My experience and physiology is not that different from the TR collective (or any other cyclist):
According to Coggan’s chart thingy, I’m an ok Cat. 3 with terrible short power.
I’ve only done structured training for 2 out of last 3 years (1 year of Z2).
I’m not sitting on a ton of miles or hours, ~10hr/wk average.
My FTP has remained very constant over the last 3 years, (aka no improvement).
Basically, average.
Maybe my difference comes from willingness to experiment and pushing my own perceived limits. 
Then again…that’s only delivered me to “average”.
I don’t know the makeup of TR’s user base, but you seem to be saying that you’re average for a racer but that’s not the same thing as being average as a cyclist.
2 Likes
I’m not sure how you can say this with any degree of certainty. And not all cyclists are racers as aging cannon points out. My club is roughly 50/50 riders and racers, and for almost everyone in that group, a 3x30 day is taxing. Not overwhelming, but taxing. And there would be many who could not complete it even with a properly set FTP.
I’m not quite sure what we are even discussing at this point. I’ll just leave it at if you don’t think 3x30 is the least bit challenging, I’d submit there’s a good chance you’re undertraining or undertesting, or you’ve established a very strong aerobic and muscular base of endurance, which is definitely a good thing. 90min TiZ with a 6 or 7 RPE should feel like you’ve done something. Hell even that FasCat coaching chart you posted doesn’t show anyone doing 90 min until they’re training like a Cat2 or long-course triathlete, especially in December.
2 Likes
Check out the ‘Bell curve of TR users’ thread. Sure, I’m a bit on the right side of the bell curve but then again, I’ve only done one (1) race in the last 20 years so…am I a racer or just a cyclist who likes to push?
I guess it’s my world view that people have the ability do a lot more than they think they can. I’ll reserve any future enthusiasm for myself. 
Good luck to all in the quest for progression! 
2 Likes
What does the bell curve have to do with how long someone can maintain 90% of their FTP?
Sure people should push themselves. But to suggest everyone should go from 40 to 90 min TiZ in two weeks isn’t remotely fair. Other people reading this thread might take that advice to heart, when it would be totally inappropriate for them. It might not be for you.
Again, please don’t apply n=1 to everyone. Hopefully people reading this thread are able to discern that.
4 Likes
He lost me from the start by saying SSB HV took 12 weeks to get 90 min TiZ. The first weekend of SSB HV 1 has 60 min TiZ on Saturday and 90 min TiZ on Sunday. It’s the first TR block I completed, had a fantastic HC climb at the end of week 5 but lost interest in training inside after all the long rides in the garage.
1 Like
I didn’t state HV; TR doesn’t rec HV to anyone (except the 0.1%).
Try the popular MV progression which everyone gets slotted into:
3x12@ 85% —> 3x30@ 90% (w/ breaks).
:
As per TR:
Our RPE scale is based largely on Matt Fitzgerald’s
Guess he’s wrong.
Also per TR:
TrainerRoad uses a 7-zone system based on the research of Dr. Andrew Coggan.
Coggan’s (poor?) definition of SS/90%: RPE 3-4; moderate-somewhat strong (or as published by TR: 7 / Moderate). He also states the minimum duration to be 30min. As another popular coach claims, if you can’t do 20min @ SS then you’ve got bigger problems.
I’ve questioned this many times before – if TR uses Coggan’s zone system for power, why do they not adopt his associated durations???
If TR can adopt only half of a widely accepted training/physiology theory whilst discarding the other half, then it should be absolutely reasonable to adopt the same original power and duration system whilst completely discarding TR’s own fabricated durations.
Leads me to believe that TR’s proprietary SS system is based on higher compliance which drives higher retention which drives higher profit. I’d rather base my progressions on actual physiology rather than projected revenue.
:
I was just pointing out how mostly average I am and that most people are mostly the same; n=1 isn’t significantly different. To the other point, unless a complete beginner/LH outlier, someone should be able to maintain 100% FTP for at least 30min. Thus, maintaining 3x30min@ 90% w/ rest intervals should be doable, yet only somewhat difficult.
Maybe people don’t eat enough carbs. Maybe people don’t have a properly developed aerobic system. Maybe people don’t want to experience discomfort for longer periods of time. Maybe people are doing too much SS with too much fatigue and not enough rest. Maybe people are doing too much of the same and stagnating. I dunno.
I guess all this does is reveal my goal to pursue ‘fast’ rather than merely ‘faster’.
Each to their own. 
5 Likes
I did read that above…
Maybe you meant to type SSMV?
Agree with you that it’s pretty straightforward to push interval duration faster than 12 weeks, and of course its dependent on the other work being done as you mentioned.
1 Like
How can the application of one n=1 be a wrong, yet the application of a different n=1 be correct?
It doesn’t matter if it’s your first day on a bike or a have 10 years of racing and training behind you, when you join TR you’re being asked to follow the same generalized plan. TR is saying that both a complete newb and a seasoned racer (e.g. a 50/50 club) should follow the same plan and progressions.
Sounds like a recipe for success.
1 Like
You mean there’s limitation with self coaching software?!
4 Likes
Except that it’s not self-coaching, it’s mass market coaching.
From the devil himself:
This morning I listened to part of that exact podcast clip. As always it is easy to agree with Coach Chad, at least the portion I heard. The first part of his answer goes into minimum effective dose, which is the opposite of mass market coaching via stock plans.
IMHO it is also foreshadowing to how TR is going to pivot from mass market coaching to personalized coaching. That isn’t easy, its a bit of a moonshot IMHO, and why I think its taking so long for TR to introduce ‘thing 1.’ Staying on the first part of the answer, there can a lot of variation in minimum effective dose even for two people with similar training loads.
I’m not defending TRs plans. They are what they are. I don’t use them. I have, and they worked for a little while, but I believe I can do better. Lots of coaches don’t prescribe general plans… but that is TR’s business model!
1 Like
There’s a point here that I don’t disagree with but I’m confused by your choice of clip? The point being that TR is simultaneously educating their listeners and users via the podcast (everything pointing to a self coaching mindset) and promoting their pre-packaged (one size fits all) plans (everything pointing to casting the biggest net possible to get largest customer base) at the same time.
TR knows the limitations with their current set up, they’re also smart enough to realize they need AI to move forward, I mean, anything less than this is just more of the same in a slightly different flavor. Imagine a plan builder that you agree with? 
My criticism with TR is plan builder, period. To me it’s a good place to start, but any experienced rider will likely need to modify it heavily. I suppose the crux is where the perception of value lies with their base; is it the need for a “tell me what to do, exactly, daily” personal coach substitute, or does a more experienced rider still see value in what the platform offers now beyond the cut and pasted plans? The ability to constantly modify the plan on the fly is another pretty strong case that TR is a self coaching platform. At the absolute least, it can be used as such.
My future support will pivot on better masters support (whole thread topic) and more importantly what they can develop in AI, they must go dynamic or they will be swallowed up by a competitor. They know this.
I can’t imagine paying a coach their asking price only to be given a cookie cutter TP plan. I’d wear a coach out if I could afford one! 
No doubt! TR’s new tagline as the best value in cycling training is a good one. The bag for the buck is great IMO especially if you’re locked in at old pricing. I liked to customize TRs plans to my needs the past couple of seasons. Now I’ve gone off of them completely but I still use a lot of the workouts, often modifying rest intervals, or building custom ones. While I like the workout library, the plans are pretty good, I’m not a fan of the plan builder. Too many head scratching “decisions” for filler weeks IMO.
Eventually I’ll probably move off the platform, but as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m a fan of TR even if I have evolved my own training away from it a little bit.
1 Like
sorry for the delay but got all these done now I think -TR creator is a little glitchy at times but I think they all came out OK.
Have fun with them!!
2 Likes
Yup! I actually just used it to plan my 2022 A Race and the builder gave me something like 75 weeks of SSB + Sustained Power + 40k TT. Zero weeks off, zero “off season”, zero change in training stimulus. Crazy. If I was a TR newb and didn’t know any better, that plan would have completely burned me out.
:
Anyway, the TR pod clip was just to demonstrate that even the SS Masters agree that we all need to pay attention to and define our own ‘minimum effective dose’ and follow our personal progression from that point.
If I test that I can do 5x20 while still in base, I’m not going to start doing 4x10 in my next phase.
If someone else can go from a fresh FTP to 3x30 in 2 weeks, then that’s a progression they can handle.
It’s also weird that there’s no anchor point for SS (or VO2) interval progressions. As pointed out, a ramp test FTP doesn’t tell you how long their TTE is.
SS work (aka Threshold Lite) should probably be a progression based off TTE instead of guesswork.
4 Likes
Maybe impossible to answer but what is a good target HR for SS work at 95%. I was very pleased on Saturday when I did a 12 minute effort at 95% and only drifted ever so slightly into Z4 HR at the end. I’ve got quite a few workouts with 95% intervals coming up, some as short as 7 minutes, others up to 20 minutes. Is being at the upper end of Tempo and lower end of Threshold HR the “sweet spot”?
Not sure if you can gauge if sweet spot is set too high or too low based on heart rate
This is a key and valid criticism. My fundamental issue with plan builder is that I’ll train and do SSBMV into Sustained Power MV and then have a two week pre-specialty and that void is filled with… drumroll… the first two weeks of SSB1MV, which is a tremendous step back in TiZ, TSS, etc. I understand the need for a break periodically, but that is a significant limitation for plan builder (and probably any software).
The advantage of a human coach is the ability to individualize those plans based on strengths, weaknesses, TTE, progress, the weather, race cancellations, “life”… and I doubt any automated software will ever be a viable proxy for that. Hence why I hate general plans from coaches… as others point out, you can get pretty good training from TR for less. Seems a coach wastes his/her time writing training plans for all these days with all the competition out there. The coaching market is individualized.
1 Like
