I actually wasn’t trying to be critical of PL or my prescribed plan, but of the workout itself. It feels to me like there’s far too much noodling to make it productive, but perhaps there’s a time and place for this type of a workout for a specific type of an athlete. I think it would have made more sense if it was a 1hr ride.
-
Right, as of now the only things that drive PL’s to increase is completing TR workouts inside or outside. Nothing else is considered for PL’s at this time.
-
That limitation is more or less the reason that so many around here want the Workout Levels 2.0 that TR promised nearly 3 years ago now. That is supposed to assign PL’s to all the “unstructured rides” that AT & PL’s don’t see at this time. Once that is in place, at least some of these issues should be resolved or improved at the very least.
Not sure how anaerobic sprinting works in cycling, but in Track & Field, sprinters are are pushing near max effort for the interval. For a sprint workout they are usually taking full recovery (10-15+ minutes) because the next interval is again close to 100% effort. That recovery is needed.
As noted in my post above I am prefer an intensity more than 40% but if I was sprinting I would take full recovery.
@G650 although my training philosophy has evolved a bit since I posted this four years ago, for me, I start to cool off too much with a HR below 130 and find it difficult to get back on the power for the next interval, especially if it is VO2 or anaerobic.
Years ago, when I first used TR after another set of plans, I found the 40% recovery intervals way too easy, especially for anything longer than about three minutes. My previous plans “recovered” at 75% so that is what I was used to. In some training circumstances I think there is still value in that, but if you’re trying to squeeze every ounce of effectiveness out of an interval session, I can see where 75% “recoveries” are counter-productive.
Ask a Cycling Coach Podcast #114 and the associated blog deep dive why TR selected 40% for their recovery intervals. There is some science behind it, but I prefer 50-60% depending on duration, sometimes even 70-75% if it is really long.
As always, YMMV. However, as already mentioned, there are a number of things you can do, including the following. I’ve used all of these at various times depending on what I feel like doing.
- Modify the workouts in Workout Creator (@trainerrod a web-based workout creator would be a huge improvement, though
)
- Manually increase the intensity in erg mode
- Switch to resistance mode and shift to get the wattage you want
- Pause the workout and skip ahead to reduce the length of the recovery interval
Here’s an example of me cutting two minutes out of a six-minute recovery before the work began this morning.
And here’s Bluebell but with 50% recoveries.
Just dropping in to say there isn’t anything magic about that 40% value. There simply needs to be a definitive value there for the software to function, and that 40% of FTP is generally an easy enough Zone 1 target for recovery valleys between harder efforts.
As already mentioned in this thread, feel free to adjust the workout slider up or down to your own preferences – but we do advise staying in Zone 1 during your recovery intervals!!
This is a great example of how dramatic the working vs resting set percentages are. As a few have said, it’s quite individual… and for me, 40% is excruciating, no matter what that workout is or what my FTP is.
I am dying to go to the “what do users want” thread and say “rest intervals at 43%”
I look forward to 40% of ftp intervals when doing 4x5 max efforts. Then again I’m usually in resistance mode and pedal easier than 40% ftp. TR will never make everyone happy.

“what do users want” thread and say “rest intervals at 43%”
FWIW, I just went and looked at Manresa…it shows as being “Productive” for me, which I admit I kinda laughed at. I know I could knock it out right now almost literally without breaking a sweat.
But my PL’s “indicate” it is an appropriate workout…again this is as much an issue with PL’s vs. any issue with the overall TR program.
But I also know that once I answered the post-ride survey as “easy”, the plan and workouts will adapt to something harder. It should be reiterated that is is a feature, not a bug. The program is designed to give you workouts you can handle and then build you up vs. give your workouts that are too hard and tear you down.
Were I to do Manresa today, I would simply bump the long 13’ intervals to the low end of my Z2, nail the intervals and call it good. (well, and maybe add Volunteer at the end for some extra work).

I am dying to go to the “what do users want” thread and say “rest intervals at 43%”

FWIW, I just went and looked at Manresa…it shows as being “Productive” for me, which I admit I kinda laughed at. I know I could knock it out right now almost literally without breaking a sweat.
Same here, because it is the first Anaerobic workout on my plan. I ended up swapping it for one that I feel will be manageable instead of raising the work between intervals. Hopefully the workout I went with (Lava) will be on the easier side of manageable, and then PL can do it’s job afterwards.
I love an easy recovery valley
40% is just fine by me
I’ll admit I’m a little disappointed. I also saw I’ve been prescribed something considerably worse. haha. You know what they say, don’t worry when they are complaining…Worry when the stop.

I’ll admit I’m a little disappointed.
- In or by what exactly?

Worry when the stop.
- I don’t really care one way or the other since I have no skin in the game. I’m just a fellow user trying to shed light based on my own experience and understanding of the service.

- In or by what exactly?
Does it matter?

- I don’t really care one way or the other since I have no skin in the game. I’m just a fellow user trying to shed light based on my own experience and understanding of the service.
Oh Pierre. I wasn’t implying that you should care. I was implying that sometimes people expressing the desire for change or expressing dissatisfaction do so because THEY care.
It seemed apropos to the thread if not specifically to you.

Does it matter?
- Maybe, but I have no idea from your open-ended statement. I try to help and/or fix stuff within my control when I can get useful feedback.
okay this forum thing is very confusing to me, I do. not. understand.
Chad, love you. Mean it. Keep up the good work.

Timely topic - I have Manresa on my plan for Thursday and it features 18.5m x3 of recovery at 40%:
This is start of the build, but it does not strike me as a particularly interesting or productive workout.
My guess is that the software needs to pad out the workout to give people a plan with so many hours per week. The plan wants those anaerobic efforts. One could probably do that workout in 30-40 minutes but if TR did that, we’d have a topic with people wondering why their workout was only 30 minutes.
For such a workout, you could get off the bike and relax for a bit and then hit the next set hard.