Would just say, i’ve been on sufferfest for 3 years prior to switching to TR this.
3 previous years on their structured, tailored plans have been threshold training distributions; c.45/45/10
vs my current distribution of c. 62/34/3 on TR. (pyramidal).
Not making any quality judgement one way or the other, enjoyed Sufferfest, enjoying TR - but you need to actually look at the data that comes out, simply saying TR is “Threshold” because it has a clear preference for sweetspot, doesn’t actually make it so.
I hope so, to me his response came across as very snarky. Made me cringe.
Personal attacks are not cool, and it may not have been one but could have easily been read that way.
This forum has more interesting content (non related to TR methodology) than any other. Check the KM threads, the ISM thread, many more. TR Forum != TR Plans
must have, but not too surprising. He probably didn’t recognize who the person was referring to and he probably didn’t know what the video was about. I’m sure there has been some internal discussions today about best way to handle this. I’m hoping they discuss it. I don’t think they need to respond to Dylan as this topic has been touched on regularly for as long as I’ve been here.
And yet you still engage in discussions about their product? Also you regularly ask the community for advice. Why would you do that? Obviously, you know better then they all do.
I find it weird to have people using the service of a company and yet still talk down on it. But to each their own. Certainly you have all rights to do so.
meh…there are peeps out there who are waaAAAaay more fast than I’ll ever be.
I was/am only “fast” in my little fish bowl.
:
One side of the coin which has not been addressed (maybe it has, just lost in the junk), is the type of cyclist which (successfully) uses TR plans. How many people know what “type” of athlete they are before embarking on the TR journey? Make your own conclusions:
Responds very well to small doses of high intensity ‘sharpening’ training just before an event but too much quickly tears them down. The vast bulk of their training should be relatively low intensity aerobic.
Often needs to pay more attention to recovery due to higher output/muscle damage.
Likes to go fast, sometimes has a hard time holding back.
Often less patient (and sometimes less consistent) in their approach as they haven’t needed to be to get results in the past. Stringing together even moderately long, consistent blocks of intelligent, progressive training has big performance benefit to these athletes.
As well as ‘Q1: High Reactivity/Low Training Response (High Dopamine/Low Serotonin)’ “brain type”:
enjoys predictable (some would say monotonous) training programs
prime candidates for sympathetic overtraining ← (this actually happened)
very receptive to long duration, low intensity training
All of which is most likely why TR plans don’t work for me and why “polarized” training blocks make me fast.
Addendum deux:
Considering all the above, it’s not going to matter what type of athlete you are if you only have 6hrs/wk to train. TR plans will work for some, will burn-out others, and be negligible for the rest. Also, over time, the majority of subs populating TR will be the ‘intensity responders’, which leads to bias.
While in a formal sense the Forum is their service, in reality is more about the users who generate the content. So I don’t associate the forum with TR at all, I don’t read the propaganda posts, I don’t read their blog or listen to their podcast.
I believe the specific things I’ve criticized are:
I PERSONALLY don’t find the value proposition vs Zwift. I don’t care what others do.
I don’t like the cult like behavior of some of the members of this community. I avoid their threads.
I prefer to customize my training than to follow the rudimentary algorithmic recommendation.
Regarding this tread. I’m interested in the methodology discussion. There are fine people on both sides
Maybe I’m wrong but at age 56 and just starting TR last November, I thought something for the older folks might be good but then… does it make sense? The plans and intensity is based on personal goals and FTPs. TR does not know the person’s recovery rate or the health status. There are many who are people who are more fit than me at this age and at the same time, I think I am much more fit than most in my age group. I think the spread is quite wide so how can TR take all this into account? The calendar allows for changing workouts and pushing weeks and it should be up to the individual to fine tune the plan to match reality. What might be interesting is if you can link health and recovery data from products like Whoop to TR and then TR makes “on the fly” modifications to the plan based on current healthy status.
So let me rephrase your post from above. You like their value proposition. For you thats due to the community and less about their plans or content in general.
I would be interested in your FTP progression over the years and your chosen training plans. Have you already described this in another post?
Please forgive the off topic but I haven’t found out how to PM in this forum.
Sure thing - in the past few years I continuously cycled through SSB and SusPB. For base I went with the mid and high volume plans. For build only mid volume. I added Z1 and Z2 time wherever possible. In addition to TR I did a bit of running. Eventually averaging between 10-13 hours per week. 6-7 days per week. 300-330 sessions per year. 500-600 hours. All indoors.
FTP progressed quite quickly initially and then in 10 and later 5 watt increments over the months.
Hope that makes it somewhat transparent. If you got more questions let me know. Happy to take this offline.
Thank you for the answer. Specifically, I am curious about how the FTP has evolved through the years. What was your off-the-couch FTP? What was the FTP after a year? What was your FTP after two years, etc.? Thanks in advance.
Since you offered up this bit of anecdotal evidence (which I’m not saying is bad), I’ll offer my own.
I jumped into TR’s high volume plans in 2016 after riding exclusively outdoors for a few years. I wanted something that was more time efficient since I’m married with 4 kids and a full-time job. I’ve used high volume plans for the last 4 years now for 100% of my training. I’ve “won” a couple of gran fondos during that time, and I feel good about my performances in group rides. I’m right around 4.3 w/kg and overall I’m pleased with my results.
I certainly don’t consider myself exceptional. I played sports when I was younger (mainly soccer & basketball) and rode my bike a lot (mountain bike at that point). However, after I graduated college and got married I basically sat around for 10 years until I found the bike again (this time road).
I actually quite like the high volume sweet-spot base plan. Lately I’ve been using the slightly more intense 90 minute versions of the 2 hours workouts because I just can’t spare the time. I always find the workouts challenging but doable, and when I’ve got my sleep and nutrition dialed my legs bounce back quickly.
I’m not saying this proves anything. I just wanted to offer my perspective.
