I have noticed that there are workouts that look identical but have different names. For instance, Thunder and Newcomb. I did Thunder today and now have Newcomb scheduled for next workout. Same descriptions. Any idea why?
Looking at those two workouts. It looks like the intervals are the same, warm up and cool downs are a bit different. But the big difference is that Thunder is meant to be done at a high cadence ("Speed-endurance intervals) and Newcomb is meant to be done at a low cadence (“force intervals”). This is in the workout descriptions.
So the same workout but the execution per the instructions (and I assume in-workout text) is different.
Related to the workout goals, I would guess that the instructional text will differ between the two (but I have not verified if that is true or not).
Oh jeeze, If I’m beating @mcneese.chad to the answer then that probably means I need to get back to my real job…
Thank you. Very helpful.
I’ve got Monitor -1 and Abbey coming up this week - both have exactly the same descriptions and “numbers” etc - I’ve got Thunder and Newcombe next week and can see the difference relating to cadence but not with these two this week. Any clues?
So having now done them both this week I can categorically confirm that Monitor -1 and Abbey are exactly the same in every respect.
Can anyone explain why this is please as I’m intrigued?
Im SO HAPPY that I’m able to explain this!
Abbey is intentionally a duplicate of Monitor -1. This was done to put easier workouts closer to the top of the alphabet, because before Workout Levels, we sorted workouts alphabetically and athletes did super difficult workouts like Acrodectes and Adams at a high rate, and then would subsequently fail. Its a measure to help those athletes who just go to the ‘Workouts’ page for their first encounters to find easier workouts near the top of the list.
Thanks Ivy - understood
Hey guys! I have a related question: so from what I understand, some workouts look VERY much the same, but will have slight differences in terms of cadence target or other stuff. And some workouts are identical, just different names to put an easier workout at the top of the alphabetical order. I get it. What I would like to know is :
- Why are Endurance (Z2) workouts so complicated? Is there a physiological benefit from doing funky intervals when doing Z2 rides vs doing 1h @ 65%, 1h @ 70%, 1.5h @ 65%, 2h % 70%, etc. For instance, polar-bear-3 has you do precisely 22 intervals ranging from 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-10 minutes at targets ranging from 70-71-72-73-74-75%. Why not just say, ride for 105 minutes at 72%? That’s actually what the outside version prescribes : 1 hour 40 minutes gradually raising your power from 214 to 226
My guess would be that this is purely for the psychological effect. Having at least a little bit of variation and being able to count down some intervals makes those endurance rides on the trainer easier. Another guess is that they’re designed to mimic outside riding as close as possible where you can never hold the wattage as exactly as described.
I definitely appreciate the variations from a psychological perspective. Nearly two hours as a single block is much more boring than breaking it up and changing it up. I’ll do this myself for long blocks, splitting it up, but these in-built subtle variations help me.
Doesnt really matter but if undulating the 2hrs of work makes the person more likely to complete it then its a no brainer. The only “better” thing is the higher likelyhood of completing the workout and then coming back tomorrow for another one.
Yeah it makes sense that must have to do with psychological effect. Perhaps even a marketing thing, making the workouts look funky and complicated would make people think they get more for their money as opposed to prescribing boring 100min @ 70% (the graphical representation of that might not be appealing to some, i.e. just a flat blue line on your screen for the whole workout lol)
Personally though, I prefer the more straight forward workouts. 120min @ 70%, flat blue line on the graphic on my calendar. Makes it easier to track progress visually on my calendar and I know precisely what I’m getting into before I do the workout.
I see what you mean, but that slight undulation in power target in Donner, is useless if you’re not doing the workout on erd mode (meaning indoor and on a smart trainer).
And easier to use TR performance analytics to track progress on longer intervals over time, when its one continuous interval rather than a bunch of sub-intervals.
I agree. It’s the reason I choose the outdoor version regardless if I’m doing the workout inside or outside. Small changes in target during an endurance ride is annoying to me.
For me it’s the opposite, I love working from “interval” to “interval” even if it doesn’t really matter. Same goes for this around threshold. There are workouts that have 3x20min, but broken up into 5mins at 98/100/102/98% and those are mentally so much easier the 3x20 at a flat 100%.
Outside, Long intervals create a problem if you fall behind due to a traffic light etc you are always below target power but shorter intervals give you a reset point so it is easier to stay on target.