I have experienced the same thing. I went through a block (late fall) of quite a bit of tempo (83-88% FTP…so not really sweet spot). My FTP basically stayed the same, which is pretty much what I expected (my goal was: “build aerobic, don’t let FTP fall…target FTP later”). It worked. (it was also a really easy/fun way to train)
What I still struggle with is how do I track/measure that. For me, I was building CTL but of course you can have a higher CTL and not have the “correct” fitness (based on goals). CTL is a way to track and plan, but it is not a way to measure improvement.
So how do you do it? I looked into Stamina metric (WKO4), but that wasn’t quite it. Xert LTP seemed promising but the software confuses me (topic for a different thread, happy to learn what I’m doing “wrong”). And INSCYD gave me a baseline/starting point but I no longer have access to it. Example, another TR user and I have very similar FTP. Yet, our INSCYD FatMax numbers are 15-20W apart. It’s almost like “iLevels for sub-threshold part of the power curve”.
Steve Neal talks about athletes who don’t improve FTP but see performance improvements because he trains sub-threshold power improvement. I’ve seen the same phenomenon in myself with lots of tempo and a regular long ride, but my experience is subjective and anecdotal. I’d love to get at a better way to measure it as I’m doing it.
That was a good podcast - thanks for the link gang.
Think Steve’s use case of “Busy Dude” who wants to get better and crack a plateau represents a good number of the collective forum “us”. This group is a key business opportunity for TR.
Suspect the folks following the current plans verbatim are those new to structured training people. TR will work very well for them.
But S. Neal is right - eventually these folks plateau and want more. These folks may stick to TR if they like the interface (I do) and are modifying their own training. The question is how to modify training and that is the genesis of many of these discussions. I think TR needs to get ahead of this and provide more input.
Perhaps think of it this way:
I’m new to structured training and do SSB 1, 2 then a build then a specialty. I crush all my prior PRs and love TR!!! I do it again for another cycle and still see improvement but less FTP gains. Because that is how it works. I do a third cycle and gain very little FTP. So I go for more and move from mid-vol to high-vol. Now I go backwards because more is not better and I’m over-trained. Now 3-4 years on instead of loving TR it stinks! - I need something new!!
The normal answer is to get a coach. Because what else can you do? But I have to wonder since so many athletes have exactly the same journey, and since those first 3 years work so well (intro to structure and progression), that there must be a way to guide years 4, 5 and 6 with new plans. ML, AI, insight from coaches who have seen a lot of athletes?
Also, the master’s athlete thing is key. Current TR plans are simply too much volume and not enough rest for most people in the 55+ crowd. I’ve seen that for myself (50+) and a friend who is 60+ Its great that Chad has clearly stated its OK to do 2:1 or other mods. But being prescriptive is better.
TL;DR
Love this discussion
TR should be finding great opportunity in this to add to the offering. Particularly for folks who already made the commitment and have gathered the easy gains from structured training.
I’m a numbers geek, but don’t want to pay for lactate testing or calorimeter (fat/carb mix) testing. For me it comes down to a) feel (can do 2-hour sweet spot without mid workout fueling), and b) power at which I can ride 90+ minutes with aerobic decoupling in 3-4% range.
I agree about the adding volume (carefully and at right intensity). Also that coaches can add insight.
What I’m hoping TR can do is apply data analysis to enable more personalized plans and that could allow folks using TR to progress from that first three years (*) through say the next 3-4. I think it’s doable or at least worth a shot. There are only so many progression types and if they are able to analyze a riders progression, compliance with the plans, maybe add some other data for high motivation types it could be interesting. We’ll see, Nate has alluded to this type of thing before so I’m just adding encouragement!
What field is your doctorate in? Mine is in molecular biology / genetics. Should be a different thread but always interesting to see the types of people that get hooked on this sort of training thing. Its fun, we learn, we experiment on ourselves and sometimes others
On topic, I;m glad the podcasts with Seiler came out. It has sparked a whole series of other podcasts and some very interesting training discussions with others. If nothing else it should encourage people who are serious to think hard and seriously consider alternative approaches to find what works for them. Again, lots of fun.
–Mark
(*) Three years just for discussion. Its not a valid number just for the conversation.
I moved into management years ago. Which means I no longer have useful knowledge but also prevent those who do from using it effectively to solve problems. Making new therapeutics and helping patients is fun but I really want to find the solution to go from 4w/kg to 5 w/kg
Type 1 is important and tractable. Keep on working there and I bet it breaks open in the not distant future.
I’ve read a couple of Dr. Seiler’s papers available on Google Scholar. In the first Velo News podcast it is mentioned that you can read his works and comment on Researchgate. It appears that you have to be a researcher in some capacity to sign on to Researchgate.
Also reading through the threads on Polarized training, comments go back and forth with people gaining from this type of training, and others that benefit from Sweet spot intervals and the workouts in TR SSB 1, and 2. I am coming to the conclusion that to benefit from the SSB plans in Trainer Road, you have to have some miles in your legs over a couple of years. Nate describes going from 270 something to 340 something FTP on the trainer road plans.
Personally, I made the most gains in Traditional Base 1 and 2 and No gains in SSB1 or SSB2, with difficulty completing the workouts over FTP.
Given that I see significant divergence between Power and Heartrate for endurance level workouts like Baxter, I am concluding that I am aerobically unfit, in spite of completing Traditional Base 1 an 2 and SSB 1 and 2.
Going forward I’m planning 3 months of Polarized training with one VO2 max workout/week and one group ride, Adding 3 Zone 1 2 hr rides. We’ll see how it goes.
If your group rides are like most group rides, you might be getting more than enough VO2max work on that day. If that is the case you might consider substituting a SS WO for your VO2max WO so that you don’t overdo the VO2max work.
There are two physiological markers that TR currently does not spend much time discussing, or factoring into their plans/athlete profiles (at least not explicitly):
LT1 - the first lactate turnpoint which is an indication of aerobic fitness/how much your body can rely on fat for fuel.
VLaMax - the max rate at which you can generate lactate - which informs how well you can do in anaerobic sprint efforts, and also informs (along with VO2max) FTP.
Similar to you, I show cardiac drift on endurance workouts, and i think it’s because my LT1 is low. Polarized training / endurance training can help with this.
I think SS is also necessary however if you are trying to reduce VLaMax. So a pyramidal model may be more appropriate - depending on athlete profile and goals.
TThe Steve Neal podcast was a good one. Also listen to Mikael Eriksson’s podcast with Sebastian Weber.
Good point, Since this is a work in progress, I’ll see what the distribution is after the first couple of weeks. I’m using the VO2 progression that was put forth by Coach Chad, so at first the workouts have very short intervals above FTP
I don’t intend to move into any sweetspot work until the cardiac drift, which I’m using as a sign of lack of pure aerobic fitness is much better. If things work out, after 3 months of this, I should be able to transition to a modified SSB plan keeping some longer pure aerobic sessions.
Friends, I have enjoyed all of the aforementioned podcast and information in this thread although I wanted to get some clarification.
I have a anaerobic engine that has given me some success although as I’m catting up and racing with faster individuals, Its becoming obvious that I need to be more well rounded and I want to build a Diesel engine for those breakaways and TT’s. I have never trained aerobically.
If my max HR is 200, it appears my aerobic HR is around 130-140? So I will focus on an 8 week block of (3) 90 min + aerobic rides @ about 140 BPM, Two days of sustained sweet spot intervals, and one day of a 3-4 hour group ride.
I completed one of my first endurance style rides of 120 minutes yesterday. At 140BPM, I was at 200watts. I assume this is my benchmark.
If I continue this plan, should I expect my aerobic watts to rise? If so, what is a realistic rise for someone like myself that normally only rides anaerobically.
Please help me build a Diesel engine! Any advice or input is greatly appreciated.
My stats:
37 years old
160lbs
Ex-BMX background
300 FTP
1300ish max effort
600w 1 min max
If you continue to do the group rides instead of longer sustained aerobic rides, no, you shouldn’t expect it to rise. The group rides will likely neutralize or override the effect of those 90 minute rides.
I have a somewhat similar profile right now to you, except tilted even a bit more anaerobically (my one minute power is about 240% of my FTP) and the thing that gave me the most benefit in the past for aerobic power was to do long 4-6 hour steady paced aerobic rides.
(Disclaimer that this is more for fast responders to anaerobic work)
It’s more the duration of the group ride compared to aerobic stimulus you are trying to get. Group rides tend to be best at building anaerobic repeatability but the benefits of that taper off pretty quickly especially if you are a more anaerobic athlete to begin with. You end up in a scenario where your glycogen battery can cover most of the needs and you don’t end up getting a lot of physiological stimulus.
Group rides are still good for many things, including fun, tactics, ride skills, race craft, etc. so I wouldn’t drop them completely.
IMO, one short group ride during the week and a long steady ride on the weekend would be a better option for you, along with the two sweetspot workouts.
As a reference, I have roughly the same FTP, but nowhere near the AC and my aerobic rides are in the 200-215 range when trying to keep under 130 bpm (usually averages 115-120, my max is 180). I’m finding with outdoor rides, it really depends on the terrain how well my HR matches up with my power avg. If I need to coast much at all I’ll have a higher avg HR to power than a flatter ride.
I find outside riding has so many variables (weather, terrain, stopping, etc) that it’s hard to really hard to make comparisons or verify improvements. I made the below ride that I will incorporate 3 times a week to determine if I’m going in the right direction. I assume I will raise or lower while riding to stay at 140bpm.
