I think you’re wrong about that. I think more people can make steady progress with mostly low intensity at 7 hours provided the intensity they do is properly timed and targeted. I would put my money on the all interval-seven hour people hitting a plateau much, much sooner than the other.
Remember that going from 240 to 280W FTP in six months and never getting above 280 is a plateau. Going from 240 to 280 in 12 months and then 300, then 310, etc. over the course of three years is better. The latter is far more likely to happen with a higher volume, lower intensity pyramidal or polarized type of approach than hitting threshold or close to it every workout.
Interesting podcast here talks about limited hours training (They talk about 8 hrs) The bit about limited time is at 44:30. And yes you can get fitter on that amount of time.
Right around 59:00 mins in: basically the FaCT balance point test that I have used since ~ March 2019 to base my tempo on.
There have been several moments (podcasts, private messages, etc) in the last six months where I have gotten further validation on this thing I wondered about for so long.
Replaced FTP testing for me during that time and my fitness skyrocketed., as I have (likely too much) posted elsewhere.
Would love to be able to get that value with power alone (modeled etc) but I have only been able to indirectly guesstimate.
For the outside observer it looks like “extend TTE” type training (increase TiZ etc) but not based on 35-60 min time trial.
Re AT. I am yet to see any evidence this is true.
With AT you are still given 3 - 5 sessions of intensity a week (depending on the plan you are on.)
AT just ‘detunes’ the intensity a bit but doesn’t really address the route cause of the issue the plan / template has too much intensity. If it was clever enough or programmed to sub in more endurance work in place of an interval or intense session then okay, but it doesn’t current do this.
You just get watered down VO2max, Threshold and Sweet-Spot sessions all of which are in silos, I don’t see how this makes the plans better and it ceratinly isnt ‘the right training session everytime’
Isn’t the key really to have a program that is progressive? If you noodle around for 7 hours for months on ends your not getting anywhere. Either you need to increase volume or intensity or a function of both. And that within the perspective of your macro-periodization
Interesting point, it gets me thinking! I wonder, Is it not the question of what your life can handle? I kept progressing for years on TR reaching 4.4W/kg. I swapped in a long ride here and there and did a lot of LV plans. Nowadays I have a lot less time and much more life stress. I noodle around 4W/kg but I still feel like the plans make me fitter from where I start.
Very true. But the “need to add intensity” has been perverted into “need to add HIIT”
It’s an increase in aerobic intensity that is needed with less training time. That is the disconnect. You cannot get around the fact that it needs to be overwhelmingly aerobic and lower glycolytic type riding. No way around it.
Not just your life, but your body too… some can handle more, but eventually they plateau too. You can continue to progress to a higher level with volume + less intensity. TR will get you fit, but I do not think anyone will ever come close to maximizing their potential following TrainerRoad plans. That’s my opinion. Remember, their motto is “Get faster.” That implies improvement, and they do very well at taking people from no structure to structure and thus seeing performance gains… that doesn’t make it optimal.
But as I’ve always said, for your average cyclist, TR is a great value platform.
Dunno, I never noodled around for 7 hours/week for months on end Sorry I couldn’t help myself LOL. FWIW what I also said was the last two years the endurance part varied between 80 and 60% (partly to allow for progression).
My main points were:
raising volume from spin era to road bike era resulted in more fitness
cutting volume from “training” outside to indoor structured training resulted in less fitness
raising volume again, with less intensity vs first time, took fitness to nearly the same level as first time I raised volume
First principles, and this is old sports science, is that volume works. I’ve absolutely seen that.
We are all individuals, what works for me may not work for you. TR MV base gave me too much intensity, and I crashed and burned in build. But coming from an off-season, TR base nicely bumped up my fitness, but never back to those first two years at higher volume. So I experimented and found something that worked for me. And then hired a coach to help me fine tune it.
On the flip side, there are athletes that find TR MV base and build and speciality to be excellent training to peak for an event!
That’s why one of my first replies was “There is no easy answer to that question. You have to figure that out.”
I’m not sure it is very true. I think noodling about on a bike for 7 hours a week for most people of going to get a really good level of fitness. Obviously it will plateau but I think one would progress ages on 7 structureless hours. There generally always be a bit of intensity in noodling around anyway. That’s my experience and that of some fast friends. Hardly scientific I admit.
Clearly if we are taking about maximising potential it is different. On the other hand for the average working person out to have fun and be fit 7 structureless hours is probably more sustainable and fun anyway. I think there is a tendency to over complicate everything in cycling. YMMV
Are we really debating that lots of short duration high intensity beats an ideal pyramidal distribution based on high quality aerobic work?
This is not a debate, not even close.
For long term improvement a large aerobic base is optimal. This has been demonstrated across almost every endurance sport on Earth. There are humans known as ‘Professional Cyclists’. One could look at what virtually all of them do and get an idea on what is optimal.
Anything else is just a hack for those with limited time.
The choice is do I want to be good in three months, or do I want to be better, long term. Both approaches are fine. It’s a choice. However, believing you’ll be the best version of yourself doing endless short duration high intensity intervals is simply totally false.
I would agree that for most people, more time spent in aerobic zones will produce better long term results.
That said, I don’t think we know what optimal programming is for any level of athlete. A number of our threads revolve around and around the best use of available time and the tradeoffs one must make.
I don’t think we can find, anywhere, a way to say: “Here is your potential and here is how to reach it”. Even a pro who wins a ton and has amazing numbers (WVA, Pog, et al), we really only know they have great results. We don’t know what % of their potential they have reached nor if their programming is anywhere near optimal in reaching that potential.
Hope that doesn’t come across as an argument or being too picky. I’m genuinely fascinated with some of these questions as relates to myself and to training and programming in general. As a hobby of course !!
Well, the question starting this thread was “Is TR giving me too much intensity?” and I think the answer is “Yes.”
I think @joelc recognized this, and his question mentioned “perhaps over time I may accumulate too much?” And based on the week he showed us (Cloud’s Rest, Pierce -1, Lion Rock, then 2 hours of relatively easier sweet spot), the long term answer to that question is “Yes” IMO. Can he survive two training blocks like that? Probably.
In clinical development there is a concept of N=1 clinical trials. It’s clever if the phenotype under study is amenable to the design. Need to be very conscious that prior training (or treatment) could affect future results. So very hard to study and arguably not important in scope of human health and welfare anyway. But “we” kinda want to know right?
I’m fascinated with the questions around potential and how we could tell if an athlete is getting say 80%, 90% or 99%. I’d be fine learning my potential was an FTP of say 250w and I achieved 240-245. But would be very bummed if I had potential for say 280 and only achieved 240. More importantly, I could turn that “bummed” into “motivated”!!!
But… for all of us who have been stuck at some plateau for some period, is that all we’re gonna get or is there more?
Toward the OP here… how many roads lead to Rome? If I can achieve a high percentage of potential with multiple routes then I can pick the best route for me. Some might want the express lane, others might prefer the country road and a bit longer journey. Personally, at this point in my life I’d choose longer time, less intense, more enjoyable. But 15 years ago I might have chosen most intense, least time.
Problem is we have a multi factor equation with too many missing variables. Some of you math guys should get this sorted!!!
I think a subset of us in the forum would agree that almost all the TR plans have too much intensity. They are more like 60-90 min spin classes 3-6 times a week. But that likely reflects what people want, and will do, more than what is optimal.
Maybe “optimal” is unfair. I think most want to know what good, better, best looks like and are willing to accept trade offs and some level of “we don’t know so you have to try”. What stinks is just feeling beaten down all the time and not seeing improvement. Suspect we’ve all been there at least once?
On Edit: I also think we have some decent ideas on good, better, best so all is not lost and these discussions are always fun.
I also think there are a big group of people who would tell you that they ride outside with no structure but in reality they actually do a fair amount of structure. I mean how many people have you hear say "in the winter I just ride long and slow, nothing too intense (base season). Then in March I start to do some group rides (SS/threshold). Then in the summer I start to do the fast group ride and some hard hilly KOMs (VO2 and Anaerobic).
They might not have the progression or intention of a program but they’re getting in all the zones and can probably build to a pretty high level of fitness like that.
Sorry I couldn’t help myself LOL. FWIW what I also said was the last two years the endurance part varied between 80 and 60% (partly to allow for progression).
