Sustained Power Build High Volume --- too hard?

I’m just starting my build for …hopefully the UK TT season SPB MV and HV are bonkers…I have changed it to a bit more polarised where I do VO2 max Tue and the 108%FTP efforts like Red Lake/Wilhelm variants on Friday - Wed/Thr will be 90mins zone 2 turbo like Fletcher, Saturday/ Sunday will hopefully now be zone 2 outside now the weather has improved for 3 hours ish. (I have spent the winter on the turbo doing SS/over unders and a short block of subthreshold stuff at 96-99%FTP) - even with this I will stay well clear of the insanity of Elephants and if the weather is crap I will include some tempo work like Round Bald+2 or Wright Peak -3 to replace a zone 2 weekend ride. That said I’m 52…maybe younger people can cope with all the intensity…I sure as hell can’t! :laughing:

I’ve been wondering if this happens a lot with all of TR’s plans. We all hear about the newbie gains people get in SSB. During those 5 week blocks, has FTP actually gone up a lot such that every intensity is lower across the board by 5 weeks?

Some users like to hack the process by retesting or constantly upping their FTP week to week. (It’s funny how users always think they know better.) I always have wondered whether TR condones this or if their blocks are designed with a rising FTP in mind.

Personally, I suspect that the difference between 85% SS and 95% SS is very small. You will get basically the same adaptions for a much more manageable intensity. But, if you over test on the ramp and your 95% if more like 103% then you are probably going to be screwed down the road. If you undertest on the ramp you are probably golden and then don’t understand why other people can’t hack these easy workouts.

1 Like

:100:

This is something which is also fundamentally “wrong” with TR — the entire focus is on raising FTP as high as possible via intensity.

There is zero consideration given to any of the physiological systems (ANS, endocrine, etc) which are assailed with high degrees of stress.

If you’re a younger TR user, probably no issue (yet); but to older users it can be damaging.

1 Like

@patrickhill This is an interesting theory and it sounds right to me in regards to untrained folks. It’s not applicable in my case though since I was already pretty fit when I started TR. I only changed my FTP once, from 363 to 370, early on in SSB2HV. After that I left it there and just made sure I could complete the workouts at the prescribed wattages without any adjustments.

@kofi Thanks for your response, your approach is sensible. However in a sense you DID have to manually dial back the power, since you used an FTP based on a self-selected 50 minute TTE test rather than the easier TR protocol of ramp test/20 min/2x8 min. Which gets back to my main point…the intensity requirements for SPBHV, when based on TR’s definition of the rider’s FTP, just seem way too high to me. Almost 50 comments into this thread, we still only have three riders who say they completed the plan as written. And who knows how they were determining FTP?

As for all the other comments that suggest substituting more z2 into the plan to make it more manageable, I agree, and that’s what I will do. But part of my reason to use TR in the first place is to have all the periodization and TSS ramping automated for me. If I have to start modifying multiple workouts per week on my own, that convenience goes out the window, and I might as well just make my own plan.

I want to reiterate that I like TrainerRoad. I gained a lot from the SSB plans. I would like to gain a lot from SPBHV too, but I don’t think its effective in its current form.

I forgot to add – I also did SPBHV in 6 weeks instead of the planned 8.

Lots of sleeping and eating.

That is essentially my interpretation of the TR approach. It might be fine on low volume, and completely breaks down (for me) on high volume plans. And staying with low volume for a moment, I don’t think my body can handle build phase without a lot more aerobic development. So then a) striving for compliance to plan, while b) following a strict progression (base > build > specialty) then lead to problems and I blow up during late SSB-2 or build. Which led me to look for non-TR plans that took another approach.

Yup but even for 20 somethings I don’t think it’s the best approach

Bringing this point over to the Dylan thread. :+1:t2:

Untrained at a low vo2max but 1000W sprint. I’m a hard gainer on aerobic, so it takes time. A drive by barking dog and my muscles reflexively push out 500+ so legs seem to be pretty glycolytic. So this season I’ve found 6 months of 7+ hours/week of z2 and my joints / ligaments/ body are thanking me and I can reliably put down power without risking minor but annoying injuries. Late fifties and a long history of sitting at a desk. FWIW.

Everyone has to find what works for them. By dumb luck I self-coached myself to being able to do 1 hour time trials and that meant being able to push hard for 2-3 hours on group rides. I want that sustained power but think a really long base phase is needed for the reasons above. Never felt ready for the TR sustained build plan on just ssb1 and ssb2.

Trying to answer the original questions… I completed several high volume plans last year including extra Z2 volume. I am 28 and have 8 seasons of racing under my belt. I saw my pb 20min power (by 4W…) last year.

From your post I’d say you probably jumped in at the deep end. Take some recovery, you earned it and come back at it fresh. Perhaps try mid volume topped up with Z2, or swapping one or two of the sessions in HV to Z2 or z3.

1 Like

The sweet spot is more manageable for me as well. I was able to complete SSBHV1 at an all time high (for me) FTP of 363. Was stoked to complete it, but my fitness subsequently dropped. I didn’t mention that the ramp test accuracy has a huge impact on how achievable and productive these blocks are. The ramp test overestimates my FTP by about 4% I think. Took a long time to figure that out. Just a percent or two can be the difference between failing workouts and burning out or feeling motivated as you smash every workout.

On the podcast they have said the TR HV plans are only for a smaller percentage of riders. So that obviously implies most riders shouldn’t use them, but yet many still try.

I think a lot can be blamed on the Plan Builder. If you select that you’ve done 10+ hours of training a week for the past six weeks it recommends HV, even if under Experience you select Beginner - I’m new to interval training. There also don’t appear to be any disclaimers under the HV plans if you select them directly relative to Nate/Chad’s own comments on the podcast about HV.

1 Like

Why isn’t it effective? You seem to be not able to stomach high volume build. Many are not. So why not go for low or mid volume? It’s not like that wouldn’t be the general recommendation anyway. After all you stated that you only started cycling last year and that you only have done a six week base block before moving to build.

3 Likes

I was thinking it would be nice if plan builder could kick out a plan that has high volume hour commitment but low volume number of intense workouts and fill in the rest with active recovery and endurance rides. Kinda like a human coach would probably proscribe.

I don’t want to do 10+hrs/week of sweetspot, for example. I want 2-3 key workouts, 2 active recovery days, and 2-3 endurance days.

5 Likes

To me that doesn’t sound like the power was dialed back. A more accurate, for that individual, method of estimating FTP was chosen that then generated reasonable power targets for workouts.

Some people view TR as the ‘coach’ and try to do the plan 100% as proscribed. Others, like me, view TR as a self coaching tool that spits out a plan that needs to be customized to fit our goals and constraints. Anyone who views TR as a self coaching tool and modifies plans for their individual circumstances is never going to fit your definition of ‘completing the plan as written.’

3 Likes

I’ve come to realize that you in all likelyhood have the right approach to this. That said…it would be really nice if trainerroad made it clear that is the way these are meant to be used.

2 Likes

I used the ramp tests, and confirmed with feel outside.

I don’t know that sampling a forum is a great way to get an accurate portrayal though. People come to forums generally to get help or gripe about stuff, or occasionally to gloat. It’s a problem with most online reviews, most people are only going to take the time to write a review if they hate the thing or love it…very little in between. If you ask if a plan is too hard, you’re probably going to get a lot of people hopping in to agree with you. There’s likely a very large number of people who are simply selecting HV and doing it and/or making minor adjustments to fit their needs, but don’t feel the need to go online and talk about it either positively or negatively.

I also dispute the idea that just because you couldn’t do it or X number of other people couldn’t do it makes it wrong. If I did a low volume plan and didn’t add least 15hrs of of endurance/tempo to it, I’d absolutely get detrained. That plan is wrong for me. That doesn’t make it wrong for someone else or a lot of other people. I’m guessing you couldn’t maintain your 370w ftp on 3hrs a week either. That doesn’t mean low volume shouldn’t be offered, it just means it’s not the right fit for you, your life, your age, your ability to recover, your nutrition, your history of training/volume on a bike. Same may be true of HV.

Also, I think this thread should be combined with the DJ one.

1 Like

I use the ramp test, about 6 weeks ago I used the kolie Moore test to help verify the result, I pulled the plug slightly early so tte is over 50 minutes. I have subsequently increased ftp based on how wilhelm/kosciuszko felt.

FYI I’m 39, dad, full time job etc. I have modified the plan not because I felt I couldn’t complete it but to suit my own needs. last week I did the sweet spot workout plus Z2. this week I did appalachian.

Promising juniors are not doing 5 and 6 intensity days per week. I’m tracking a few of them on Strava. BIG miles (5, 6 and even 7 hr days)…one or two days at most on the gas…and on those days not more than about 45 - 60 minutes of actual TIZ. MV and HV plans I see only as short term peaking tools…or block periodization. Not a long term strategy of development. It’s simply too damn hard and the consequences for constantly running on the glycolytic side of the seesaw can be detrimental over time (deterioration of the lactate profile).

Correct. This is just the tip of iceberg in terms of inconsistencies.

1 Like