Maybe just too much training volume too fast then! I wonder if the same would’ve happened at a low volume plan. With a reasonable sleep and nutrition schedule, 3 workouts per week with varying degrees of intensity should be doable?
I did not advocate for lowering FTP to go below the appropriate RPE zones. I mean to make sure they actually match up. Just from reading other forum posts, with so many people struggling to get through workouts like Lamarck, it leads me to believe that going in with a too high FTP is common. 40 minutes at a correct FTP separated into 10 min intervals should be doable
Did watch DJ video and it did resonate to an extent. One thing I started doing with TR plans long ago is adjust them to how I feel. I like long sessions that TR suggests in the high volume, but there are too many of those per week for my lifestyle, abilities and capacity. My training block essentially becomes not 8 weeks, but more like 10 with a lot more recovery volume inserted in between. The calendar allows to adjust your plan and it is brilliant. I think that blindly following any generic plan that does not take into account age, lifestyle, work, physiological aspects, etc, simply not made for you is far from effective, cannot deny it, regardless who creates it. Listening to body is important. I take TR plans as a guide, as a book to read, with the time I need and have to cover it. So, I kinda agree with both parties. Truth must be somewhere in the middle.
There is also the little fact of the First Amendment only protecting you from the Government restricting your speach. Private companies are pretty much free to restrict your speach all they want.
Go on, I’ll play along Note I’m one of those who picked up some grief for saying DJ had some good points and that if you wanted to be your absolute best, then quite a bit of long, slow distance was needed.
Age: not in itself a criterion, but being young necessarily limits your experience, which is a relevant factor in coaching. So a legitimate question (though not at all a reason simply to dismiss him)
Money grab: if someone is in roughly the same marketplace (and DJ does sell plans, though I’ll grant he isn’t an absolutely direct competitor), then when they publicly criticise a competitor, a healthy scepticism about their motives is fair enough. Again, not enough to dismiss, but a legit question.
Qualifications as a coach - see first point.
Bait vid: well, one of the ways DJ earns his living is YouTube clicks. Controversial videos will tend to attract more hits, and eventually thus more revenue. So he does have something to gain from a more ‘out there’ opinion.
So like I said, people questioning those things is, I think, fair game - would you agree?
To me the counterbalance for this one would be that younger doctors tend to have better patient outcomes, as they are less set in their ways, and more up to speed on current research. I would not be surprised to see something similar with respects to coaching as well.
To this (and several other points), “hard” is being bandied about on this thread. Given individual genetic differences, training histories, life obligations, and FTP over/underestimation, what’s “hard” for SS for some may be “easy” to other.
RPE-wise, what is “too much”? I completed a 2 hour (Antelope +5 iirc) SS at the end of my SSMV week with 3x CrossFit for the week and felt super tired after, but not spent. I guess what I’m getting at is that RPE matters, context matters, and this is why we listen to our bodies
Oh let’s not get carried away with accusations of agism here. I think a lot of people need to relax.
I was simply pointing out a correlation between age and professionalism - one that obviously applies in Dylans case.
I frankly do not have an opinion on the meat of his video. I dont think there is nearly enough solid fact to prove nor disprove what he was saying. Certainly not definitively anyway.
What I was getting at, is that directly attacking another individuals training plans is poor form, regardless of age. That said, would Dylan make the same inflammatory video attacking another person in his field in 20 years, when he is middle aged? Somehow I doubt it. This TENDS to be a young persons mistake.
It ruins his credibility. If he wants to be a coach - then work on being a coach. If he wants to be a social media star posting inflammatory youtube videos…by all means go that route. There seems to be a pretty decent buck in it. But IMO those two careers are mutually exclusive, at least if you want to be taken seriously as a coach who follows current science.
It only became inflammatory when people here got triggered. The intention of the video itself was not to start the nonsense that this thread evolved into but to deliver research. Inflammatory (and false) would have been if he said that sweet spot training does not provide any gains.
Well, it is inflammatory because he made a point of dragging other coaches into the mix and putting them down.
If he believes the science supports his method of training, he certainly could have made a video showing how his method is better and is more strongly supported by science than other coaching philosophies. Instead - he directly attacked other coaches, methods, and training plans.
So, I stand by my statement - needlessly inflammatory and poor form. One of the trappings of youth.
Edit: anyway…I get what I assume is your main point. Nothing in the video to generate 1600 posts of animosity by people with no skin in the game. Let the TR people be annoyed.
Some of the arguments on this thread are terrible, chief amongst them is that SS training is needed to achieve compliance…
there is literally an optional “traditional base” training plan that they don’t recommend using. If they can do that, why can’t they just generate a polarized plan? If you are telling me that the sweet spot plan is there because the most people will stick to it, the fact that there is a separate training plan already means your argument is invalid.
The podcast also frequently takes about changing training to enable further adaptations. Having a different type of training methodology would support this.
Anyway, looking forward to the refutation of polarized - I am hoping this specifically addresses how SS provides better performance improvements that polarized. If it tries to justify it by saying it’s for compliance I am done.
I just selected SSBHV as it fit with the volume I was used to all summer (10-12 hours a week, with some bigger weeks around 15-20 hours in the saddle). Had done SSBLV (2018-2019) and SSBMV (2019-2020) in the past, but figured that with getting in a pretty heavy year, HV would be more fitting to continue progression.
I had not used the forum, or really listened to the podcast unless they were shared on the velo reddit, and even then it was usually specific clips that were being discussed. Did not know that the common suggestion at this point was to do LV and add in your own endurance and recovery rides.
It definitely does! Anyone who has questions about our Community Guidelines, what constructive debate looks like, or what contributing effectively looks like should feel free to DM me if you need any clarification.
We’ll keep working hard to foster a climate on the forum where everyone feels safe and heard, and ultimately, that does not include athletes who engage on the forum with no purpose other than to create dissent within the community. Let me know via DM if you have any questions!
I would certainly assume science is driving their platform. I would say the “hook” is the cost. Much like some of the gyms in our region that charge small fee’s and people keep their memberships as a result of this even if not using the platform. Obviously quite a bit of science w/SST training for the bang for the buck in regards to time constraints.
I will comment that I am consistently riding my trainer year round. Part of this is due to the area that I live in w/congested roads and can take about 30 minutes to get out to decent roads to train on and w/a limited time schedule the trainer becomes the place for me to complete my high quality workouts typically 2 to 3 days indoors then 3 days outside when weather is good) So def a big fan of what you can do on a with a really good trainer.
To answer your question about SST workouts. No, no coach I have ever worked w/prescribed 5 days a week of intensity. That said I had one very well known coach that was big on volume during base and would build the weeks to where my final week would be 35 hours on the bike. Primarily endurance. Living in New England that was all done primarily on the trainer. So that is kind of like the other end of the spectrum from a SST base. Some really good coaches I’ve worked def had a more balanced approach, yes there would be blocks of SST incorporated, tempo as well, easier endurance days and also looking to squeeze a longer day in the mix.
I think people need to be reasonable and understand what these plans are, what you are getting and what you are not getting. This is a good place for folks to start that are new to training to get a sense of what a structured workout is like. This is a good place for folks that don’t want to hire a coach, nor want to think about or plan out training, This is also a good place for folks that just want to use a low volume plan to get a couple high quality workouts per week and then supplement the remainder of the week otherwise. As someone who is about to turn 50 I think there high volume plan is a recipe for disaster as just does not offer enough recovery.
I’ve personally moved away from these plans and have gone back to self coaching and building out my ATP and workout cycles, etc. I also use WKO5 as my software to analyze and plan and am utilizing training zones based on my own physiology vs. a % of FTP.
Note I’m one of those who picked up some grief for saying DJ had some good points and that if you wanted to be your absolute best, then quite a bit of long, slow distance was needed.
