Iāve been trying to do one or two SS rides per week, plus a longer Z2 ride (3x bike/week) for the last 4-5 months. Just now getting to 55 min TIZ.
I am time-crunched, and as of a couple of months ago Iām also starting to do a little running and a little swimming, which of course will make bike improvements slower; but even when only biking, I wasnāt going to get from 40 min to 90 of SS in 3 months!
I went from 5x10 to 3x30 in about five weeks. That said, Iāve done 3x30 before at a little less power than right now. And 3x30 took a hell of a lot out of me yesterdayā¦ None of this is easy. If it is, odds are your FTP is a bit too low! 3x30 is a serious amount of work.
Took me just 2 weeks to go from an FTP test to doing 3x30 @ 90%. I went 3 x 20 ā 4 x 20 ā 3 x 30.
Main reason I succeeded so fast though is I switched to a 20min FTP test instead of the Ramp test I used to do. Guess the Ramp test really overestimates my FTP making me ride too close to threshold when doing SST. Back then I needed a lot more time to progress onto longer SST efforts.
Neither should be true. Taking into account TRās āRPE Scaleā, Sweet Spot should be a 7/10, requiring a āmoderateā effort. It shouldnāt be easy but neither should it be a complete slogfest. That said, everyone will feel a major RPE difference between the SS end zones, especially if you adhere to fascat levels of 84-97% (13% vs 6% with TR).
Also, doing SS work during early pre-season base might be more difficult (RPE 8?) since muscular endurance etc might be reduced vs in-season levels. During the summer I cranked out 1x150min but thereās no way I could do that right now; power is there, duration needs work.
Most would be surprised at how fast the body adapts to SS work. You shouldnāt need to inch along to see substantial time gains.
:
As with both examples above, an incorrect FTP seems to be a major culprit in correct SS work. Thatās one bonus of doing a long TTE FTP test, if you can do 45mins at 100% FTP, it helps a TON psychologically when it comes to doing longer SS intervals at say 90%.
Nice work! In the summer, I had a similar level of progression. I think the zone setting is the main thing though for holding these for longer and longer durations. I remember being in the alps and one day blowing up for a 20min effort, but then the day after held an effort only 7 watts less for over 90 mins with a really steady HR. Interesting stuff.
TRās RPE scale is a poor guide to applied broadly, and more specifically, without the including the length of time over which one holds that power (i.e. TiZ)
Kudos to @Fritso on his/her accomplishment. This type of progressive SS training is exactly what Tim Cusick guides his athletes that is sooooo effective for endurance riders. and +1 @kurt.braeckel accomplishment and comments regarding this challenge.
Again, youāre applying your own experiences to everyone. I have riders who started with 4x8 and it was as hard as anything theyāve done. But 3x30 IS a good deal of work for most riders. Iām not saying itās soul crushing, but most will be tiredā¦ I did strength work after my 3x30 and recovered fine from it. 3x30 on a trainer is more than many can handle early on. 7 out of 10 for 90 minutes is a lot of work.
All of what you say about FTP set too high, I get and agree with. But again 6 or 7 out of 10 for long enough is challenging, period. āLong enoughā depends on the rider. And I disagree with any approach that would have someone inexperienced progress from 40 to 90 in two weeks.
I just caution people from mistaking n=1 with what should be broadly applicable.
My experience and physiology is not that different from the TR collective (or any other cyclist):
According to Cogganās chart thingy, Iām an ok Cat. 3 with terrible short power.
Iāve only done structured training for 2 out of last 3 years (1 year of Z2).
Iām 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 againā¦thatās only delivered me to āaverageā.
I donāt know the makeup of TRās user base, but you seem to be saying that youāre average for a racer but thatās not the same thing as being average as a cyclist.
Iām 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.
Iām not quite sure what we are even discussing at this point. Iāll just leave it at if you donāt think 3x30 is the least bit challenging, Iād submit thereās a good chance youāre undertraining or undertesting, or youāve 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 youāve done something. Hell even that FasCat coaching chart you posted doesnāt show anyone doing 90 min until theyāre training like a Cat2 or long-course triathlete, especially in December.
Check out the āBell curve of TR usersā thread. Sure, Iām a bit on the right side of the bell curve but then again, Iāve only done one (1) race in the last 20 years soā¦am I a racer or just a cyclist who likes to push?
I guess itās my world view that people have the ability do a lot more than they think they can. Iāll reserve any future enthusiasm for myself.
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 isnāt 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 donāt apply n=1 to everyone. Hopefully people reading this thread are able to discern that.
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. Itās 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.
I didnāt state HV; TR doesnāt rec HV to anyone (except the 0.1%).
Try the popular MV progression which everyone gets slotted into:
3x12@ 85% ā> 3x30@ 90% (w/ breaks).
:
As per TR:
Our RPE scale is based largely on Matt Fitzgeraldās
Guess heās wrong.
Also per TR:
TrainerRoad uses a 7-zone system based on the research of Dr. Andrew Coggan.
Cogganās (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 canāt do 20min @ SS then youāve got bigger problems.
Iāve questioned this many times before ā if TR uses Cogganās 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 TRās own fabricated durations.
Leads me to believe that TRās proprietary SS system is based on higher compliance which drives higher retention which drives higher profit. Iād 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 isnāt 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 donāt eat enough carbs. Maybe people donāt have a properly developed aerobic system. Maybe people donāt 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 āfastā rather than merely āfasterā.
Agree with you that itās pretty straightforward to push interval duration faster than 12 weeks, and of course its dependent on the other work being done as you mentioned.
How can the application of one n=1 be a wrong, yet the application of a different n=1 be correct?
It doesnāt matter if itās your first day on a bike or a have 10 years of racing and training behind you, when you join TR youāre 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.
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 isnāt easy, its a bit of a moonshot IMHO, and why I think its taking so long for TR to introduce āthing 1.ā 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.
Iām not defending TRs plans. They are what they are. I donāt use them. I have, and they worked for a little while, but I believe I can do better. Lots of coaches donāt prescribe general plansā¦ but that is TRās business model!