I agree with what you’re saying, but the question remains why set the plans up that way at all. Is it science or a customer engagement hook?
I think in part it’s about keeping people inside on their trainers and so subscribed. “Don’t just go out and ride, you need indoor structure on your turbo”. More recently they’ve pushed workouts to head units for out door rides, but the plans were I think developed primarily to build the TR business.
In your 20 years of training (congrats btw, impressive) have you ever been prescribed or self prescribed 5 days a week of intensity for 5 consecutive weeks? 25 work outs in 35 days intuitively just sounds wrong.
Doing sweet spot intervals five times a week for five consecutive weeks. Are there any studies that provide evidence for the success of this training principle.
Of course, you can adapt this plan. I just don’t understand the reason this is the default.
Please!! Everybody stick with TR. Keep doing your intervals. Believe in doing 4-5 intervals per week. Skip out on Zone 2rides. No Pain No Gain! Keep training throughout the yr!
(This way I can get those sweet category upgrade points on August when everybody is burned out)
How ridiculous is it that you are on a TR forum, supposedly full of people that utilize TR, taunting people for using TR’s training plans. Is there any point to that, or was it supposed to be funny?
You are looking at one plan which is SSBHV. A plan which contains five sweetspot workouts and one endurance workout per week. We could now argue whether sweetspot qualifies as intensity or not. I would say it doesn’t but eventually it doesn’t matter.
There are four other sweetspot base plans available which have way less sweetspot work. Also, there is a traditional base plan series available. So by no means is SSBHV reflecting their base plan offering. Neither does it reflect the default.
In terms of studies, yes, there is plenty science out there backing the sweetspot principle up. Several quoted in this post and the SS vs POL thread.
Sure, but by the same token I don’t think anyone should take offense to having the problematic history of the phrase pointed out. Not something I knew; now I do. I appreciate the info.
You picked up cycling not long ago. You have no idea what you are talking about but figured after four weeks of structured training you would wing it and do your thing on Zwift.
Hilariously you now talk down on people who have a splendid track record for making people faster. The threads on this forums about people’s gains are literally in the thousands.
When those folks back their claims up (eg by talking to actual pros and former pros) you again try to discount that. That’s as divine as it gets.
Nah… your parents have a HUGE saying on it…
So call them now and tell them how much you love them!
I was told once… The person who can run a sub 2hr marathon, without magic shoes, is probably seating on a sofa playing video games or weighting 400 pounds, without realizing the genetic gifts he/she have…
There are doctors out there who claim vaccines are a waste of time!
So, just because you have a medical education doesnt mean you know what you are talking about…
Not saying you don’t, just pointing that a medical degree doesn’t make you an expert the field…
Always willing to learn though
