Using adaptive training… Try reading the thread
1 Like
I’m glad you have the time to read 2.5k posts on the topic, I don’t however.
Thanks for your help.
While your FTP won’t change between tests where you are in the progression system will decide the level of difficulty of workouts within that zone.
For example if you have done plenty of tempo/sweetspot work and have a high 8/9/10 progression level you will be offered advanced workouts of that type.
At the same time if you are less advanced currently at over threshold work you will be offered less advanced workouts within the scope of the VO2 workouts offered.
While your FTP doesn’t change, the difficulty of workouts within each zone can vary considerably depending on your current relative abilities and doesn’t have the same inflexible relationship that anchoring particular workouts and plans to FTP often has.
2 Likes
This was one of the points they started out with and explained explicitly that this was a problem, but one they couldn’t solve automatically before AT. They have said explicitly that if you wanted to, you’d never have to take another FTP test again. AT will adjust your training levels automatically. They have also addressed specifically the problem that a rider’s FTP isn’t 75 % of their MAP, but a range. E. g. AT will tweak the levels in VO2max workouts. For example, if your FTP is 77 % of MAP, i. e. your VO2max power is a lower percentage of your FTP, then AT will drop the power level of your VO2max intervals from, say, 120 % to 118 %.
So I am not sure why you claim they have ignored this. 
That’s what Train Now is for. There’s a large portion of TR athletes who don’t even want to be on a plan. They just want to train when they have time and pick something that looks “good” to them.
They don’t have target events and just ride to be faster outside.
5 Likes
I wonder if this will be possible when you are able to classify outdoor rides. Have some form of low volume weekend warrior plan for those who do group rides in weekends. Instead of plan builder being told what type of riding you want to train for skynet could see based on your previous weekend ride what to aim you at
1 Like
I feel inclined to add my N+1 since I have had a “pro level”
coach for many years, and the last two on TR. My coach (yes, coaches world tour pro’s) NEVER had me ride with no intervals except in the off season. Every day had intensity and I thrived. Here is the key though;
Most, if not all midweek rides were 60min. Hard trainer intervals were 45min. I was doing 8-10hrs a week. Even 2hrs on the weekend, was mostly z2 but had a few short intervals scattered in there.
How does this compare to TR? Well, TR is very close but the weekly increase is too much. 6x2min @120% one week, then 3min the next is too high a step and this is where I fail, not due to the amount of intensity.
6 Likes
Agreed, there’s a lot to be said for holding an interval pattern for a couple of weeks, rather than constant progression (perceived or actual).
Exactly this - outdoor unstructured is not equal to indoor structured.
Absolutely! And I can’t wait for it, especially as I can’t afford a coach or even a personalized plan.
But for the next 2 years at least (let’s pick an optimistic timeframe), I think we’ll have to personalize our training plans by ourselves (which is not so hard anyways … more volume, less intensity 
*ducksandcovers)
2 Likes
Sorry for the late reply… Few points here though (this really is constructive feedback, don’t want to gloss over it though either):
To be fair, you were on a mid volume plan when you shouldn’t have been.
Maybe, yes. Maybe no. Who’s supposed to be the judge of that (athletes themselves are too often hardly objective enough obviously; maybe a little wizard when choosing plans in the UI would be nice?). Naming of the plans might be one problem here maybe as you mentioned in replies afterwards. I didn’t have a lot of commitments at that time, I had an endurance background, I did have a lot of time, so doing a lot of hours (volume) shouldn’t have been an issue for me… The problems though for me were:
- Intensity distribution. The TRI mid volume plan at that time had literally intensity in nearly every workout. That’s not sustainable imo and also part of Dylan’s video. Didn’t work for me at least
- The name “Mid Volume” plan. With the coach I’m working now I’m doing a lot more volume than in the TR plan but I’m miles from cracking and never failed a workout in 1 1/2 years (stimulate not annihilate). The intensity distribution is a lot different though (80/20 or 90/10) with great success in races so far
- The FTP test. This is just valid for me personally, but might explain why some crack, some don’t. The TR ramp test (or any ramp test for that matter) massively overestimates my FTP. A ramp test few weeks ago would give me 320W FTP. I did an INSCYD test and it gives me an FTP of ~285W. That’s a HUGE difference obviously when doing workouts. The outcome was that my Vo2Max is high but so is my VlaMax. So ramp tests are right up my alley, sustainable efforts (e.g. Sweetspot intervals) are not, which is what I’m working on now. Tbh I have a hard time basing my workouts on 1 number at the moment. Vo2Max intervals I’m able to do @ 320FTP, medium intensity @ 285FTP is just abour right and would cook me @ 320FTP. Actually also 2x8min FTP tests for example would overestimate for me (still Vo2Max territory)
I love to hear that you want to address this issue of athletes choosing the wrong plans and I hope my points give you some additional feedback. I also do love the open discussion about it! I really do believe that intensity distribution is more important though in this case than volume. I’m not even saying it needs to be more polarized, pyramidal or whatever would be fine but in any case, imo it definitely needs more low intensity workouts. At least compared with the plan I did 2018/2019. I do still love TR even though I don’t use a TR plan. I do love the app and the podcasts and gonna happily continue to use both 
9 Likes
Yep - that’s me
Indoor intervals for intensity - a more controlled environment
Outdoors for endurance - for so many reasons.
6 Likes
Probably already been shown in the thread, but can anyone point to somewhere I could look at what a polarized plan would actually look like?
I understand the concept of 80% Easy, 20% high intensity… but then I actually imagine what that would look like in terms of sessions and I get a bit confused. Looking at the 1 hour VO2 max session I did today it worked out to be about 40% VO2 max work, the rest easy. Does that mean in a polarized setup (oversimplifying) that if I did a 60 minute zone 1 session it would work out about right in ratio? (Total would be 96 mins Z1, 24mins Z3… or 80:20).
I appreciate this is a dumb question, but not all of us are at the same knowledge level!
1 Like
I seem to remember a podcast where Dr Seleir mentions that if you want to measure time at intensity (not the total session but the time you spend at intensity in the session) vs time at ‘low’ it’s actually more like 90/10?
Anyway, I think this is the podcast and it looks like it has a lot of info on the polarized approach (if it’s not this one, it’s another one 
)
2 Likes
To paraphrase Mike Tyson, “Everyone’s on an appropriate plan till they get hit.”
4 Likes
Haha… exactly
Is the launch of the polarized (or masters oriented) plans dependent on the successful rollout of AT, or could those plans appear sooner? Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere. Thanks.
I don’t know of any particular connection between POL plans and AT. I don’t think they are related, but that is my guess on public statements with no inside info.
1 Like
It will appear sooner. We’re targeting next week
14 Likes