Only doing 3 rides a week and then an occasional long ride? I rarely hurt. Instead the impact is usually feeling tired and need more sleep/rest. Eating more carbs on the bike helps with post-ride recovery.
This:
Is great advice. Building up to it - that is an interesting discussion. FasCat Coach Frank Overton has a podcast or two discussing how he coaches athletes to do it, in the context of a 3 day mid week block and 2 day weekend block. Probably a few others out there but I can’t recall any. I originally learned the approach from our senior club members, and they advocated 2-4 hour weekend rides and one long/hard century ride a month. It works.
My fitness bumped up dramatically when I started doing consistent 2x5hr weekend rides. That said, previously I was an only-ever-3-hours rider.
Perhaps those long rides (aka volume) can help unlock a deeper level of fitness but once it’s accessed, 4hr rides are only what’s required to maintain it.
This is one of the (few) areas I just so aggressively disagree with TR on. If you’re prepping for long rides (let’s say, 5+ hours) then things like muscle fatigue in the back and neck become big factors. I’ve seen a lot of otherwise very fit (FTP wise) riders fall apart on their first century because they’ve never sat on a bike that long before.
Edit: To expand, I just cringe every time I hear the podcast quip of, “You don’t need to ride long in training.” Well, first, TR plans have given me 4+ hr indoor rides, so. And secondly, maybe you don’t need to ride long from a “building FTP standpoint,” even for sake of discussion, but I wholly believe there are massive gains in the form of learning and improving your physical comfort, learning how to eat for endurance, and mental prep. So, cycling isn’t a vacuum, and I think long rides are really valuable.
From my own experience…the longer rides definitely help improve muscular endurance along with the items like comfort sitting on the bike that long, neck etc as you said. If you look at their low volume plans that is really what is missing, a long ride.
From my n=1 study of when i was training for kanza. I was doing mostly long endurance rides, got to the point where i was doing a solo century (or more) a week. So a bunch of 5-7 hr rides (longest was 140 miles). Anyway, that was the strongest ive been in recent history. Even though i didnt train upperend, it definitely developed. I rode Singlespeed for a while after kanza and i was PRing a lot of hills.
Id say if you build into it, 5-6 hr rides are definitely beneficial.
I agree. But then some of that stuff gets repeated as fact. It gets lumped in with all the studies out there just because TR said it. It would be nice if they would show a meta analysis that shows long rides aren’t necessary. But as you said, that would be counter productive to their goal . And that’s why you have to question everything said unless it’s backed up with proof.
I mean, I did a sub 5hr century (averaging tempo) and I mainly only ride 2hrs max and indoors on TR plans, and so have others, so I believe it to be true you can get a lot out of shorter sessions. Would I like to do more long rides? Sure, but it’s not something I can do with any great consistency without running into family problems by disappearing for hours on end during the weekend. And the above posts are a bit disingenuous, as TR as always suggested substituting plan workouts for long rides, so it’s not like they ever said stick to our plan because shorter is better. It’s just that you can accomplish a good percentage of fitness with their plan designs but you always have the option to sub in longer stuff.
I don’t think anyone is saying it can’t be done….just that it may not be the most effective way to train for longer rides.
Absolutely….and that is where choices / compromises need to be made on an individual basis. Nothing wrong with that….but that doesn’t affect the objective side of the discussion re: the benefits of longer rides / additional volume.
Agreed….my understanding was that they originally had longer rides on the weekends, but due to low compliance, they switched to shorter, higher intensity stuff.
Now, we can have a discussion on whether adapting training plans to gain compliance is the right thing to do objectively, but I get why they did it.
I know this goes well off on a tangent, but I dislike the implication I’ve seen here and elsewhere that better compliance is done by TR & AT in some effort to simply “check a box” or give riders “warm fuzzies” by finishing workouts successfully.
My take is that TR is aiming to optimize the workout selection for each rider to give them “just the right amount” of whatever workout and training load is on tap according to the training plan. It’s done to try an minimize the instances of having a workout that is too challenging (leading to bails in many case) or too easy (not giving enough training stress to drive adaptations.
I have no idea which of these two options is better:
A workout that is too hard, which leads to missed power and/or heart rate targets, excessive breaks or recovery, or bailing prior to full completion.
A workout that is too easy, which leads to insufficient strain on the body to trigger desired adaptations.
My point being that neither is ideal, and I think TR reviewed it’s data, made training plan chances, and AT apply adjustments to better find that middle ground between those 2 instances above.
From a purely mental standpoint, I know I would prefer #2 from above, since I would at least be completing the workouts and maybe still getting good training.
#1 may be better from a physiological standpoint, but if I was consistently struggling in workouts, I would question lots of stuff (my FTP, the training plan, etc… all of which we have seen for years around here).
I know some people think that last point is more the driving factor pushing the changes we have seen in TR over the last 6+ months, and they might be right. But that is something of a cynical “big business bad guy” view that I just don’t see applying to TR from my experience with them.
I think they want the best for their customers, and this whole new package is meant to get even better, more customized training for each of us. I admit that could well be rose color glasses, but seems more likely to me at least.
I think all that is 100% fair…and if you go back to the idea that the most important component of a training program is consistency, then adjusting the plans to gain “compliance” makes total sense…which is really the point I ws trying to make when I said “I get why they did it”. I probably should have expanded on that.
And the reality is that many riders don’t have the time for 4+ hour rides on the weekend, or have no interest in doing those types of rides on the trainer. So giving them shorter, more intense workouts again is a reasonable solution.
That said, I do think there is the impression that “you don’t need long rides to ride long” is becoming a more common doctrine (and not just on TR…it has been thrown out for years on ST and other forums). And while it is certainly true, I think many riders miss out on the training gains that can be made by doing longer rides consistently.
I was speaking in a much broader sense (not strictly the long vs short weekend ride mainly covered here), hence the reason I mentioned the “tangent”. My point was more about the entire direction TR is headed, that has been criticized (in other threads) with respect to the plan changes (making them “easier”), and the initial experiences with AT (really low starts, potentially slow progression) that have taken place elsewhere. Admittedly, it was probably not appropriate within this discussion, so it’s my mistake for heading in that direction.
With respect to the long vs short weekend swap in this thread, I do agree that “compliance” was the explicit goal. A less than ideal workout completed is better than no workout done at all (which sounds like that was more often the case back then). At least that is the angle I see from what TR did and how they explained their choice to establish the SS workout as the default, while still offering the longer Endurance option within the weekly notes.
I don’t think TR is against the long rides as a concept. They acknowledged the potential benefits from a number of angles over the years including fitness gains, checking fueling, checking fit and other aspects that we don’t get from short riders, even more intense ones. But they see it as more important to do something even if it is not the “best” or “ideal” in the purest sense of training impact. As such, and based on their review of riders histories, they see the shorter SS as a good option for many riders and they set it as the default with that in mind.
But they still recognize that the long Endurance ride is worthwhile for riders that can get them in. The continued offering of the long option is one aspect, and the ability to use the outside workout option given years ago, along with the incorporation of those into AT show me that TR is well open to the long ride. All those point to the recognition that I think TR sees long rides have their place. It’s just not their default option based on their past experience, and what may be “right” for a majority of their customers.
Tangent- Direction Headed -Not sure I really follow the direction TR is intending. Easier definitely has some benefits but I do wonder about too easy I find the use of progression levels a step forward but I find the implementation is missing something. Context would help of why they are doing things or how we should adjust our plans.
To start a plan with no history we end up all at a PL of 1.0.
To start a plan with some history you will have those impact your starting point.
What surprises me is the element of decay in plans. I do think a lot of us that ride consistently do have a certain level of fitness that doesnt stay reflected in the PLs.
Who cant do Petit at 3.2PL? Someone brand new that hasnt been on a trainer is likely the only situation.
My endurance workout 4 weeks ago was 4.8. I did a Sweet spot workout yesterday that is definitely harder then that endurance workout but since I havent done an endurance workout since then my PL dropped to 3.5
I last did a VO2 block in May into June. My level at the start of the week was 1.2. I chose to do a VO2 workout that I consider easy which was 4.5 PL.
I just find this all impacts where you start and if you ride consistently it will take some time to get up to where to start. This just leads to the question do I do a ride that I know will push me and get my levels up as high as possible to start my progression or do I let it build? What should we be striving for? I dont know what TR thinks other then start too easy.
Ive been guilty of doing long rides in the past when I was younger and I still am to a degree, they help me psychologically and sustainability wise and seem to have kept me injury free since I did my ITB in 2007 or 08. My most effective season (it was just a pity there wasn’t much races) was last year when I did more short sharp efforts. That seemed to have carried into the start of this year but I returned to my old ways to a degree and I’m about 30s slower on the club TT but I’m having fun doing it
germane to “do long rides” thing. a guy I follow locally who finished 2nd at mt washington made a long post about his training process. Last year he said he did massive easy volume (he’d ride 200 miles on many weekends) and lost weight (12lbs) and did worse than he had the prior year by a minute. He’s done a lot of time trialing, so more intensity (and added weight) this past year and he had his best time ever. So just adding lots of endurance, especially at the expense of other types of workouts, may not be the best solution
Agreed. I did more sweet spot work in Spring 2020 (that 16% above) versus 2021 and it resulted in better long power (20-90 minutes) when comparing Spring 2020 to 2021. In between (late 2020) my coach had me do some interesting things that really pushed out 2-4 hour power. But that middle ground, the 20-90 minute power, I really need ‘enough’ upper tempo / sweet spot to improve muscular strength.
I think your example highlights one of the key long term BENEFITS of adding volume though (weight loss thing excepted…). In the year after doing huge volume he added intensity and did his best year ever. Easy to hypothesise that the year of volume was exactly what might have created the perfect foundation to lay the intensity on?
Of course its also the problem with looking at any examples and stories like this, as every season is impacted by the previous season and we only ever hear 1 persons edited sumamry of what they actually did.
This was the case recently in Fast Talk podcast - Connor’s coach worked with him in 2 years cycle - first year was tone of volume and absolutely no gains and even decrease of performance but second year intensity was introduced and he was doing his best power numbers. So basically as all coaches suggest - do good foundation and build on that.
i don’t know if it was actually any added volume, he’s a big volume rider, I think it’s just the volume was not intensity, so he was flat (according to his posting)
2 year cycles has been my approach: 2 years spin classes; 2 years CTS “Time Crunched” approach; 2 years TR; 8 months FasCat off-the-shelf plan and then signed up for 2 years coaching (just renewed!).
My rough summary, apologies if its not completely consistent with previous comments just glancing at my dashboards in WKO…
2014-2015: peaked 250W based on 4 hours/week comprised of twice a week HIIT spin classes and a couple hours mostly easy riding outside on (broken front shock) StumpJumper
2016-2017: peaked 280W both years, roughly averaging 8 hours/week and 7.75 hours/week with a lot of long rides
2018-2019: peaked 250W using TR indoor training approach, around 5.5 hours/week, always saw better results when blocks had outside rides
2020: peaked 260W FasCat off-the-shelf plan, around 7.5 hours/week and hired coach in August
2021-2022: peaked 264W FasCat coach in 2021, around 7.75 hours/week during (extended) base, just finished one year coaching and this was year1 of building a stronger base. 2022 is TBD
. And that’s why you have to question everything said unless it’s backed up with proof.
but I’m having fun doing it 
