From what was announced, all that the AI will do is move to easier version of the same ‘category’ of workout, so I don’t think we will see anything interesting here. There was no mention of the adaptive training swapping out one type (sweet spot) of workout for another (endurance). They may get to that point, but I think that is a very long way off. Only minor tweaks to the existing plans are done by the adaptive process.
All that was announced is that the progression of each type of workout will be adapted - I don’t think that it is anything more than that.
That said, this is a big improvement, and I am looking forward to using it. It also lays the technological foundation for more interesting and significant modifications in the future.
Same here. Life commitments (family, job) make such long rides hard. Currently, my weekend trainer rides are about 2:00-2:30 long, and 2:30 is stretching it to the max. During the week the hard cap is 1:30. @Captain_Doughnutman wrote in an earlier post that he does 16 hours of Z2 per week if memory serves. Sure, if you have that time to dedicate to training, you can and must spend way more time in Z2.
Yup. I’m definitely not exempt from “life”. I like to marry my goals with opportunity when I’m able; the past 12 months were a gift in that respect.
The next 4 months I’m going to be getting slammed with work so volume is going to be way down from where I’d like it, maybe ~10hrs/wk. How I’m going to arrange those hours is still up in the air, but what it’s not going to be is THRS/SS/VO2 every week.
[edit: FWIW, my monthly IF av while doing TR plans was something like .83; my 2020 monthly IF av was .75 — and breaking all my PRs.]
Sounds like it. In my view, though, both too much intensity and overestimation of FTP contribute to the problem with the training plans. The adaptive training advisor will only prescribe what the TR team teach it to do. If it is taught to prescribe multiple intensity workouts per week, it will keep on doing this leading to accumulation of chronic fatigue.
I think what the team is saying though is that the adaptive advisor will be able to adapt the training load based on people’s performance with their workouts. It sounds great in theory but we shall see how it is really implemented. I may have missed something on the podcast, but sounds like workout interruptions and subjective difficulty rating at the end of each workout will be main contributors to the workload assessment. People may pedal through the workout but it may still be too hard. The RPE rating after each workout is good but it has limitations due to its subjective nature.
One of the ways some good coaches calibrate the workload is by utilizing HR and power zone matching. Once they know the lactate threshold HR, they estimate the HR zones and can see whether certain intervals result in excessive strain for a specific rider. HR has its own limitations, especially related to heat effects, but if good consistent cooling is provided, it can be a helpful tool. I am not yet clear whether and how this element will be included in the mix by TR and whether they will use some additional inputs.
Overall the adaptive training paradigm is a move in the right direction. However its implementation and algorithms will define its effectiveness. We shall see.
Sure. I am a triathlete so here is my experience with the Olympic distance MV plan last year. The base was ok, hard but I thought it was reasonably challenging. However, build and specialty were just too intense. During the build phase, as an example, the weekly program included one tough Vo2max workout at 120% FTP, one workout with long intervals usually at 108% FTP (which is de facto Vo2max again), and one longer ride at a pretty high percent below FTP (can’t remember exact % now). So 2 out of 3 workouts were Vo2max in different incarnations. On top of that the ramp test was overestimating my FTP and the program setup, because there was such a high anaerobic component in training, was feeding the vicious cycle of further FTP inflation, since the Vo2max work was just ideal for driving up my one minute max power on the ramp test. Not so ideal for being able to hold a reasonable percent of my FTP for longer, which is important in triathlon. Important to keep in mind that there was also lots of intensity in running and swimming concurrently.
I am much better off with two endurance/tempo or moderate SS workouts (as in below 90% of true FTP, not up to 94% as TR defines), and one workout around threshold. I would only resort to focused Vo2max work if I felt that this has become my limiter. Has not been the case so far.
I’ve had TR for about 4 years and this past winter was the first where I was strict to following a whole plan. I guess that makes me financially stupid paying for something I don’t use that much, but we all spend thousands of dollars on carbon fiber bikes…so there’s that too. TR has about 40k miles of data on me, the vast majority of it not using TR.
I use it more over the winters when it’s colder/darker and generally get away from it in the summer when my volume increases and I spend more time mtn biking. Used it sporadically for a build to an IM, then had a long stretch of not using it at all, then upped my usage a bunch when they incorporated doing outdoor workouts last spring. What ML can learn from all that, idk, but they certainly have a lot of data on me consistently getting faster as a cyclist doing all sorts of stuff not in the TR catalogue.
It is helpful. Thanks for the insights. I guess the low volume olympic build plan would have been a better fit for you. Dito for base.
The base plans have except for the last week one sweetspot and one tempo workout per week. The build plan has one VO2 max and one sweetspot/threshold session per week. So pretty much what you are after. You could add endurance time to that as you deem fit.
Perhaps some personal insights. I am a triathlete as well (half distance) and have seen great results with sweetspot base high volume and sustained power build mid volume. Running I kept to 2-3 hours per week (all easy 5ish min per k) and swimming to 1 hour every other week (also fairly easy).
Being curious about the AT thingy and with the upcoming reduced volume, I had a look at some of the plans. Meh. The offered workouts just aren’t suitably constructed. Too bad, I love experimenting but not at the price of wasting time.
AFAIK it does all the Level Progression tracking, but won’t make any recommendations other than thru the TrainNow feature. It may be a bit behind right now unless you are performing a planned TR workout (so it has the target to compare to your performance, and include the surveys), because it sound like they don’t have the non-TR workout recognition turned on yet. But it sounds like it will do that all eventually.
I don’t know about the other volumes but the Low Volume SSB and Sustained Power Build plans are still the same as they were fifteen months ago when I started this round of TR. Those plans did change between somewhere around 2016 & 2019 but I wouldn’t be able to say precisely how. @DJM - I don’t think they said that 50% of users were “hacking”/modifying the plans, more that that proportion weren’t following one of the plans, i.e. adding the plan to their calendar then doing all the workouts therein.
From the podcast (can’t remember where in the podcast they said it) it sounds like they’ve categorised all the workouts on their system, both their own and the custom workouts generated by us users. So if you’ve done the Hard Start VO2max interval workouts then they will be subject to the same recommendations but it wasn’t clear if any “non-TR” authored workout would be recommended.
I think so, I’ll have to find the point in the podcast where they talk about the scoring system assigned to workouts and used for progressions to be sure. I’ll post the timing if someone doesn’t find it first.
I do think a better designed training plan would be a better fit for me and many other people in the first place. My point was that having so much Vo2max work just doesn’t make sense for training the energy systems required for triathlon and would likely compromise the run and swim training.
I don’t know what the half distance plans are like. But I assume that they are also packed with intensity and if you can handle all of it and make progress, great. I just don’t think the training progression and specificity of the Olympic plan makes sense and all the training plans and advice I have seen from good and great triathlon coaches look nothing like the TR triathlon plans.
It does make a lot sense. Especially on lower volumes. VO2 max work trains your aerobic system which is key for longer triathlon formats.
You picked a mid volume plan and stated that the intensity was too much for you. It seems that the low volume plan would have been a better choice for you. Especially as those plans pretty much represent what you are after.
Though it seems a bit counterintuitive to state that the plans would have to be “better designed” when you simply punched one category above your current capabilities.
Sweetspot and tempo work during base is part of most plans unless you go polarized. Though if you go pol then you will face a lot of VO2 max. During build it’s also not surprising to face VO2 max and threshold work.
Would be interesting to learn what coaches prescribe plans without those elements. As the TR base and build plans only have one to two of those sessions it seems impossible to further reduce those kind of workouts. Do those coaches only prescribe intensity in certain blocks or every other week?
This is a strong opinion but it is not really well informed. Good luck with using Vo2max training as the main training mode for longer distance triathlon.
I checked and see that you already account for 6% of this whole thread, so nothing that I write is likely to change your opinions. Enjoy your training.
It’s no opinion, it’s science. The benefits of VO2 max workouts are well know. That being said it’s obviously just one element of a training regimen. The other zones have their places as well. Volume and philosophy ultimately being the deciding factors on zone distribution.
Why would it change my opinion? You picked mid volume plans while it seems that should have picked low volume. Especially as the low volume plan exactly match what you have described as appropriate intensity!
Anyway, who are those coaches you were referring to and how do they add intensity? Perhaps it’s off value. Or is this thread now just about trashing the TR plans? Guess that won’t bring us a step further also it won’t benefit anyone.
If it’s just about trashing, here are two memes for you. Not saying it applies to you.
This is a strong opinion but it is not really well informed. Good luck with using Vo2max training as the main training mode for longer distance triathlon.
