Sweet Spot ==> Core or Pre-Build
For the training volume:
Low ==> Primary
Medium ==> Supplemental
High ==> Elite
2 Likes
LV to Social Rider
MV to Amateur Racer
HV to Elite/Pro Athlete
LV to Ideal Base
MV to Good Base
HV to Tough Base
IMO you’re going to see a tendency to go for whatever sounds like the “mostest”, whether you call it HV, “elite” or just list them by hours. Brains are generally better at short term rather than long term priorities, and I think that’s sort of the way we’ve been taught to think about fitness and self-improvement. I appreciate TR’s discourse in that regard, but I think ultimately the issue goes a little beyond them.
I do like the idea of denoting plans based upon their level of structure- something like a “flexible” plan that can work around outdoor/group rides etc presents its own value that isn’t tied to it being comparatively “less”
2 Likes
Agreed - seems odd to start as they have started doing without any intro, jumping straigh in. Just a few words would be sufficient. Please.
1 Like
Low- weekend warrior
Med- experienced
High- elite
1 Like
Ok, there seems a lot of things thrown around here for new names. Here is my take
Three overriding main thoughts:
- The main thing in naming should be real clarity around what they are for and where they focus. To help people filter between plans. (So avoid subjective names like mild, hard and tough, as they would not apply to all).
- For goodness sake, does no one look at the plans, read the description and then look at the mix of workouts!!! Sorry, but I would argue the names should help you filter between them and drive into the detail, to assess what they are doing for you.
- This is what I call “the 10,000 and six word problem”. You get this in “Values statements” on posters behind receptions in an office. You take 1000 or 10000 words of thought and conversation, and compress them into just a few words (assume six) and then expect everyone else to ‘mind read’ all teh subtleties and thought that went on behind them to construct the words. You have to explain what the real deeper meaning and importance of them is. The plan name is merely there to provide a holder/signpost for the rest of the detail.
More detailed thoughts:
4) Base build and speciality make immense sense as an over all framework (and I don’t recall anyone on the pod cast suggesting they be changed)
5) Low vol, mid vol, and high volume are all extremely descriptive and unambiguous. (and if you change these then you’ll need to go back and edit all the podcasts where you say "for goodness sake avoid High volume, and even mid volume, because consistency is important - and if in doubt do Low volume!) 
6) Most of the later build and speciality phase plans are pretty descriptive and don’t need changing.
7) The problem seems to lie in Sweet spot base 1 and 2. Most of the other Base 1 and 2 training plans seem to be quite descriptive. The issue that you are raising was calling the sweet spot base plans something that suggested it was not all sweet spot. On the other hand, if you called it anything else, unless you explain it is Z2 AND SS work (or start talking about the three zone model which would just confuse things) you are in a verbal mess. Base and sweet spot sound right to me.
[An aside: The 3 zone model calls such plans “Threshold plans”, so SS is better. When I do LV SS base 1 and I look at my training base % hours per week in intervals.icu through the base phase I am typically getting Threshold (70% Z1/2 30% Z3/4) because I am doing a load of extra Z2 work at the moment. However, that is because I am adding loads of Zone 2 training to get to 9-11 hrs per week on top of a low volume plan. When I move to SS Base LV 2 you introduce Z5 work, that will declare I am doing Pyramidal work.]
In other words, despite all these ‘helpful’ suggestions I am not sure there is a real clear unambiguous, simple renaming of these sweet spot base plans, that in itself would not still make me read the (censored) instructions and detailed descriptions to make sure I understood what they were actually trying to do
2 Likes
It goes further than that though, doesn’t it. Reading this and some other suggestions, along with the recent Pod. People need to be guided into the correct plan, that may not actually equal the amount of hours available.
i.e. say 10hr availability, pretty good for most working cyclists. They should probably be on MV and add in endurance (various ways suggested in Pod). vs being steered into a plan that is full to their availability.
I agree with you, take out the ego.
Three random examples.
Tickler
Goldilocks
Overload
I’d disagree on that one. The term volume is interpreted differently by users.
1 Like
Agree with you, it is not volume. Volume is the hours of cycling you do in a week. The TR plans start with # of interval days and number of endurance days, believe it currently is something like this:
- LV is 3 interval days
- MV is 4 interval days and 1 endurance day
- HV is 4 interval days and 2 endurance days
I keep hearing “LV and add endurance workouts” - what if you select an LV plan for 3 days of intervals, and add 2 days of other riding for a total of 10 hours? Clearly that is 10 hours of volume.
Volume is not the number of structured workouts in your plan. In my definition, structure includes endurance rides (endurance ride ‘structure’ is duration).
From a wider coaching point-of-view, ‘structure’ includes manipulating training load thru a combination of intensity/duration/load targets for endurance days, interval days, and group riding days. The total amount of time you spend riding per week is volume.
2 Likes
Thought during the section where they touched upon gravel racing that Nate started to say that Century would be his recommended plan. But then the conversation shifted. And then he started to say they should rename the Century plan.
Curious is there was more to what he was saying. @IvyAudrain ?
1 Like
just wondering, wasn’t the old SSB HV all sweet spot?
No, 5 interval days and one low aerobic/endurance as shown here Plan builder - too many “difficult” days - #11 by WindWarrior
1 Like
Hey! Sory I just want to clarify your question:
Are you asking if there was more information on recommended plans for a certain racing discipline?
Do you have a specific scenario with Plan Builder you’d like to run by me for a recommendation?
Let me know, I’m happy to help!
1 Like
I was just really curious what Nate was getting at.
My A events for next year will be 5-6 hour gravel rides with LOTS of rolling hills, but no sustained climbs. Forum reading in the past led me to believe that rolling road race is a good choice for that. And I think the podcast discussion reaffirmed that idea.
Was just really curious, thought Nate was almost suggesting that century was a good training option for gravel racing. Then he mentioned something about needing to rename the century plan, and then the conversation shifted directions.
Just trying to avoid any training plan FOMO as I head into next year. Lol
If I recall correctly I’ve heard TR state climbing road race is good for people who want to race the longer event. Gravel/ century plan is for people who want to have fun with great fitness.
I did climbing road race for BWR wafer which was 4 hours in length for me. I felt I picked the right plan going that route. Just my 2 cents 
1 Like
If they were 10 minute segments…yes intro waste of time…but on a long podcast with no intro…it is missing something
1 Like
Huh, I find it completely weird. Really cuts into the friendly, family vibe I’ve come to expect from the podcast after all these years. Even though I know it’s intentional, it completely throws me off. But if I’m in the minority, so be it.
5 Likes
Just stopped by to say “please bring the intro back”…
6 Likes
Didn’t read all 80 posts so forgive me if this has come up.
Rather than “renaming” plans, what I would like to see from TR are plans based on available time with progressions that make sense. We know that time limitations to train are both: (a) major limiting reality for most people with so called ‘normal’ lives and (b) that more time in saddle is one of the best correlates to reaching your potential as a cyclist. Note - I am saying reach your potential, not reach some artificial number like 4 w/kg or 5 w/kg as those artificial numbers may or may not be a possibility for an individual. But we do want to get riders as close to 100% as possible.
Rather than SSB, Trad Base, Polarized, etc, with LV, MV, HV options (which are either 3 or 4 hard days a week with endurance added to make up the time), what I would like to see is for TR to develop “plans” which they feel are optimal based on how much time they have to commit to the sport. Don’t just add two hours of endurance on Friday to MV and call it HV. Actually workout the best way to spend those extra hours. I’d also like to see BASE programs in the 18-24 week duration range.
For example:
TR BASE 5 could be for the rider with very limited time to spend each week. These riders want to ride, they love their bikes, but life doesn’t allow more time. A base plan for riders in the group would have far more intensity than riders with more time. Five hours a week is still enough time for 3, 4 or 5 good sessions.
TR BASE 15 could be for riders without significant time limitations. These riders will benefit from time in saddle and ability to take benefits from the longer Zone 2 work (which is not only currently in vogue, but works darn well too).
Build, Speciality, etc can all follow a similar model.
Doing this has a few obvious benefits:
-
TR can brand the plans and put their stamp on it. There are only so many ways to train and people keep reinventing them. So take your swing, incorporate what is known and call it your own.
-
TR can use AT to modify the plans and personally them. Maybe if the data are deep and varied enough to train on (train the AI not the rider I mean). If a rider who cannot handle 15 hours chooses 15 hours, have the AI flag it and alert the rider that there could be a better solution. Heck, go crazy and offer a quick consultation from a coach and get that rider on the right plan.
-
Rather than forcing everyone to choose from what are essentially intensity driven plans for time crunched (5-7 hour) riders, TR could be more expansive and inclusive of more riders (* see below)
-
The big bonus is optimizing the training for both the amount of time, the needed intensity and the rider goals.
Take home is with a slightly different approach, TR can better own the training space and seriously differentiate themselves. Instead of offering a bunch of SST plan varieties to the rider to choose (guess) from, TR can say: We’ve read the science, we’ve done the math, we’ve made the plans and we have the AI – Input your goal and our platform will make you the best rider you can be.
(*) I suspect TR has crunched the numbers and found that the number of TR riders (use-cases) who consistently train more than 8 hours a week is very, very small and not worth spending time and resource on. That is a guess, but 8 hours a week is a significant commitment. Riders with more time are likely too few to bother with.
$0.02 and Happy Holidays TR Team and Forum Dwellers
-Darth
PS - Bring the intro back.
8 Likes
Yeah, there are several ways to push this depending how far TR wants to reset thing. Short of the total revamp you are proposing, updated names are still useful in the current term because many are less than accurate or helpful in the present state.
If we push to a more “ideal” solution, we’ve touched on in various threads before. I offered an alternate approach in the Volume thread linked above that is parallel in some ways to what you suggest:
Adding in options like preferred “Base” approach and/or training methodology (Pyramidal, Polarized, Threshold, etc.) could also be useful, especially if you also offer it with respect to potential training phases.
But with programming like this, the more options you have, the more complex it gets. And considering how different this is from the current state, it would likely take some effort and time to rebuild in this or any other dynamic approach. I love a more tunable and unique approach like this could be, but also don’t expect it to be an easy or quick task.
6 Likes