume for others. I’ll be honest, I don’t always want to ride my bike for 4-5hrs, but…I know the results I get when I do — very fast & fun 2hr rides — so it’s worth it.
All very valid points. I guess we are just polar opposites.
I hate longer rides with a passion. They take too much time away from the family and job. So three-ish hours is the absolute maximum and two-ish hours rather the standard. Another point that’s making POL unappealing for me is the focus on VO2 max work. I hate that stuff as well. Once per week is more than plenty. Ideally not even that.
The TrainerRoad plans on the other hand are a perfect fit for me. VO2 and endurance time are limited. Though the latter I add where possible. Mostly as stress filler. With that out of the way it’s sweetspot and threshold all the way. Both stuff I enjoy doing. Especially alternating sweetspot (Tallac) and threshold (over-under) workouts. Mentally it’s a walk in the park. Physically not much different. Recovery is not an issue.
This makes me run Monday to Sunday a 1 / 1.5 / 1.5 / 1.5 / 1 / 2 / 2 hours workout series year round. The first session on Monday being an active recovery workout. The last two hour session on Sunday sometimes being an endurance session. The rest mostly as TR prescribes.
I seem to have success with it but that doesn’t mean that others can’t reach the same via a different route. Guess to each their own.
Like I said, my POL numbers — fatigue, form, etc. — were much more severe than the HV plans and I had very little residual/chronic fatigue and/or “damage”; in fact, it did wonders for my heart.
Yup. And if I did the plans as planned it would have had mediocre results.
I’ve been experimenting for 3+ years now, for me personally, TR plans have too little volume, too much intensity, and are too prolonged. As well, many of the TR workouts have too short of intervals and too long of rest periods. Basically, not a high responder to TR.
From what was announced, all that the AI will do is move to easier version of the same ‘category’ of workout, so I don’t think we will see anything interesting here. There was no mention of the adaptive training swapping out one type (sweet spot) of workout for another (endurance). They may get to that point, but I think that is a very long way off. Only minor tweaks to the existing plans are done by the adaptive process.
All that was announced is that the progression of each type of workout will be adapted - I don’t think that it is anything more than that.
That said, this is a big improvement, and I am looking forward to using it. It also lays the technological foundation for more interesting and significant modifications in the future.
Same here. Life commitments (family, job) make such long rides hard. Currently, my weekend trainer rides are about 2:00-2:30 long, and 2:30 is stretching it to the max. During the week the hard cap is 1:30. @Captain_Doughnutman wrote in an earlier post that he does 16 hours of Z2 per week if memory serves. Sure, if you have that time to dedicate to training, you can and must spend way more time in Z2.
Yup. I’m definitely not exempt from “life”. I like to marry my goals with opportunity when I’m able; the past 12 months were a gift in that respect.
The next 4 months I’m going to be getting slammed with work so volume is going to be way down from where I’d like it, maybe ~10hrs/wk. How I’m going to arrange those hours is still up in the air, but what it’s not going to be is THRS/SS/VO2 every week.
[edit: FWIW, my monthly IF av while doing TR plans was something like .83; my 2020 monthly IF av was .75 — and breaking all my PRs.]
Sounds like it. In my view, though, both too much intensity and overestimation of FTP contribute to the problem with the training plans. The adaptive training advisor will only prescribe what the TR team teach it to do. If it is taught to prescribe multiple intensity workouts per week, it will keep on doing this leading to accumulation of chronic fatigue.
I think what the team is saying though is that the adaptive advisor will be able to adapt the training load based on people’s performance with their workouts. It sounds great in theory but we shall see how it is really implemented. I may have missed something on the podcast, but sounds like workout interruptions and subjective difficulty rating at the end of each workout will be main contributors to the workload assessment. People may pedal through the workout but it may still be too hard. The RPE rating after each workout is good but it has limitations due to its subjective nature.
One of the ways some good coaches calibrate the workload is by utilizing HR and power zone matching. Once they know the lactate threshold HR, they estimate the HR zones and can see whether certain intervals result in excessive strain for a specific rider. HR has its own limitations, especially related to heat effects, but if good consistent cooling is provided, it can be a helpful tool. I am not yet clear whether and how this element will be included in the mix by TR and whether they will use some additional inputs.
Overall the adaptive training paradigm is a move in the right direction. However its implementation and algorithms will define its effectiveness. We shall see.
) and a decent FTP I am quite where one might wants to be on the bell curve.
