Based on what might one argue that? That paper doesn’t suggest that.
It suggests that good genes are “advantageous”. How does that relate to the less genetically gifted need to train differently?
The paper you cite does not (apparently - I haven’t read all of it) support the conclusion you hang on it. You have nothing more than your insistence that there is nothing to learn beyond your own gut instinct.
Yes, it make me feel like a weak and pathetic cyclist, so I came back here. I only did 2x40 @90% today.
Yeah, we’re killing it over there!
Just finished an SS block and went from 4x15 to 1x120 in 12 sessions/4weeks.
12 weeks @ 5x/wk (38 workouts) is a ridiculous amount of work in order to progress from 3x12 to 6x15/“3x30”.
It is proven time and again that the human body and not just the genetically gifted can perform for hours on end in the 250 to 300 watt range.
not for 10 minutes, or 20 minutes, but hours…How do you get your body conditioned to ride for 4 to 6 to 10 hours straight at 250 to 300?
Volume. Volume. Volume.
If you don’t have the volume, you don’t have the bass.
sounds very weak
I was trying to be funny, usually not successful at that though. If people read the thread and recent updates, there are some crazy SS sessions.
Broadly speaking - yes, 100% I believe that Chad and Nate know my body, for training purposes, better than I know my body. If I knew my body better than them, there would be no point to trainerroad.
That said - it has occurred to me that trainerroad is obviously a fairy off the shelf, one size fits all method of ‘coaching.’ I’ve often wondered if it might be benificial to me to get a coach, even if just for a few months, to tailor a plan a bit more toward my specific situation…42yrs old, majority cyclocross focused, 10+ hrs in the summer consistently but ~6-7 when indoors in winter.
I read the thread, and I caught your sarcasm. That’s why I called it weak. The thread caused me to extend my sweet spot intervals vs banging more 10min stuff, I extended in 2 weeks from 7x10min @90%, to 4x30 @90%. Def working that zone more, and will be asking a few questions in that thread in the coming week.
Which leads to my concern about Dylan and his youth. I do not doubt his knowledge. I use his YouTube channel to assist me in devising my own training strategies on a regular basis. He knows more about research in exercise physiology than some coaches twice his age. Dylan is a valuable source of information, and I appreciate him for that. Yet, there is a vast difference between staying on top of the latest exercise physiology research and being a great coach. A great coach places a higher priority on what is going on with their athletes’ bodies and minds than what the latest research says about this or that training plan. A great coach would never communicate anything to an athlete that would create such inner doubts about their training as you have expressed. A great coach understands that an athlete having confidence in their training plan is almost always more important than how the latest research happens to rate that plan. A great coach might make changes to an athlete’s training plan, but they won’t do it by undermining the athlete’s past training the way Dylan has done in this video. Dylan reminds me a bit of myself when I was his age…before I realized that the more I learned the less I knew. Dylan has the knowledge, but at this point in his life he lacks the wisdom to apply that knowledge to the greatest effect.
Sometimes I don’t even catch my own sarcasm. lol.
Yes, that is exactly what I was sort of getting at with my post just above. I dont particularly care what methodology a coach subscribes to…I assume anything devised with some scientific evidence during my adult lifetime is a reasonable basis for devising a plan. I’m more concerned about someone molding any of those ideologies into a plan for ME, and my situation/goals.
I don’t mean this as a critique as I always viewed TR as a self-coaching tool, not a coach. There is no feedback into the system about how you feel during rides, or how you are recovering, so I think there is some responsibility on every customer to made little adjustments so the plans work for them. Maybe that is adding rest days, or rest weeks into builds, or whatever.
I always viewed the plans as a framework and thought TR did a lot of the heavy lifting in terms on laying out a plan, interval progressions, hitting different power zones, progressing time in zone. It was nice not having to do all that work, and it is a lot of work. But it was still on me to make adjustments if I needed extra recovery (vo2 for me requires lots of recovery while equivalent TSS in SS/tempo is barely noticeable) or my schedule changed (which a $200/month coach would do.)
Yes no doubt, and I do make adjustments when needed. But I take the attitude that a plan has been devised by someone with a lot more experience than me, with a lot more knowledge about how athletes bodies work than me (including mine). So I follow them, barring extenuating circumstances, like just feeling awful, having a broken foot, or just wanting to go for a long ride on a nice day. But I take the stance that following the plan with perfect compliance is the best available definition of ‘optimal’ that I currently have, assuming my body holds up.
I think making wholesale adjustments to plans is a slippery slope that is likely not based on verified knowledge.
Oh I’m going to add a rest day here, I’m going to add a long endurance ride, i’m going to increase vo2 intervals by 20% because my body responds to that…I dont think 99% of riders understand things on a granular level like that, and are futzing with things they dont truly understand.
Know what you know, and know what you dont know…known unknowns etc…
It’s hard to believe how heated some people have gotten over this video. The video is pretty fair. Sure, the clip of Coach Chad saying he couldn’t get through 3 weeks of the 5 week block he designed doesn’t look good. Just look at the forum. It’s littered with inflated FTPs and the resulting carnage.
In the end savvy users know that you can follow an LV TR plan, sub out endurance rides on the weekend, insert rest weeks more frequently as needed, and be pretty successful. It’s pretty simple actually.
The issue is that TR doesn’t accommodate well those that overtest on the ramp, the people that don’t listen to the podcast, or read the notes. The “more is better” folks are also impossible for TR to control. They will just dig their hole deep. They also have alligator eyes and bite off more than they can chew. They probably have no business choosing MV or HV plans.
TR could improve in a number of ways - decide that the ramp test is a failure. Or, alternately, validate it against other efforts. Why not just serve up a 2x8min test in the middle of a plan and compare it against the user’s FTP and then warn the user that their FTP is probably too high and advise them to do a 20 minute test.
It also seems like having 5 week blocks is too much for many users. There could be some algorithm such that someone new to training gets a rest week every 2 or 3 weeks. This could be the same for masters athletes. The problem, of course, is that TR would have take in a lot more data. They would need to know the training history of the athlete. Or maybe they take in HRV or some other metric to drive more advanced algorithm or AI driven progressions. We all speculate that this is the future and want it now but it still seems far off.
It’s all possible but it all takes a lot of work for them to pull off.
I have used TR since 2017. Did enormous steps in my FTP in the beginning. Couple of years some minor burnouts when strictly following the plans.
Now after some years I have learned how to train not to burn out and to have a higher fitness for a whole season and not just peak for an event or for a couple of days.
Last year was my first year without following any TR plans. Did much more base and just listened to my body. Best results so far.
Anyway, still a TR subscriber since I’m grandfathered but I’m not using any plans and most workouts are my own simple ones. But I have thank TR how I got my fitness in the beginning.
But I’m just a simple amateur in mid 40’s and volume is less than 400hrs/year.
Thats my mistake for not being more clear. I hard disagree they are inflating FTP intentionally to make people feel good about themselves and the product as you were suggesting.
I think they know FTP tests are over inflated for some people. The problem is that other people under achieve on it. Just shows the ramp test is not the perfect tool, just an approximation
Yeah, it wasn’t an easy decision. But the question here is not, “Will this TR plan make me faster?” (It will.) As Dylan notes, the question is, “Will this TR plan produce better results than a polarized plan”?
I’ve looked ahead at the calendar, and the remaining blocks are actually not far from polarized. The inclusion of tempo rides makes them pyramidal, I believe. So I won’t actually need to move too far away from TR’s recommendations to shift to a polarized training model.
And yes, part of this is decision is based on my belief that variance is a key component of a good training plan, both within blocks but also across long time spans.
370 watt ftp at 190lbs and wears full body armor any time there’s a rock in the trail vs. 370 watt ftp at 150lbs and is pretty good at mtn biking. Hmmm
It should be easy to cobble together a POL plan using a template suggested from this site. An Effective 9 Week Training Plan Plug and play your HIIT workout progressions to improve. It’s a 10 hour per week “plan”, which really isn’t that time intensive, but I’m sure it can be manipulated to fit time crunched needs.
I’ve seen Franks training plans and never have I seen 4-5 days of sweet spot prescribed.