Interesting suggestion on using over-under to gauge FTP, hadn’t thought of that. I’m currently in the SSB1 HV so I don’t have any built in to the plan. But I must say that I am wondering if I could afford to bump up the target FTP a bit since I am only doing sweet spot. I’m on week 2 and am feeling good, the RPE and HR I’m observing seem to be lower than a few weeks ago when I was doing some sweet spot but mainly just finishing CX season. For example, Antelope +2 (5x10 @ 94%) was a cakewalk for me, I mean it was challenging but my HR was steady for all of it and stayed at the low end of threshold. Trying to be patient and aware that there’s some bigger TSS rides coming up, but I honestly don’t expect to get really challenged until week 5. Always interesting discussion though!
@Darkgerbil, thank you for your response. I think your advice is sound. The problem is that I don’t think I can pass these tests at higher cadence.
I will try Monitor again tomorrow at my preferred low cadence. But sooner or later, it does look like I am going to hit a brick wall (or a Palisade) and will need to figure out whether to pass it by lowering FTP or to follow @kurt.braeckel’s advice to keep trying the workout at higher cadences until I pass. I’m not sure how the TR calendar reacts to suspending progress of the program until a workout is passed…
Thanks everyone for your input. This is really helpful.
LtS
To be clear here, I wouldn’t recommend just trying Monitor repeatedly. Continue through the plan as scheduled and you’ll see the adaptations you’re looking for without having to repeat one specific workout that you failed. E.g. I backpedaled twice during my first Reinstein over/under workout, but the next week I was able to complete a slightly more difficult O/U workout - Tunemah - without bailing. I suspect you’ll experience similar results just by sticking to the plan.
@Darkgerbil, so I attempted Monitor again today and manged it - although with imperfections. During the last interval I was spraying sweat and a drop landed on my phone and switched from the TR app, so I lost focus on target power while dealing with the IT issue.
This time I adopted some strategy to take into account your advice (and that of @kurt.braeckel) but also without sacrificing my goal of working at low cadence. So I decided to work a low cadence every second interval. The avg cadence for the 6 intervals was:
1: 52
2: 67
3: 55
4: 67
5:57
6: 83
I learned from where I failed last time: the muscle fatigue kicked in on the 6th interval, so I kicked up the spin on that one. This was a winning strategy for me.
Moral of the story: TR workouts provide structure while offering sufficient flexibility to pursue own objectives. I’m pumped to go for the next one!
Thanks for your advice.
LtS
Great to hear that, @LarrytheStanimal. This is a fantastic community where I’ve received plenty pearls of wisdom, it’s great to be able to share ideas with others too!
You’ve hit the nail on the head, though, that is, despite the TR training plans appearing at first glance to be quite set in stone, they are adaptable to different individuals’ goals, in fact coach Chad says as much in his “advisory” narratives.
All the best.
By the way, awesome low cadence work there, my legs would be well cooked after one interval!!
Thank you, Sir. I think I overcooked my FTP because I used low cadence during the ramp test, which means the 20 minute result needs a larger downward adjustment to estimate 1-hr power. My goal is to improve my FTP during Base training so my ramp-test FTP proves correct. Quite ironic when you consider the topic of this thread…
Nice work! Glad the cadence shift helped on the last one.
When mountain biking, I find I need to be comfortable/capable riding a wide range of cadences. For example, riding a sustained climb I’ll be somewhere in the 80-90 rpm range. If I need to power up a steep rocky/rooty section, I might burst up to 120rpm for 5-10 seconds. And if riding up rocky ledges, lower cadence, say 60-70 rpm to allow for a strong pedal stroke to lift the front wheel over a ledge.
For the TR workouts, I’d recommend usually to riding in your preferred candence. And every now and again, do some low cadence drills, or strength training to improve torque. And some high cadence drills can help also.
That may be true but for me the key word is not cadence but torque. I am training to deploy torque and doing so using higher gearing and lower cadence so that I can attack on the uphill. This is not to take away from the need for extending the cadence range without loss of power but that is a secondary objective for me. If the reasoning is not sound I would love to know…
LtS
Power is what determines how fast you go uphill, which is driven by the combination of torque and cadence. Your preferred cadence Is an individual choice; And the most suitable cadence can also depend on the nature of the terrain you are riding on.
Assuming the terrain allows for it, it’s very possible to attack on the uphills using higher cadence. I know it’s a different discipline, but look at some of the attacks Chris Froome has made over the years on the climbs - he’s spinning probably over 100rpm.
If you find a lower cadence approach works better for you, yep, certainly makes sense to train that ability on the trainer.
I’ve taken onboard some of the advice and did Antelope today with the 5 intervals at avg cadence at 90, 94, 97, 96 and I only dropped to a more comfortable 82 for the 5th interval. It was good to break through the spinning barrier and still maintain avg power above 200W for the workout. Thanks for your feedback.
This is probably not of great interest to anyone but I’ll volunteer info anyway. I am well into the SSBLV1 plan as the first structured training of my life and have gone through the tough workouts: Eclipse, Warlow and Palisade. The original topic for this thread was an indication of impatience with things being too easy, but that no longer applies. I can now say the Ramp Test was pretty accurate with my FTP estimate, although it is not that simple. I did my ramp test at 63 average cadence because that’s the natural workload for me. This made me unprepared for high cadence, sustained workouts such as Eclipse - which was the hardest of all. But once I broke through and managed to sustain power in the low end of the 80-100 RPM cadence band, I found the rest of the plan, as described, demanding but achievable, including the unders/overs. Overall, I am finding the TR experience very rewarding and am looking forward to developing my abilities to see what I can do with them. LtS
@LarrytheStanimal Found this thread after starting SSBLV1 this week. Wondered if my ftp was set too low. Not sure if I was expecting to suffer greatly or what but this thread and all of the replies were perfect for the questions I had. thanks for the post!
Did you stick the TR and do you feel it improved you?
I’m looking forward to the suffering in a sick sort of way. It will let me know I’m progressing!
I stuck to TR and definitely improved. That said I found I needed to take my own approach to finding my ftp. I test well on the Ramp Tests and cannot do prolonged Sweet Spot (Eclipse) or Threshold (Lamarck) workouts at the ftp suggested by the Ramp Test. Meanwhile, Sweet Spot workouts should be tough but they should be doable. They should not feel like you’re giving them 10 out of 10.
So my approach is to calibrate my ftp using overs/unders workouts like Warlow or Palisade such that I can tell I am just barely recovering from an over during an under. That required a minor ftp reduction from the Ramp Test result.
For what it’s worth, the “Goals” text of Wright Peak from Coach Chad seems to indicate otherwise. It says,
Build your fitness to a point where you can remain this close to your FTP for durations this long and it’s probably time to reassess your FTP or push up your aerobic ceiling with some concentrated VO2max work.
When you talk about something like Wright Peak (90’ @ SS) in comparison to the original question regarding Mt. Field (36’ @ SS) it’s a little bit of an apples and oranges comparison. Your statement is certainly correct and perhaps the original statement would best be clarified to something like SS workouts with less than ?? (my guess is about 40) minutes of SS work shouldn’t be used to gauge ftp. Yet, as you importantly point out, there really are no set-in-stone guidelines. I similarly adjust ftp by feel rather than testing. We are all different creatures yet we will all inevitably figure out whether our ftp is set too high, too low, or we just struggle with some types of workouts and not others (e.g. SS or O/U) though our ftp is darn’ accurate.