All fixed now… #bestsupportontheplanet
Sweet!!! That scared me and I hated thinking I blew up your plan
this is a great update, with Workout Levels it’s easier to adapt the plan my self
the only thing that I don’t get… why Baxter has a lower level Tempo rating and something like Brasstown (very similar IF/TSS and duration) is rated as Endurance with a higher Workout Level?
I think I speak for everyone when I say that the real question we want the answer to is: how did all these new workouts get named?
Baxter goes up to 80% whereas Brasstown goes up to 75
Covered in podcast 307. Little monster hiding behind a locked red door
A couple things to note on this:
- A Level 4 between two energy systems is not directly comparable. Workout levels are unique to each energy system.
- Baxter gets up to 80% FTP and thusly slots into tempo over endurance.
- Even though the workouts are classified very differently, our system understands their unique contributions to the energy systems addressed in these workouts and how similar they are.
I guess I only spoke for the people who hadn’t heard the podcast yet.
First thing I noticed apart from smoothed out progressions is that many of the new plans don’t even have VO2max workouts above level 7.0. That’s very very interesting. I mean, barring proposed adaptations, bye Spencer +2, Huxley etc.
So it seems to me like the new plans are slightly lower TSS than the previous versions? Is there a reasoning behind this? I love the idea of changing it up but I’m not sure I want to decrease my total TSS.
I totally get that; as you always said, it is not a system of switches… but it’s curious to see how these workouts are classified in different zones even when they are very similar in demands…
Wait a second…there is no plan that uses any version of Mary Austin? I mean…what do I have to whine and complain about now?
I bet those workouts were not handled well and AT saw that the train came off the track (so to speak) after encountering those workouts. I bet we are going to see a much lower / easier progression as it would be better to get through the plan than struggle through a workout and fail every one after.
Since the update the default sorting for workouts on the website (at https://www.trainerroad.com/app/cycling/workouts) is now by progression level rather than alphabatically. This wrecks my brain and I have to switch it every time. Is there a way to revert the default back to alphabitical? Or some way to create a shortcut to the alphabatical sort order so I don’t have to click it every single time?
To see where this is espcially painful try searching for a workout with a common word in the name
like “Red”. There are 108 workouts in the search results and the exact match workout actually named Red is near the end of the list when sorted by progression…
It looks like every workout has changed in Olympic Build HV, although the general structure looks similar bike wise.
I have a Plan Builder Plan, should I delete and recreate the plan, update an A event or use the Update button?
Our goal was to use the data we have gotten from AT to make iterative improvements to the plans that were driven by something more specific than a vague metric like volume or TSS.
Workout Levels are a more specific way to view how workouts progress your abilities through a specific energy system, and over time I think we’ll all become accustomed to viewing our training through this lens.
So vague metrics like TSS and volume won’t trend as neatly as you may be accustomed to, but your fitness will trend in an improved manner – that’s what really counts, eh?
Something to consider with this is the nuanced way in which we analyze workout success and failure rates.
We don’t simply look at which workouts have more failures. We are able to view the workouts in terms of how appropriate each workout is for each athlete and then look at the data with that context. This allows a fair analysis of the workout’s difficulty and stops us from misunderstanding a workout as too easy or too hard.
I just added the ability to select preferred sorting settings to our list of feature requests.
I totally get that. Workout levels definitely seem like a better way to progress. However, looking at the levels in the previous plans, the progression is still there just at a much higher baseline level. For example, in the previous version of Short Power MV mid-week Billats started at a 6.0 and progressed to a 7.8, where as in the new plan they go from a 4.3 to a 5.
Hopefully I’m not sounding argumentative or doubtful, just genuinely curious. After retesting my FTP after a few pivot weeks, Pierce seemed downright easy this morning (relatively speaking) so I’m worried that even lower levels might not provide the proper stimulus.