I think it’s a worthy debate for a forum of a product designed to make people faster. I’m sure there are trade offs to each training methodology but I’d like to hear from the coaches an objective analysis of BOTH sides and let people decide what’s best for them.
For as long as I’ve been here the SSB plans have been basically what defines TR with the TB plans taking a back seat as the red headed stepchild. Is that because the staff really believes that SS is better for the individual or because SS is better for the herd and therefore for keeping more subscribers? Maybe somewhere in the middle?
I have to disagree with that. At least partly. You can have an open discussion about whatever kind of training methodology. And TR does let us use workouts and the whole software to train polarized if we so chose. They just didn’t feature a plan (until now obviously).
But I think this is absolutely fair. If you go to a coach who is known to have you train at Z2 for the first 2 years you can’t say “hey… I want to do vo2max 3 times a week”. He’ll just say “well allright, go on, do what you have to do, but get an other coach”. I’m perfectly fine with Chad/Nate pushing SS, I don’t have to follow their advice, if I don’t chose to do so.
And this gets me to your earlier point which is absolutely valid: I don’t get the fuzz about this episode. Why just not say: “Listen folks, methhod X might have it’s merits, but we think method Y is better for x,y,z reasons. If you don’t like our plans which reflect our believes, feel free to use our software with a self-made plan or go somewhere else.”
To make it easy for new riders. When they join they only have to look at how many hours they can ride and then they just choose the correct volume of a single plan that works for them. If a new rider with no background in training joined and were asked “Would you like to train Traditionally, Sweet Spot, Pyramidal, or Polarized?” most would have no idea. They would just get overwhelmed and go back to unstructured riding.
To keep it interesting. Despite what most riders would tell you I don’t think most want to get as fast as possible. They want to get as fast as possible while staying happy and motivated. And a big part of that is feeling like you got a good workout in everytime they get on the bike. So if 3 days per week they were told they had to get on for 1.5 hours and ride in Z2 they would say “this is bullshit. I’m never going to get faster when I can ride so much harder”. Then they would just default to riding too hard.
And I think these are particularly true for TR since they are essentially a glorified template plan. So you don’t have a coach that is able to talk you down and say “Yes I know it’s easy but this is just building toward something more. We can adjust in the future if it isn’t working”.
Then there’s the whole ‘Training’ vs ‘Working Out’ part of the equation which I think is closely related to or the same as #2.
And I think this is a huge weak point in how the plans are presented because it makes people think “I have 6 hours a week to train I’ll do MV” without thinking about the fatigue buildup week after week, and then we see so many threads about failing
I set my friend up with LV and added 2 hours of endurance a week on top, he was really wanting to do MV but I talked him out of it. He’s in the later half of SSB2 now and is completing everything but def working and talks about fatigue at times. Imagine if he just went on his own and picked MV, he’d be blown up weeks ago
I got the impression that people simply weren’t complying with the TB plans but they were complying with the SS ones. Not because of intensity but rather because of time availability. I think that means there is opportunity to adjust those plans to make them more time efficient for the people interested in them. That’s all speculation on my part though.
And with Nate saying they’ll be releasing POL plans, I’m wondering if that may also be part of the delay of this episode. They may want to get the POL plan offering out there (in early access) while doing this pod so they can begin gathering data and feedback.
And to your point about LV and MV, I feel the same. I’ve had to talk so many people out of jumping immediately into MV! Hoping the LV+ and MV+ that Nate has also mentioned will be a big solve on that quandary. Having steps between those plans is something I think a lot of us have though would be a good idea.
I currently do prescribed TR WO’s during the week, do the TR WO on Saturday and add in 1-2 hrs of Zn 2 to make it 4 hrs, then my Sunday is currently a 4 hr z2. I will go to 5 hrs as the weather and my fitness improves. I do gravel races (4hr is the shortest) and 100 mile competitive gran fondos that take around 5 hrs to complete.
I think that, but also because the TB plan doesn’t really jive with most untrained athletes idea of gaining fitness. “You mean I’m supposed to get faster by training slower?”. When I was newer to cycling I rode like a bit of a savant, I’d sprint to the top of every hill and then be dying on the way down the other side. Few years later I’ve learned smooth and steady, but I could see how 4 year ago me would also question a train slower to get faster approach.
At the end of the day, it’s a business that relies on subscribers to stay afloat so it would shock or offend me if the plans were offered with subscriber count and retention in mind as well as fitness.
I’m in 100% agreement here. That’s exactly what I did for basically all of last year, and it was a really perfect progression for me. Now this year I’ve been able to comply pretty strictly with the MV plan, which I couldn’t do last year.
Nate has said in the past if research shows their is a better way to do things they will change them. Clearly the plans work for alot of people, I think the problem with DJs video is he straight calls them bad plans… They aren’t, in general, bad plans, at least if you pick the appropriate volume. Now are they fully optimized… probably not for everyone, hence why they are doing the AT stuff.
