Wanting an "ultra" HV plan option

This has been discussed before:

I wonder if an “ultra plan” lacks enough science around the question of “how much?”. I don’t recall seeing many studies on ultracycling so on that basis it must be somewhat harder to prescribe quantities of work. My coaches and I generally looked at target events and then worked out progressively longer duration “long” rides leading up to those.

I’ve always done outdoor high volume training for ultra stuff until the last few years where I’ve moved to Trainerroad and much lower volume (I got sick of dealing with UK drivers). I’ve gained a higher FTP and I don’t seem to be any worse at ultra events but I have been doing very high volume for a good 10 years already so my base is pretty huge.

I’m not the guy that’s going to do 6+ hour rides on a turbo though so I’d almost always supplement TR plans with longer outdoor rides. So even if there was some kind of ultra plan I’d probably ignore it.

1 Like

I wonder the same thing. I think that this would be a key element for AI in training right? I find the POL plan to be a little lackluster for in-season performance, but it’s certainly a start. I would like to see some hybrid model that uses that polarized framework and combines it with the build/specialty intensities and focus for working sessions.
I have a reasonably strong working knowledge of proper periodization and have historically modified my plans accordingly, but I have high hopes for AT being able to take a little of that work out of the process. Despite the intellectual understanding, as athletes, we don’t always make the rational choices i.e. non-functional overreaching. If there was a good basis of data and trust in the protocol, an experienced athlete might feel inclined to hand over that trust in the adaptations purported by the platform.

1 Like

So I do want to draw the distinction between ultra distance preparation and what I am really getting at here. While this might capture ultra-distance athletes, my use of the word “ultra” is more of a elevation of what TR currently calls “high volume.” In my opinion, the high volume plans do not capture what many trained cyclists consider as high volume. If you look at your P/1/2 cyclists for instance, their volumes tend to be between 15 and 20 hours in the in-season. I think most cyclists that have been around consider something above 12 hours per week as “high volume” and the closest plans to that benchmark are their base plans in POL or SSBHV1/2. Without reinventing their existing nomenclature, that was my reason for using the distinction of “ultra.” Perhaps the term extra or super would be a better indication of what I am getting at.
The reason I call this out is because I think that the “ultra” community is a much smaller niche than what I would call the experienced competitive athlete. Hell, even your strong “old guys” in the typical local cycling community usually put in big hours during the in-season and following the HV TR plans to a “T” would actually result in a substantial loss in fitness over time without augmentation, not to say they wouldn’t see a performance benefit in other ways i.e. repeatability, efficiency, or even FTP, but general fitness, durability, and endurance would wane.
I think your example calls out a very good point. A developing athlete needs more volume than someone who has a large base built over years. As racers for instance upgrade, they put in big miles to build that aerobic ability and repeatability as events get longer and competition becomes more steep. After years of doing that however, those high performing athletes can certainly do more with less. You get those guys who are “off the couch” 4 W/Kg, but that baseline didn’t come without that initial investment.
I also think there is something to be said about the in-season and base plans. To your point, I am not parking my butt on the trainer for 4-5 hours every weekend. I might throw one of those in every 4-6 weeks during the winter season, but there is a huge physiological drain from being in that fixed position for diminishing returns. I don’t see as much value in 15 hours of indoor trainer riding when it will likely lead to excessive discomfort and burnout for a high proportion of riders. There is certainly an equivalency factor between indoor and outdoor riding to be considered, the tradeoff being efficiency indoors vs critical bike handling skills outdoors.
Ideally, I would like to see TR use outside functionality, AT, and plan builder as a backdrop to create more customizability. The user would be able to plug in the number of hours per week they can spend in the saddle outside of prep time, recovery, strength work etc. and then plug in their availability during the days of the week. There are training platforms out there that do this type of thing and periodize around the end user. I would hope that would be the next frontier for TR.

2 Likes

Yes, TR’s use of high volume is not standard. High volume starts around 12-15 hours per week.

2 Likes

I use a low volume plan just for intensity, and do most of all my activities outside. Honestly, I don’t even do all the TR workouts, even though there are only three a week. I skip most of the weekend workouts. Would I rather do a 7 hours hike Saturday and 7 hour ride Sunday, or a 1.5 hour workout? I would rather go outside!

I am averaging 20 hours per week running and riding. I seem to bounce between 400-700 TSS on the bike, TR doesn’t count my running.

2 Likes

One aspect missing from this is that TR specifically altered the weekend HV rides because of low compliance.

They had used long rides on the weekends, but not many completed them, so they adapted the plans to fit what people would adhere to.

This is one of the reasons, IMO, that TR gets criticized for “too much intensity”.

But if you are doing a HV plan, there is already a crap-ton of intensity in it…additional intensity would likely lead to burnout for most athletes. If you want a Mega-HV plan, I would suggest just adding in volume as you can.

5 Likes

This is an excellent point! I suspect this happens in a lot of cases, I believe Jonathan had made a reference to doing this himself. Riders will select a mid volume plan for intensity work and build around it. What I think many people would like to see is a high volume week plan that has some deliverables for those hours. It may seem trite, but perhaps calling out those long weekend rides with “During the ride complete 2X20 minutes at 90%” or “On climbs rotate pedal technique at 70RPM.”
There are some solid plans on TrainingPeaks, for example, that provide this type of direction to developing athlete. Far be it for me to put the onus on TR to have all the value they create plus render plans that can cost $100 or more on their own obsolete; however, Nate was insistent on plugging AT as a replacement for a coach in terms of the planning element. I think there is some work to be done to get to that point, but the framework to do it is there.
I think if they polled their user base as well as prospective customers through a marketing survey as to whether a high volume plan would be of interest, they would almost have to map it out first. My thought is if you just ask people if they want a plan with more hours, the response would be lackluster, but if the plans were pitched as a holistic approach to training geared toward those who have the time to commit, I suspect the feedback would be compelling enough to substantiate the pursuit.

2 Likes

I know that this is why several years back the high volume rides on weekends were ditched, no one is sitting on the trainer for 4 hours… well almost no one right? But this was before the outside integration. Do I see compliance for winter/base for northern hemisphere folks? Nope, not in the least, but for build/specialty, I think compliance would be higher as people can now link those rides via their computers to their TR workout. They’ve done a good job with the outside integration to not be ridiculous with 3 minute oscillations of 10 watt increments that you might find on an endurance session, they just block those together and it might be 20 minutes in this range, or 45 minutes in that. They could publish a 4 hour ride that might spend the majority of the ride in your endurance zone and popping in some sweet spot or even threshold efforts to keep things fresh.
Suffice it to say, they closed the door on the long workouts with good reason, but perhaps a revisit with different variables is in order.

2 Likes

I am pretty sure you recognize the fact that you are a “rare breed”. TR is set up for 90% (more?) of the people out there, which is where 90% of the money is going to come from. Chasing that last 10% is going to be a ton of effort for small gain, just doesn’t make business sense to please people like us. Luckily my self coaching over the years was really effective, and a season of paying for a coach proved I was doing things right and he helped me learn a bit more, which is why I am more self coached just using TR workouts themselves.

I am guessing with the amount of saddle time you have, you probably have the experience to succeed beyond what any TR training plan can do for you. You just need to take what you need from TR and adapt it to your needs.

4 Likes

Three days ago I did my first TR outside workout since it was introduced. Wasn’t a great experience.

Echo -3 a tempo session, main set:

  • 6 minutes at 211 watts. (80% FTP)
  • 6 minutes at 224 watts. (85%)
  • 6 minutes at 198 watts. (75%)
  • 6 minutes at 211 watts.
  • 6 minutes at 224 watts.
  • 6 minutes at 198 watts.
  • 6 minutes at 211 watts.
  • 6 minutes at 224 watts.

They still have some work to do. I’d rather do FasCat or Velocious or CTS plans if my training was focused outside. Those are all sensibly designed for 8 hours and up, and the structured versions on TP do a better job with bike computer and post-ride analysis.

1 Like

These apocryphal old guys aren’t training indoors, so they don’t need the same hours to maintain or improve.

Hey can you expand upon this? Would love to know what specifically you considered sub-optimal about the outside workout experience specifically that is something we can improve upon (ie not a imitation of the hardware interface).

1 Like

Hey Ivy, a few details here: Adaptive Training Closed Beta Update - #1066 by bbarrera and the follow-on posts. Ask in that thread if you want more. Its Monday and busy morning at work, however I would be happy to take time later (next 24 hours) to provide additional feedback.

Thanks, I do remember seeing that post and the advice that followed to just set up a custom screen for your Garmin with the fields you’d like, which for sure holds up.

Feel free to expand upon post-ride analysis shortcomings if you’d like. No pressure at all. Thanks!

Do you think we are that rare though? I mean sure it’s anecdotal, but damn near everyone who is competing in my local scene and a healthy number of people I follow globally, are putting in a good amount of volume for at least part of the year. I’m certainly willing to acknowledge my own error and say maybe there’s a selection bias going on, but my community is rather small and everyone is at least tangentially aware of the majority of racers in the scene. We are linked up on Strava clubs, and you’re not making top 20 in less than ~300 miles/15 hours per week.
Your point is well taken, I don’t think a business should chase a fool’s errand surrounding a small niche (I don’t think my dollar is worth more than the next guy’s), but I can’t help but wonder if they would attract more riders with the availability. I don’t think the platform supported it before Plan Builder, Outside integration, and even AT existed. Very few people, even us high volume folks, want 15 hours of trainer rides. I’ve done SSBHV and THAT sucks! It’s only 9-11 hours per week and by the end of the block I want to shove my own head in a toilet from sheer boredom. Straight endurance on POL isn’t much better. Yet tell me I have to do 20 hours of outside or indoor/outdoor riding, I would do so gladly if work would kindly kick rocks.
Wishful thinking I suppose, but I think at minimum, it should be a part of the conversation, they don’t want to hand the niche of high-volume riders that wants a low friction, turn-key experience over to TP or even Zwift. That niche typically thinks nothing of scrounging up good money if they see value, I am already getting the platform at a steal (original pricing) and have a pretty strong understanding of training fundamentals, if they told me I could pay another 100 bucks a year for such an enhancement, I wouldn’t think twice. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

This is a great thread and I really like the way @Sarah stays on point in her responses adding more commentary and detail to support her argument.

7 Likes

I probably missed some of the tangents in this thread, so I apologize if I’m not exactly on topic.

My initial thought reading through this gets stuck on what I think TR’s mission statement is as a company, “we aim to make you a faster rider.” If I’m TR, I guess I’d ask, “are you completing the workout plans we offer with consistency? Are you getting faster? Better at efforts?” I understand (maybe incorrectly) TR thinks their current workout plans and future path (AI/ML) is inline with their mission statement.

I might have missed or did not see where your idea for super HV plans align with “making you faster.” I heard it as you are asking for a 15 hour a week plan for the convenience, different from “making you faster.”

Am I understanding your thoughts correctly? If so, my priors are TR users’ compliance sucks on the HV plans which tells TR adding longer plans isn’t going to make riders faster.

This could all change when the AI bugs get fixed and all the outside rides you and your peers do can be confirmed as a better (different) way to make riders faster.

It’s am interesting point, I don’t doubt for one second that many fast athletes are logging those hours at all. I think the trouble is that how they make up the additional volume is highly varied.

From what I have seen of the local fast guys and girls, they are doing many km’s and hours, but a lot of it is what I would call easy, or endurance stuff.

I think the problem with “high volume” is, as discussed previously, many athletes step up one “volume” too high instead of doing the low or mid plus endurance work.

TrainerRoad could provide a couple of “add on” plans that could integrate with the main plans, that could be a way of steering people to the right training load.

I struggle to see a high enough proportion of athletes that could cope with the plans scaling up to make it feasible. Having a means of adding volume to the plan seamlessly would have merit and prevent burn out potentially.

It still doesn’t solve your problem, and wouldn’t be super awesome if you’re riding outside mostly as it would be multiple workouts a day.

1 Like

I mean, does anyone here NOT anticipate the day that AT, through ai and levels etc, completely do away with “volume” plans and eventually train you to your potential given your physiological needs and time, through finely tuning workout suggestions? It might require the workouts themselves to become adaptive, where the +/- levels etc are done away with and replaced with single workouts that then add numerical values to increase difficulty. So let’s imagine a fake workout Grumpy Bear, which is a threshold workout at 101% ftp for a five minute block. Based on your adaptive training and progression levels, it would assign you, say, Grumpy Bear 2.5, which is a 2.5 progression, or 2 sets of five minutes with a ten minute block of SS after.
It’s a hypothetical scenario and workout type, and obviously I’m not a trainer and trying to create a realistic workout, but you get what I mean. The workouts themselves could also become adaptive, and created with an algorithm that just assigns a duration and intensity level of a specific type of workout according to your specific needs. That would be easier than Chad going in and creating every single type of workout.
adaptive training and levels will eventually take you to the point where your workouts keep being rated as very hard or impossible, and it understands where that is with how much time you put in. That would theoretically completely do away with volume plans and go entirely off of your specific circumstances.
Anyone else here think that’s where we’re going? I see it written between the lines so to speak.

1 Like

Bingo. Scalable tech like TR programs always leave out the extremes because it’s not profitable. Too much time investment for such little gain.

I have a line of plans for sale for runners on TrainingPeaks, and I wrote them thinking, “okay fine I’ll include novice and beginner” but I poured my heart into the intermediate and advanced plans, naively thinking it would be game-changing for a lot of folks because of the paucity of plans like that on the market.

I was wrong. I sell more beginner plans than anything. I sell very very few advanced plans. And the advanced-plan-purchasers all tend to be higher maintenance clientele, which is fun from a sport scientist perspective, but not so fun from a scalable tech with “passive” income perspective. haha

You’re prob right. But there are very very few of them by comparison to the big middle of the market. An order of magnitude fewer.

I thought so too. Nope! The market is too small. Even if you converted 20% of the entire cat 3 racer & up market (which is crazy-talk), it would probably still be less volume of purchases than the rest of TR users.

6 Likes