I’m a bit confused/concerned about the structure of my upcoming (planned) workouts . . . and the predicted result: loss of 9W (-3.8%).
The specialty phase (week 9) starts with Anaerobic 5.0, followed by Anaerobic 4.2, followed by Anaerobic 3.8. With the VO2 Max workouts on Saturdays there is a similar pattern: 5.4 followed by 4.8.
I understand that my fitness will decrease when I decrease my workload but that is clearly not my goal.
I already had a similar effect during the previous prediction window, but I thought it was a result of me not really following the plan up to May 21st (prediction then was 239 → 229 for July 10th).
But after I go back on track at June 22nd the structure kept pointing downward.
On June 30th I intervened and switch a VO2 Max 4.2 workout (predicted: Very Hard) to 4.9 (Rundle) and continued to do so for the following intense workouts.
At least I was able to dampen the decrease so that I came out with 235 on the detection wich I think/feel is still a touch low.
But my main problem is the decreasing structure of the following block with the prediction of another fitness decrease, which obviously is not my goal
Sure, I can continue to override every single workout, but finding a matching one is laborious and this is exactly what I expect TR to get right.
Btw. my wife’s plan has a similar structure, so I’m probably not the only one affected by this strange workout selection.
I’m not sure what you’re training for, but generally the weeks leading into my races I reduce my load and sacrifice a small amount of fitness to come in very fresh and ready to go.
I think the idea is it’s better to race at 220W FTP and be super fresh, than it is to race at 230W FTP and be a little overcooked/needing a rest.
The training plan isn’t specifically tailored to a race; instead, it’s a general “Getting Faster for Group Rides” plan.
Why I can’t “officially” include the race in the plan is a different issue…
I structured the plan so that it concludes with an endurance week right before the event. That should give me enough time to recover from the preceding weeks—though a training load like this isn’t unusual for me.
I realize that the “Specialty Phase” isn’t primarily intended for massive fitness gains (that’s what the “Build Phase” is for), but in the five years I’ve been training with TR, my plans have never resulted in a 9-watt drop in power during the “Specialty Phase.” At least, I can’t recall such an instance.
Moreover, this continues a trend I’ve been observing for three weeks now (starting back in the “Build Phase”).
I do not believe there will be major reshuffles regarding the downward structure because tomorrow’s workout is stable since a week (and still belongs to Build Phase).
Why should I do a threshold 4.0 workout at 235W when I’ve completed a very similar threshold 4.3 workout at 239W within expectations the week before in a phase that is meant to build your fitness?
This would contradict the fundamental training concept of progressive overload.
Yes, the day before (= today) is yellow, but not tomorrow.
The training approach is set to “demanding”.
I would be OK with “a few” watt loss, but 9W / -3.8% is massive (and we are not yet at the end of the plan). It typically takes me (at least) a month to gain 2W, so I would be set back by at least three months (assuming I re-gain the watts faster than originally).
Edit: And for Specialty Phase, I could fully understand a careful progression. What I’m sceptic of is the degression (that already started in Build Phase).
The 4.3 at 239W you rated very hard, if you progressively overload from there, I would think that’d be too hard. It’s possible you could complete it, but it would have an impact on future workouts for sure. Also, a level 4.0 vs a 4.3 aren’t that different 98TSS vs 100TSS and 0.82IF vs 0.81IF - almost a rounding error. I wouldn’t sweat it too much, your body would likely respond similarly to each workout in my opinion.
This might be more important than you think (possibly). having an extra week of taper could mean you’re starting to pull back on volume too early. However the ideal taper is pretty different from person to person.
We haven’t had prediction for that long, so it’s possible you did have a drop. I remember Chad talking about losing fitness during specialty, but it was a worthwhile trade for the freshness gained. Also, I’d be careful putting too much weight on the prediction, it’s possible and likely it will change before the end of the prediction window.
It looks like you were rating a lot of those workouts very hard. If I were a human coach, I’d probably be working to pull back on the progression too.4
However, I’m not a human coach, I’m just some guy on the internet, so take all this or leave it. I could be wrong.
The 4.3 at 239W you rated very hard, if you progressively overload from there, I would think that’d be too hard. It’s possible you could complete it, but it would have an impact on future workouts for sure. Also, a level 4.0 vs a 4.3 aren’t that different 98TSS vs 100TSS and 0.82IF vs 0.81IF - almost a rounding error.
This was a standard progression-step - but in the wrong direction.
Meanwhile I successfully completed a Threshold 4.7 workout (rated as 4.9).
At this point I was not too concerned with impacting following workouts because the next week is a endurance week without hard work.
We haven’t had prediction for that long, so it’s possible you did have a drop.
I was not referring to predicted decreases, but to actual ones.
I can’t find any in my TR history for a few years.
Also, I’d be careful putting too much weight on the prediction, it’s possible and likely it will change before the end of the prediction window.
As I wrote in an earlier post: I had the same effect during the Build Phase and TR didn’t change the downward structure.
I had to replace every single planned intense workout.
Each time I waited until the day of the workout in question before replacing it.
It looks like you were rating a lot of those workouts very hard. If I were a human coach, I’d probably be working to pull back on the progression too.
Indeed, I rated them very hard.
Nevertheless my approach (replacing the too easy workouts since June 30th) was successful since the detected FTP on July 10th was 235 instead of 229 (predicted before my changes to the plan) near the end of Build Phase.
Rating Threshold and VO2 Max workouts ‘very hard’ was not uncommon for me for the six years before AI started and I still managed the progression with the old non-AI algorithm.
To me it looks like for some reason TR does not understand what I’m capable of.
Keep in mind that not all upcoming workouts need to or should be harder than the last. Training isn’t usually that linear, and not all of your tough workouts need to feel “Very Hard” to get the right stimulus. I think the model is trying to tell you that by changing your upcoming workouts after you rate one very hard. It might be saying, “Okay, we can dial it back slightly next time, and still be really productive.”
I’m looking at your calendar now, and it looks like you definitely like to push yourself, though.
It sounds like you might be a good candidate for an “Aggressive” training approach. Have you given that a shot before?
It’s hard to compare what you’ve recently done to what’s coming up since you’re changing training phases, but I’d like to see how things go next week with a little shake-up in training stimulus.
I’m in my speciality phase right now, tapering for my A race Saturday. My FTP hasn’t increased and isn’t predicted to in this final block. With that in mind, I’m up 14 watts from my peak last year and probably down… 8 lbs. 3 lbs just in the last couple weeks. I’ve also hit a lot of power PR’s and plan to crush a few after the race is over while I still have fitness (some KOM segments nearby ranging from 2 to 20 minutes). As of today my AIFTP hit 4.51 watts/kg. Last year I peaked at 3.99.
But . . . on taking a closer look at my calendar, I noticed that my AI FTP had reached 235 on 10 July.
On the very next day, 11 July, I then executed a Threshold 4.9 workout using this new AI FTP.
This would not have been possible when the AI FTP were correct as the model is calibrated for Threshold workouts “about a level 3” (3.0? 3.5? 3.9?) to be “hard” when you also take the post-workout rating guide into account.
The Threshold 4.9 workout I did was “Warlow” (nominal 4.7, rated 4.9) with 5 sets of Over-Unders.
Therefore, “Warlow -1” (WL 4.1) with 4 of the same sets should be “hard” for me as I proofed that I’m able to do one more set.
Finally, “Warlow -2” (WL 3.5) with only 3 of the same sets should be “moderate” for me as I proofed that I’m able to do two more sets (60% work).
Assuming the model calibration hasn’t changed, this implies that my fresh detected AI FTP is wrong.
This reinforces my suspicion that TR is having trouble drawing the right conclusions from my in parts not very linear training history.
Going full circle to the initial issue.
Which is more likely:
that TR is having problems with my unusual training history,
or that TR has discovered a new training concept in which, according to its own AI FTP prediction, you get weaker as the workload decreases sequentially, but in reality somehow end up performing better?
PS: In the meantime, I’ve sought a second opinion on my current FTP, which confirms my gut feeling that (since I’ve been training regularly again) I’ve been getting better slowly but steadily, rather than getting worse.
This is hard to answer. I haven’t done this kind of work for a while now.
Last time was 18 April: “Martin”, SS 7.2, with a decent heart rate at the end and low HR drift.
Back then, the situation was the other way round: TR over-estimated my AI FTP (253) which led to “Isabel” (Threshold 3.2) being max-effort with 99.5% max HR.
After this experience I did a ramp test (241) and the next day “Martin”.
Back to your question:
Would I be able to knock out “Wright Peak” (SS 8.0) at my current AI FTP 235? My gut feeling says: Yes.
Would I be able to knock out “Wright Peak” at what I think is my FTP? That’s way more looking in the crystal ball: probably yes - there’s also psychology involved (“willingness to continue”). This would be more of a litmus test for the FTP.
For context: Back in December I did a virtual Alpe d’ Huez ride (FTP at 245) with NP 221W (90%) for 1:18:34 which was max-effort.
To answer the original question, I don’t think that a specialty phase needs to use progressive overload. This is my own opinion, but once you’ve done base and build, you’ve already made your gains in FTP and training power extensively. I see the specialty phase as where the emphasis is on sharpening your fitness while shedding some fatigue so that you are getting some freshness in the legs.
I’m experiencing the same thing. I’m beginning to suspect that the AI is prescribing workouts that work best for many, and assuming that should be the prescription for everyone. So, for those people who are responding well to the workouts they’re being given because their phenotype suits it, they’re super happy. Others, like me, are finding it to work not so well because I’m not responding to the workouts like many others. Yet, instead of finding the workouts that work best for me, it’s still trying to shoehorn a workout that it thinks should work because that’s what works for others. The workouts end up being the right ones at a population level, but not necessarily at the individual level.
I did 90 minutes straight at 275w yesterday (which is SS for me based on my aiFTP of 303w). Today it lowered my predicted aiFTP to 275w. Make it make sense!
Edit: Because I already felt very fresh, I did a 2h endurance/tempo ride last Saturday (rated moderate, HR decoupling only 3%) that caused TR to increase intensity on some of the intense future workouts and also reduced the predicted AI FTP drop further to 6W (-2.6%).
This is something that the team is addressing as we speak. Right now, certain outside efforts aren’t being reflected in FTP, but we’re working on a fix.
