So if you want, go ahead and start a new thread, but I think you would need to be more prescriptive than “Better Base” thread to get the wisdom of crowds for what you are looking for. For example: For some people, base might mean something like traditional base. So if that isn’t your jam, then people recommending lots of Z2 wouldn’t be helpful.
Also, what would be good for you for base, might not be good for me, and vice versa. Right now, my coach has me doing the following for base:
Monday: rest
Tuesday: Recovery ride 1:30
Wednesday: 3x30 @ 80% with 5 min rest between intervals
Thursday: same as Wednesday
Friday: rest
Saturday & Sunday: 3 hour endurance rides
Ends up being 12 hours of scheduled rides.
We are doing a 3 week block of the above, and the a rest / recovery / test week. So a 4 week block.
The next 4 week block will look vaguely similar, but the long Tempo intervals will be replaced with Sweet Spot intervals. With the interval length being determined by how the testing goes, and what that means for an updated FTP. “Big” jump in FTP will mean relatively shorter Sweet Spot intervals to start. “Smaller” or no change in FTP will mean relatively longer Sweet Spot intervals to start.
I think the OP should reach out to TR support, as mentioned above. To get clarity on how/why AT works the way it does, to see if there is something amiss, or to share experiences / other use cases.
You asked a reasonable question about why AT is doing what it is doing, and received feedback/speculation on why, and ideas on how to perhaps meet your goals. None of those seem to work for you, you already have suggested what you know you need to do, and you have very specific needs (that perhaps could have broader appeal as well). And you are clearly frustrated with some of the posts/responses that seem well-intended.
I am sure support will be the most helpful route. They have been fantastic and super responsive as I have had questions/suggestions as I progress with AT.
I’d want to end up with a full plan folks could use for 18-24 weeks. It wouldn’t feel right, to me, to develop that on a TR sponsored forum without TR approval. YMMV
To be clear, I am not needing or looking for anything. Quite happy with my self coaching and access to resources (eg coaching friends) to double check my programming.
Simply see an unmet need (community request) that is not well addressed and think there is room to improve. Glad both you and Brian are happy with your coaches. It’s always fun when those relationships work.
That’s my view. Too much thread drift so will bow out and hope the OP found value in some of the notes above.
You’re not following a plan, so what do AT’s suggestions matter?
But it seems relatively simple: you aren’t doing the intensity workouts–you are, in effect, failing them–so it’s lowering the difficulty of those.
You are doing the endurance workouts, so it’s increasing the difficulty of those in order to induce an adaptation.
It’s making changes down the line because it’s changing the rate of progression. So as with diverging lines, the distance between plan and reality increases the further into the future you get.
Yes, I have lots of training experience. I started seriously riding (racing) in college, and that was over 30 years ago. I have been riding seriously since then, except for a ~8 year break.
For me, this is a recovery / shake out the legs day after my only real full rest day (I’m also strength training / core throughout the week on top of the riding), and it has been working well so far. Plus the length is to work on increasing my ability to burn fat.
We are working on building my aerobic system - based on WKO5 modeling, I exhibit anaerobic contribution (WKO5 phenotypes me as an “all arounder”) even on 20 minute intervals - so the back to back days is to help build the aerobic system, especially as I’m still at relatively low impact rides.
No nutritional adaptations between the sessions. My coach has been having me weigh myself before & after workouts (both indoors and outside rides) to check if I’m taking in enough fluids. So far, pre / post ride weights have been pretty similar, except my post-ride weight on easy days goes up a bit.
The closest nutritional adaptation is I’ve been doing all of the indoor workouts first thing in the morning - 6am - so I’m doing these without eating breakfast. My morning routine is:
Get up and walk dogs
Grab coffee (wife is coffee elf while I’m being dog elf) & liquids - 1 electrolyte bottle (only electrolytes - ~10 cals) / 1 plain water
Do workout
Shower and start working - I’m still in “work from home” mode
During ride workout nutrition (interval days) has been 3 nature’s bakery bars - ~140 cal / bar:
First one during my warm-up
2nd during rest between intervals after 1st interval
3rd during rest between intervals after 2nd interval
I think that’s just adapting up in level to match your abilities. I don’t believe it’s a recovery ride (which I treat it as as well) but a low endurance/aerobic ride.
I can’t see the Level there but it’s not unreasonable to assume you are getting bumped up to something AT considers well within your abilities, but that will still provide the desired stimulus.
Yes, I noticed that, too. I’m on my second season of AT-assisted training plans. The first season I thought TR had replaced the Wednesday endurance ride with a recovery ride. But it is really an endurance workout, just that the first time around my endurance PL was low as the plans do not include a lot of Z2 work by default and the 30- and 45-minute endurance rides I often tack on do not raise my endurance PL in a meaningful way.
This time around I did a 6-week polarized plan as a pre-season block, and I come in with non-trivial progression levels in threshold, VO2max and endurance. So I see the same adaptations that you have.
I wish TR would make the intended purpose (as opposed to the actual classification of the workout) and display the difficulty level (Achievable vs. Productive) in the calendar also before you finish a workout.
Why wouldn’t it feel right?
I think a substantial share of TR athletes are using TR without a TR plan (I seem to remember from the AT introduction video that about 40 % of athletes follow a TR plan). It is an officially supported way to use TR. And while I don’t expect TR to officially endorse your plan, I think you can crowdsource a lot here. Just the discussion on what thinking goes into designing the plan could be helpful to many. Learning more of the principles behind training is always useful, no matter what. I know I’d like to read that thread even if the plan turned out not to be a good fit for me.
Hmmm, then I don’t know. I don’t have extensive experience with AT at this point, and perhaps they changed it. Last season I stuck to the suggested recovery ride, because I wanted to test TR’s plans with the “default settings”.
Personally, a shorter (<= 1:30 hours) endurance ride is just fine, I trained several seasons like that and never had an issue with fatigue. A little more communication from TR’s side would certainly help here. Ditto for the making the distinction between Achievable and Productive workouts clear in advance. This way I don’t push myself too hard on a day that is merely meant to maintain the status quo (Achievable) rather than push further.
