When I started using TR and AT, I thought the workouts were too easy. Certainly no where close to HIIT. I manually adjusted them fairly quickly, to higher levels, but they were still too easy. I thought AT would adjust to this, but it didn’t, even if listing workouts as “easy”.
Turns out, I just sucked at the first ramp I took.
Once I retested the ramp, I got a result from AT that was closer to what I expected. I still don’t find AT does much to my plan and I need to manually adjust my workouts, but the levels are closer to correct than in the beginning and I just manually adjust as needed. I do think it’s a feature that’s been over-promised and under-delivered.
Well done for putting it out there, I have a coach that requires me to train at a new FTP level every 4 weeks, which I do and have not missed one since I started the program 8 months ago, I just look at it as part of the process and have grown to trust the process.
Each 4 weeks I train to a new FTP level, all part of the process.
Best wishes with it and would welcome a follow up post to let us all know how you go.
One thing to consider is that just because you can do longer intervals in a zone, doesn’t mean your FTP has gone up. As you get higher and higher in your “potential”, you can improve “time to exhaustion” without necessarily seeing an FTP increase. In your case, since you have had some time off, you are probably a quicker “responder” to the stimulus, which is the case for newer members, but it’s not inherently an AT problem.
Hi @IvyAudrain and @Cory.Rood, similar to the OP, my SS progression had moved up to the mid 9s so as suggested by your comments, I raised my FTP by 5%. Progression levels readjusted and SS is now 7.5. Is that about right or should it be readjusting to a lower number?
In a similar vein, on the AT live Q&A in early November, Nate and Jon both acknowledged many athletes don’t like assessments.
Nate said that, for assessment haters, when you get up to around PL10, either ramp test or manually adjust FTP up a few percent. AT will lower PLs for workouts after.
How “slightly” should my PLs drop @IvyAudrain? Is there a range you should be in for the PLs between ramp tests? For example, should each next ramp test take me down to a 3-5 SS PL for SS Base and then should I test again when it gets above 8 as @Cory.Rood suggests regardless of when the Ramp Test comes up in my plan?
When I first started TR and AT a few weeks ago with Sweet Spot Base, I was at 1.0s as would be expected. By the beginning of this week 4, I’m doing SS workouts in the 9s because the SS workouts prescribed by AT were easy to moderate. After reading this post, I did another ramp test which showed no change in my FTP. So I manually bumped up my FTP by 5% and the SS PL dropped from mid 9s to 7.5. Should I raise my FTP more so the PL drops to 5 or so or something else?
Also, how do you ever get your FTP up if the workouts prescribed by AT never get you to or above your FTP threshold as has been happening in the first 4 weeks of my SS Base program? I’m not asking to do VO2 max workouts but why not Over/Unders, group ride type rides with stochastic power changes with many well above threshold and other workouts that push you up above threshold if only for short periods of time?
I’d retest when you go into the 8s of sweet spot or threshold. In fact, that’s what I’ll do this weekend. A ramp test doesn’t add much fatigue. And I have a longer endurance ride scheduled anyway, so that’s a perfect combo.
I wouldn’t raise much more than 5 % without giving it some time. Keep in mind that all workouts are getting harder, not just sweet spot workouts. And perhaps your progression levels for, say, threshold or VO2max aren’t as high.
I’m gonna have to slightly disagree with the idea that getting 8 and above suggests a need to increase threshold. I really don’t think it’s a good rule of thumb, at least in my case, because you can get really good at sweet spot without increasing threshold. I got to 10 in 2021 and am currently at 7.7 and will easily be above 8 soon and my threshold isn’t any higher (well, I did just recently bump up 2% manually, but not as a result of SSB or anything). Sure, if your HR on long SS intervals is dropping over time then maybe that’s true, but in my case I find sweet spot levels are just related to the muscular endurance being better for long efforts as opposed to any real increases in threshold. I think we need to dispel the notion of high progression level being a surefire indicator of threshold increase
A really important nuance and one of the reasons one shouldn’t take “FTP” too seriously as a metric of fitness. It certainly is not a “crucial” metric as a recent TR article stated, otherwise their entire system would not have had as much success as it has.
And even though ones FTP may not change, the increased time to exhaustion at threshold efforts, and any other zone for that matter, indicates an objective measure of increased fitness. And PLs are a pretty solid way of tracking that. TR should emphasize that rather than continuing to over emphasize the importance of knowing FTP.
I started SSB I LV at a level 10 sweet spot. My threshold was around level 5. That threshold number was good for hard, but not very hard progression of workouts in threshold tagged days (1x per week in LV from what I am seeing). But the SS ones I’m getting are ridiculous cause there isn’t many 60 min ones in the catalog that can push up the PL at the desired ramp rate. I’ve resorted to just picking workouts and adjusting the percentages up from same 90-92 on sweet spot to 92-94. I usually want to do 90-120 min workouts as well. It serves the purpose. For that matter, I wish AT would just scale up existing workouts to raise their PL rather than picking new ones. Some do this, but it isn’t as consistent as it could be.
Anyways, I agree what you are saying in principle. But there are implicit assumptions with how the system is built that makes practical implementation a little nuanced.
I haven’t listened to the recent ones so can’t say. But I just saw a FB post from TR this week on “FTP is a crucial metric”. So the message is still more conflated than it could be. And current discussion on the forum indicates continued confusion over it.
I’m not talking about the recent podcasts, I’m talking about the ones that launched AT and explain it. They’re very clear in those.
I do get your point about the advertising though. The complaints all stem from people who read the 30 second advertisements and don’t dig into the podcasts and discussions, and that confusion definitely needs to be alleviated in a simple to digest way by TR
well I don’t test, I have a good feel of where I am +/- a few based on my workout history, HR, RPE, and not until recently did I increase my FTP by 2% after not increasing it at all in 2021.
