Ramp Over-Tester taking a new AT approach

Training
43

Happy to be corrected by TR or others if this is wrong, but from what I’ve seen I’m not sure that survey responses on successfully completed workouts ever impact your PL achievement. If you succeed the workout you’ll achieve the PL for that workout. My assumption is that it instead impacts the progression ramp rate embedded in your plan.

ie: you marked ‘very hard’ and got to 3.4, but your next workout of the same type is 3.5-ish rather than trying to ramp you up to near 4.0 straight away. Consolidating your achievement rather than stretching you too much further.

1 Like
44

Sounds reasonable. I’ve seen some behavior in the past that would contradict this thinking, but I’m trying to get away from dwelling too much on it. We’ll see how it plays out over time.

My eyebrows are a little raised by the thought that a Very Hard workout would raise the level of every other workout on the agendaBut no! Stop! That’s exactly what I said I wouldn’t do!

1 Like
45

Yeah, definitely not sure what I said is right either.

I have concerns that just because you DO something and achieve the PL, it doesn’t mean that’s what you SHOULD be doing. I’ve been doing an off-plan SS progression right now and my SS level is high-ish. If I go look at an SSB1 phase, the workouts are just insane for a base period and would cook me in no time. Right now I’m just trusting that by the time I do start a new base phase my PL will have dropped or I can adjust down manually, but it still doesn’t seem ideal.

46

PS: I like how Jonathan referred to the PLs as guard rails that help keep your plan on course. I think at this stage of the product’s development, it’s healthy to consider that just because some guard rails are there, doesn’t mean we need to hit them really hard to test their strength! Or that we can’t still make our own judgement calls within those rails to keep the ride smooth :slight_smile:

1 Like
47

Post-Thanksgiving report! Again, a little running and some short z2 rides.

Cloudripper -2. This was the Saturday Threshold workout and I was nervous about it as with last week’s Three Sisters. But it went just fine. Still ranked it as Very Hard, and it was, but in every effort I felt “this is a lot to give but I know I can do it.” 3.4->3.5.

Rose. Steady 10 minute Sweet Spot efforts with some optional standing sections. I did them all and my heart rate was able to slowly subside and stabilize after each one–I was afraid they’d just ratchet upward. 3.2->3.4. Marked Hard, but it was a comfortable sort of hard.

Monitor. Shorter SS efforts with greater total volume and short rest. Really no problem, followed everything to the letter. Almoooost marked it Moderate but I set myself a rule of “if you see >180bpm for more than a moment or two, you have to mark it Hard.” 3.4->3.6.

Then I went to visit the in-laws for Thanksgiving for a few days, during which there was, um, let’s just say “sub-optimal” workout prep for the next one, which was…

Starlight -2. One of those where you can tell it’s not happening, right from the gun. HRs were high, legs firing slower than usual, and when I was struggling to finish the first set I decided to pull the plug. It’s not uncommon for me to be pretty flat after a few days off, so I really should have done an opener workout the day before. This is a 3.9 workout and it kept my level at 3.5, but my next couple of Saturday Threshold workouts were adapted down quite a bit, to 2.4 and 3.0. My first instinct was “that’s too low!” but I’m just going to follow along. A little too easy is better than a little too hard, especially at this point in the offseason.

Carson -2. No problem. Back in the swing of things, and the Carson variations are usually pretty favorable for me. 3.6->3.8.

That catches us up. This morning I went for a nice rhythmic run, and then got my COVID/flu double-dip vax. So tomorrow I might be doing my scheduled Tray Mountain -2 or I might be in bed drinking tea and reading The Fifth Season.

6 Likes
48

update: in bed.

1 Like
49

I’m curious. What was your max HR hit during the Ramp test and what HR’s are you seeing when doing these SS efforts?

50

My absolute max is about 196. The ramp test max is usually a little lower than that. To hit the absolute max I have to do a sprint-y effort at the end. This last ramp test max was 192.

During these SS workouts it’s typical for me get to 160 pretty quickly, rise into the 170s for the bulk of the session, and then hit the low 180s by the end of the workout. 30-40min of total interval work. Here’s the Carson -2 I did a couple of days ago.
Carson -2 by wheatstraw53 at Tuesday, Nov 30 2021 - TrainerRoad

And here’s the “best” day I’ve had in the block so far. It has a lower target and I was just feeling good.
Spruce Knob -2 by wheatstraw53 at Thursday, Nov 18 2021 - TrainerRoad

51

It sounds like Spruce Knob -2 is the first Sweet Spot workout you’ve done so far.

You might be better served by AT if you manually drop your FTP a little. I’d be knocking 5% off so you’re Sweet Spot recommendations aren’t all short Threshold intervals during SSB1.

My experiment with an incorrect FTP lasted 5 weeks before my legs were done. I’m interested to see how this plays out if you decide to stick with it.
Good luck.

52

You say that because of the HR, right? It has occurred to me. I’m going to get through at least this SSB1 cycle and see where things sit. Right now I’m not feeling over-fatigued at all.

Hypothetically, if I had done my usual 5% reduction after the initial ramp test, perhaps AT would be suggesting things like Eichorn. That’s a 2x20 workout like Spruce Knob, with a level of 4.7. If I had done that FTP adjustment, then the actual wattage target would be exactly the same as the Spruce Knob I did. The workout would be identical. And my Sweet Spot PL would be 4.7 instead of 3.2.

Suppose that workout is “too hard” and I’m “working the wrong zone.” If I had done the 5% FTP reduction that I usually do, what would prevent AT from prescribing these same workouts (not the same name, but the same duration and wattage)? Clearly it’s possible for me to do them, so even if I’m working too hard to finish them, wouldn’t AT just keep creeping the workout level up and up until I actually started failing? And does that defeat the purpose of the sweet spot training zone?

This applies to all the sub-maximal effort levels. Tempo, Endurance, SS. It seems quite possible that you can push your PL too high by completing a workout that is a maximal overall effort. Looking at the catalog, I could do a sweet spot workout like Eichorn +2 with a very, very hard effort. That would put my PL at 5.8, and if AT then started consistently suggesting workouts of that difficulty, I’d be in for trouble.

Onward into the unknown!

2 Likes
53

A PL of 3 is probably the lower end where I’d continue using the suggested FTP. But probably it is better if you reduced that number a bit so you start in the 4s.

Remember that most workouts during a week should feel Easy–Moderate, and perhaps one should feel Hard or Very Hard. If all workouts feel Hard and upwards, you definitely should lower your FTP. Just listen to your body and don’t be a slave to your computer/coach.

No, at least if you mark these workouts as Very Hard or All Out in the post-workout survey. It’ll tone down the difficulty of the subsequent workouts in the same power zone.

1 Like
54

:laughing: Why not. If you’ve got the time and patience to see what happens.

Seriously though, I’m now 3 weeks into another round of SSB1 using a more realistic FTP and it’s much better. The last attempt reminded me of the old SSB2 plans that were more of a build phase in my case.

1 Like
57

Do you think that applies even in a low-volume plan?

Would you give an example of a workout that felt too hard with your old FTP and the better workout that AT is suggesting now?

How’s this been going? Is AT still dragging you or is it figuring out the right workouts?

58

The post-vax fog cleared after about 36 hours.

Tray Mountain -2. Of all the sweet spot workouts so far, this was the one where I felt the most doubt about whether it was too hard. HRs were pretty elevated by the end, took some focus to finish, did not feel “comfortably hard.” Ranked it as Very Hard (side note: this is where I have some trouble with the TR guidelines for survey responses. Yes, I “could have done” one more interval, but I didn’t want to, and I was getting pretty worn down by the end). 3.8->4.0.

Mono. This Threshold workout is well below my current PL; it was adjusted down by AT after the problems I had with Starlight. Pretty routine, took some effort, considered marking it Moderate but I had just enough HR over 180 that I thought it deserved a Hard. No change to PLs.

One more week in SSB1, a recovery week, and then a little holiday travel. Debating about whether to proceed into SSB2 or to repeat SSB1 but with my usual FTP reduction. Any suggestions/requests?

1 Like
59

Yes, the same applies. You should of course use your own judgement to know where you personally draw the line between a workout being challenging enough and being overly challenging.

One thing I try to separate is whether a workout is mentally or physically hard. A lot of them are “just” mentally hard, because you know you’ll have to spend another 45 minutes in moderate discomfort or being bored.

PS With AT I find a very important component is to be really honest with the survey: don’t just respond “easy” or “moderate”, because you think you can toughen it out.

1 Like
60

It’s hard to give an exact comparison as my second round of SSB1 LV has been shortened to 4 weeks. I’ll do my best though.

Round 1:
*TR ramp test result of 247 without going all out. 230-236 would’ve been more realistic.
*My notes list Eichorn (4.7) and Tallac-1 (5.2) as being hard and more like Threshold. That was around week 3.
*The next week was Venado-2 (5.6)Very Hard. Followed by Truchas-2 (5.4). I bailed halfway through as I ran out of time. I noted that I could’ve finished.
*The next week was Eichorn+2(5.8). Fail. Too intense. Followed by Carson(3.6). Fail. Game over man!
My legs were cooked and I decided to take some tome off before resetting. There were quite a few nights where I was struggling with hot legs while trying to sleep.

Round 2:
*TR ramp test ignored and a guesstimate of 230 used after 2 weeks of no riding. I revised this down to 220 after feeling out the 1st couple of WO’s.
*After bodging the ramp test and altering my FTP up manually, my PL’s were all at 1. I hand picked Rendezvou-5 to feel things out. That bumped things up.
*Last week I did Tray Mountain-2(4.0) and Grampians(4.1). Both marked moderate and feeling like SS.
*This week I’m down for Geiger (4.5)and Tallac-3(4.7). At three weeks my legs are feeling good so I’ve got no doubt I’ll be fine with both of those and they’ll be marked as moderate.

Round 1 felt like doing build. Round 2 feels like base.
Round 1 ended in flames and me not wanting to ride my bike. Round 2 has me feeling quietly confident and itching to ride my bike fast (for me :wink:).
Round 1 had feeling more and more fatigued until I quit. Round 2 has my legs feeling noticeably stronger each WO.

2 Likes
61

Tray Mountain with a reduced FTP (230 before I dialed it back further) had me feeling strong at the end. I threw in a long standing/low cadence drill and a minute over 300w to finish off the last interval.
To be fair, I had to run upstairs and answer the door 1min into that last interval. The extra drills were added punishment for pausing.

If you’re starting to doubt things during 3x12mins @90%, you’re probably not pushing 90% as intended. My take is that you shouldn’t be doing that during a base phase.

62

@Wheatstraw53
How goes it? How did the last week of workouts go?

63

SSBLV1 complete!

Grampians. This is an interesting and fun workout, 42 minutes of work with very short breaks. HRs never got that high but I definitely was working hard. Hard, 4.0->4.1

Geiger. Spent all day replacing bathroom fans in my house (taking the original ones out was by far the hardest part) and then doing family errands, finally finished everything at 10:30 PM and thought “Geiger looks like it’ll be hard but doable–I’ve got this.” I did have it, but just barely. Very Hard, 4.1->4.5. That’s a workout that shouldn’t be Very Hard, but I didn’t exactly set myself up for success. Woke up the next morning feeling like I had gotten too rowdy at a college party.

Kennedy. Did this at noon, and had an odd phenomenon I get from time to time where I’m just voraciously hungry for several hours. I woke up hungry, ate two bowls of cereal and some pad thai, slept a while longer, woke up and ate three kolaches. I was quite concerned about whether I could do the workout with that much food in me–and then I crushed it! It was a 3.0, below my current level of 3.5, but everything was even more “achievable” than I would have thought. There are long tempo sections sandwiching the over/under sets, and usually my heart rate drifts up quite a bit by the end of the tempo sections, but this time it stabilized at exactly the same rate during the first and second intervals. A very pleasant surprise and an encouraging way to end the block.

Now I’ve got the scheduled recovery week. Next week I’m planning to do a ramp test and some all-out effort like a Z---- race to assess how the training has gone. Then I’ve got a little holiday travel during which I won’t have a bike, and then I’ll start another block.

If the assessments are great, I think I’ll move on to SSB2 with this same scheme (no FTP adjustment).

If they’re not, I’ll try repeating SSB1 with my typical 5% reduction and see how I respond to that. I’ve done SSB1 in the past with that approach but never with AT.

3 Likes
65

Agreed. 12 minutes at 90% should be easy.
The OP was saying that 12 mins at 90% was hard. I was suggesting that if you’re starting to bury yourself in SSB1 it’s probably not what’s intended during that phase.

Stuffed if I know whether it’ll work for the OP. It cooked my legs when I tried it.

1 Like