My worry is I’m too cowardly to hold my true FTP for an extended period without a Ramp Test number to serve as an electric rabbit.
Way too constructive a contribution…
Maybe purely anecdotal but last year I did SSB 1&2 MV and this year I did TB1,2,3 MV. My FTP gain during both base phases as a percentage was exactly the same, but I left the TB plan feeling more fresh and didn’t have the same general fatigue during the rest of my day while IN the plan.
I just wish there was more of a focus on the TB plans cause they feel kind of forgotten in the plan library. I played with plan builder and I don’t think I found any combination which didn’t start with SSB, so like DJ said, why would someone consider a plan than comes off as inferior that way.
The only reason I did TB this year is because @bbarrera and some others talked about it a lot on other threads and I figured without my commute to work I had more time so why not, and now I have a totally different perspective on the easy rides. Next year will be TB again, and I’ll spend my rainy summer days doing Hawk Mountain or Boarstone rather than pulling stuff out of the SSB catalog
As the father of a 23 YO daughter, I can confirm all points made in this post.
Totally agree. Some of the criticism is very valid. Still, I dont think TR is “beyond repair” by any means. Tweaking of some the plans, a dedicated masters plan and perhaps more clear communication in some aspects would go a long way.
I have not read the whole thread but I just want to say I really think TR has a very good product especially when we factor in the cost, they allow all of us to follow a structured plan at a great price. Now I will say I think it would be good if they had polarized plans and maybe (sort of a wish list item) even training plans which are not quite what a coach would be able to offer in terms of personalizing a plan but something more than a the plans currently offered (at an addition cost of course). Besides if they had polarized options they would be able to compile a tremendous amount of data on which really works better for us non professional or non elites
This thread got waaaaaaay ahead of my ability to keep up with it, but as i see it, a lot of this is n=1 stuff where people found the plans too hard and can be solved by them learning how to adapt them. all well and good.
I’m looking at what plan builder suggests for me and while it might not be what i’d choose or another coach would choose, i can really only see two things that i think are objectively a suboptimal choice.
-
the sweetspot sunday in the build and specialty plans. I just don’t see the benefit (if sweetspot is still progressing you, keep doing base) and the downside is big. It’s different recovery and autonomic stress dynamic than an endurance ride and on top of three existing hard days, takes away from ability to complete them. anyone who can successfully do this, my guess is they’d benefit even more from making those three hard days even harder.
-
build plus specialty is 16 weeks and that seems like a long-ass time. Okay so maybe this isn’t “objective” per se, but i have a hard time believing that the majority of cyclists are not going to hit a point of diminishing returns on hard intervals after far less than 16 weeks. But i’m guessing this is at least an n = something more than 1.
Yeah but it is certainly a hard (and occasionally ugly) way to get to it, isn’t it? Seems like you could do the whole #CandorAllTheThings (or whatever it’s called) in a better way.
Absolutely. I think much of the criticism had already been raised f.ex. in the forum several times seemingly without any reaction. It certainly opened the door for other not-so-subtle-ways to raise the points.
I don’t get it.
-
When you only have 6 weeks to train (the typical time period in these studies), what gives you the best results, a purely sweet spot approach or POL? Well the answer is 1) it depends where you’re coming from and on your abilty to implement the plan 2) If 1) is of no concern, then NEITHER is, do a build plan instead! Questions like this are academic at best, nobody I know does ONLY POL or ONLY SS forever
-
Why does TR recommend their SSB plan in their plan description? 1) Probably because the only people reading these recommendations are new TR users.
And for them this recommendation is probably right, SS is easier to implement AND takes less time, leading to a better consistency (their FTP is probably underestimated anyway). 2) When coming from the couch or a detraining phase, SS quickly ramps up your plasma volume. Easy gains! A good and motivating way to get back into shape.
Happy Birthday, @Nate_Pearson Stay the way you are! Except when it comes to your MTB crashing skills. 
yeah i agree it does seem like some simple tweaks to the product could be huge. It’s just about prioritizing that dev work
quality post with a few good thoughts. Thanks!
Happy to review the pull request. 
Yep, exactly what I meant by “easier way”. In fact, that’s what I thought the primary reason for offering this forum for free was (back in 2018). People have raised the point “you’re getting this for free and you’re going to sh_t on TR”…yes, constructively, with civility. But YES. TR gets just as much out of this forum as its users get out of it. And at least we’re not on timetriallingforum-co-uk, wattage, slowtwitch, or worse, reddit, doing it. We’re here. Hold your friends close. Hold your enemies (or in this case, potentially unhappy customers), closer.
It’s a common approach to getting feedback from a wide user base. Those of us who have been on the forums for a bit are going: “oh now you’re going to do something?”
LOL, funny, right?
For the old timers, some may remember the original “POL IS HERE” threads and discussion we had in late 2018. That all lead to LOTS of discussion about training modalities and push for TR to address it in one way or another. Prodding got a precious few thread comments from Nate back then. We were promised a podcast to cover TR vs POL in depth, but it never happened.
Seems that we may now get what was requested and promised way back then?
Well it’s not how I’d have chosen to do it 
*
That said, I do think there has been a little bit of general venting in this thread which should hint at some underlying concerns that have gone unaddressed for a while. Look at the masters thread; that essentially ended with TR essentially saying ‘stop raising it’ (though in fairness, I think Ivy did say she was happy to look at people’s programming). There have also been plenty of threads detailing burnout, problems with FTP tests, etc.
Now again, tbf, there is/was an individual solution in each of these cases, and again, you’re not paying for a bespoke service. But if I were to come in and examine this in my work role, I might conclude there should have been some awareness in the management structure that a subset of customers were not wholly happy and I might question to what extent their concerns have been taken seriously.
*I’m reminded of the old joke about a tourist, in the pre sat-nav days, driving round, desperately lost, somewhere in rural south Wales. He spots a local man out walking, and stops to ask for directions to Cardiff. The local looks horrified, and says ‘well I wouldn’t start from here!’
You can also see where you have heart rate decoupling.
The TR forum was a tinderbox waiting for the correct match to ignite it. Apparently it took a outside gas can to the face to draw the appropriate attention.
That’s made me laugh out loud.
This whole thread - what a great ad for Dylan Johnson.
I am confused. The training period was 6 weeks, twice, due to the crossover and they where trying to answer a similar question like the one I stated: When you only have 6 weeks to train, what is better, Treshold or POL? Was it not? 6 weeks is a rather typical time for such an “intervention”