Ultimate Guide to Choosing the Right Training Plan, and More – Ask a Cycling Coach 394

@Jonathan lately on Spotify it cuts off all of the introductions and it makes the podcast start seem odd, and you dont know who is on the podcast unless you recognize voices


I am wondering if this is being done on purpose. Because same thing is happening through Overcast. I have not listened to today’s yet, but last few have dived right in.

Are you guys talking about something like the prior days with:

  • Welcome to the Ask a Cycling Coach podcast, presented by TrainerToad. With us today are Nate Pearson, TrainerRoad’s CEO, Ivy Audrain…

and the other guests and such as a quick primer on the episode? If so, I agree that it does seem odd with them jumping right in without even a minimal intro.


Great podcast. Has me thinking about that 40k TT plan and sounds it’s what I want to implement early next year. Thanks guys.


Yes, lately on Spotify that part is completely missing


For renaming the Sweet Spot Base Plans, why not call them “TrainerRoad Base 1” and “TrainerRoad Base 2” I think that would help differentiate it from other base plans, Traditional, Polarized etc.


Pretty sure it’s being skipped altogether. Even on the livestream, they’ve been cutting the intro. I complained about it in another post. It’s really jarring! If I’m a new listener, I’d be confused. Who’s who, etc.?


I’m not quite sure I’ve got the secret sauce yet, but I think something more on lines of “Time Crunched Base” might be good. I think I’m going in the right direction, but it doesn’t sound catchy enough yet, and probably not the right connotations. Maybe someone can expand off that. Maybe like “Time Effective Base”… still doesn’t sound catchy enough.


Keep in mind the need to differentiate between the SSB vs Traditional Base that TR offers. When you look at days and time, the current Volume steps align closely between SSB & TB. As such, I don’t think “Time Crunched” captures the unique aspects between them.



Yeah, but low volume traditional base would be a joke. I don’t think that would be an effective plan at all, and not what people think of as a real traditional base.

Those are TR’s traditional base options, not what the general cycling public would think of as traditional base (except high volume, that is starting to be legit traditional base)…

Also, been a long time… but I swear back in the OG podcast days they pretty much said they don’t recommend anyone doing low volume traditional base, and I believe they even said mid volume would probably not be right for most people. Not enough intensity for the time. So it is a time effective base plan.

1 Like
  • TB LV may well be perfect for some people. Common suggestions in the past were people returning from injury and long illness. And regardless of who may or may not benefit from any volume of any plan, the reality is that they exist and can be used by anyone.

  • Add in the fact that even MV & HV essentially match between TB & SSB for time, while SSB has more rides per week. “Time Crunched” as a name is not actually capturing the difference at any of the volume levels.


I’m not sure I agree. The main benefit of they are trying to cultivate is trying to match the fitness level of a high volume traditional base in less time. They have said in the OG podcast days that was the driving factors for going towards the “sweet spot base”. So, literally is supposed to be a time efficient way to drive fitness.

We want to just get right into it for y’all and not waste your time with intros. :slight_smile:


Yep, we’re intentionally doing that. We’ve gotten feedback that the intro wastes time, and we agree. We just want to jump right into it for y’all.


I think existing listeners are used to the intros so the lack of the intros feels noticeably different. Testing this on new listeners, they don’t find it weird and appreciate that we get right into the topics.


Appreciate all the feedback on naming options for Sweet Spot Base!

Open to any and all suggestions from y’all, so drop them in here please :slight_smile:

I mean those people can use the skip function, but OK. I think that for people that are new to the Podcasts it can throwm them off and never listen again. It’s like walking in and not introducing yourself


I am thrilled that you are considering name adjustments. We’ve touched on related issues back to the beginning of the forum. Along with the addition of “Base” & “Build” to the appropriate POL plans for instant recognition, I think there can be some changes for the better. :smiley:

Sweet Spot Base ideas

  • Pyramidal Base, Part 1 / Part 2

    • Or use whatever is the most accurate description related to Time in Zone and/or Training Methodology that drives the plans. This could prove problematic when we look at the High Volume SSB that deviates notably from the Low & Mid Volumes.
    • But maybe that is a good thing as it might be appropriate to rename SSB HV to something that “scares” people away or at least properly indicates its special use case.
  • High Intensity Base, Part 1 / Part 2

    • Seems this might work for all volumes depending on whether we consider SS in particular as “High Intensity” as some people do (though not everyone does).
  • Non-Traditional Base, Part 1 / Part 2

    • As a counter to Traditional Base, but it’s likely a terrible idea as it almost has a negative connotation from the ‘Non’ aspect. But figured it should at least be stated.
  • TrainerRoad Foundation or TrainerRoad Core

    • Something more unique and steps away from ‘base’ specifically. Could lead to confusion too, but aims to “brand” it as much as help separate it from Traditional Base or the other styles on offer elsewhere.
  • Sweet Spot Base 2 (This may benefit from a unique name vs SSB1 since this is quite different from the first stage.)

    • Build Prep, Build Primer or Pre-Build

Sustained Power Build idea

  • Long Power Build
    • Common use of abbreviations on the forum leads to confusion between Short Power Build and Sustained Power Build as both are abbreviated SPB.
    • I mention the need to use stuff like ShPB or SuPB, when people post ambiguous 3-letter versions. New wording that gives a unique abbreviation between at least Build Plans would be nice for this small use case.

General Build idea

  • Mixed Power Build
    • Kind of meant to align with the Short Power Build / Long Power Build rename to indicate that this is a blend of the other two ends or effort duration.

Enthusiast (Specialty)

  • Maintenance and Time Crunch 30/45 plans hide in plain sight here, but get overlooked by too many people IMO. We commonly have to share them with people asking for exactly what they offer.
    • Part of me wonders if this needs to be in it’s own category outside of Specialty to make it more visible. Not sure who starts looking for plans like this in Specialty and even the “Enthusiast” tag seems to miss the mark a bit for me. Again, almost a negative connotation that these are “less than…” somehow.
    • I don’t have a specific suggestion for a name other than to put them somewhere other than Specialty. It’s a phase that we know some people don’t even get to as they repeat Base & Build while skipping Specialty.

I think there’s a middle ground that doesn’t cause me and others to swipe back to see if I missed something. Like “Hey, it’s the Ask a Cycling Coach podcast. Congrats Ivy on your 2nd place…”
Agree that there’s no need to introduce everyone and for each to say hello.


Are we really such Time Crunched Athletes that we can’t spare 30 seconds to say “Hi”?