To this (and several other points), “hard” is being bandied about on this thread. Given individual genetic differences, training histories, life obligations, and FTP over/underestimation, what’s “hard” for SS for some may be “easy” to other.
RPE-wise, what is “too much”? I completed a 2 hour (Antelope +5 iirc) SS at the end of my SSMV week with 3x CrossFit for the week and felt super tired after, but not spent. I guess what I’m getting at is that RPE matters, context matters, and this is why we listen to our bodies
Oh let’s not get carried away with accusations of agism here. I think a lot of people need to relax.
I was simply pointing out a correlation between age and professionalism - one that obviously applies in Dylans case.
I frankly do not have an opinion on the meat of his video. I dont think there is nearly enough solid fact to prove nor disprove what he was saying. Certainly not definitively anyway.
What I was getting at, is that directly attacking another individuals training plans is poor form, regardless of age. That said, would Dylan make the same inflammatory video attacking another person in his field in 20 years, when he is middle aged? Somehow I doubt it. This TENDS to be a young persons mistake.
It ruins his credibility. If he wants to be a coach - then work on being a coach. If he wants to be a social media star posting inflammatory youtube videos…by all means go that route. There seems to be a pretty decent buck in it. But IMO those two careers are mutually exclusive, at least if you want to be taken seriously as a coach who follows current science.
It only became inflammatory when people here got triggered. The intention of the video itself was not to start the nonsense that this thread evolved into but to deliver research. Inflammatory (and false) would have been if he said that sweet spot training does not provide any gains.
Well, it is inflammatory because he made a point of dragging other coaches into the mix and putting them down.
If he believes the science supports his method of training, he certainly could have made a video showing how his method is better and is more strongly supported by science than other coaching philosophies. Instead - he directly attacked other coaches, methods, and training plans.
So, I stand by my statement - needlessly inflammatory and poor form. One of the trappings of youth.
Edit: anyway…I get what I assume is your main point. Nothing in the video to generate 1600 posts of animosity by people with no skin in the game. Let the TR people be annoyed.
Some of the arguments on this thread are terrible, chief amongst them is that SS training is needed to achieve compliance…
there is literally an optional “traditional base” training plan that they don’t recommend using. If they can do that, why can’t they just generate a polarized plan? If you are telling me that the sweet spot plan is there because the most people will stick to it, the fact that there is a separate training plan already means your argument is invalid.
The podcast also frequently takes about changing training to enable further adaptations. Having a different type of training methodology would support this.
Anyway, looking forward to the refutation of polarized - I am hoping this specifically addresses how SS provides better performance improvements that polarized. If it tries to justify it by saying it’s for compliance I am done.
I just selected SSBHV as it fit with the volume I was used to all summer (10-12 hours a week, with some bigger weeks around 15-20 hours in the saddle). Had done SSBLV (2018-2019) and SSBMV (2019-2020) in the past, but figured that with getting in a pretty heavy year, HV would be more fitting to continue progression.
I had not used the forum, or really listened to the podcast unless they were shared on the velo reddit, and even then it was usually specific clips that were being discussed. Did not know that the common suggestion at this point was to do LV and add in your own endurance and recovery rides.
It definitely does! Anyone who has questions about our Community Guidelines, what constructive debate looks like, or what contributing effectively looks like should feel free to DM me if you need any clarification.
We’ll keep working hard to foster a climate on the forum where everyone feels safe and heard, and ultimately, that does not include athletes who engage on the forum with no purpose other than to create dissent within the community. Let me know via DM if you have any questions!
I would certainly assume science is driving their platform. I would say the “hook” is the cost. Much like some of the gyms in our region that charge small fee’s and people keep their memberships as a result of this even if not using the platform. Obviously quite a bit of science w/SST training for the bang for the buck in regards to time constraints.
I will comment that I am consistently riding my trainer year round. Part of this is due to the area that I live in w/congested roads and can take about 30 minutes to get out to decent roads to train on and w/a limited time schedule the trainer becomes the place for me to complete my high quality workouts typically 2 to 3 days indoors then 3 days outside when weather is good) So def a big fan of what you can do on a with a really good trainer.
To answer your question about SST workouts. No, no coach I have ever worked w/prescribed 5 days a week of intensity. That said I had one very well known coach that was big on volume during base and would build the weeks to where my final week would be 35 hours on the bike. Primarily endurance. Living in New England that was all done primarily on the trainer. So that is kind of like the other end of the spectrum from a SST base. Some really good coaches I’ve worked def had a more balanced approach, yes there would be blocks of SST incorporated, tempo as well, easier endurance days and also looking to squeeze a longer day in the mix.
I think people need to be reasonable and understand what these plans are, what you are getting and what you are not getting. This is a good place for folks to start that are new to training to get a sense of what a structured workout is like. This is a good place for folks that don’t want to hire a coach, nor want to think about or plan out training, This is also a good place for folks that just want to use a low volume plan to get a couple high quality workouts per week and then supplement the remainder of the week otherwise. As someone who is about to turn 50 I think there high volume plan is a recipe for disaster as just does not offer enough recovery.
I’ve personally moved away from these plans and have gone back to self coaching and building out my ATP and workout cycles, etc. I also use WKO5 as my software to analyze and plan and am utilizing training zones based on my own physiology vs. a % of FTP.
How much money do YouTubers make every 1,000 views?
With the average YouTube pay rate hovering between $0.01 and $0.03 for an ad view, a YouTuber can make around $18 per 1,000 ad views, which comes out to $3 to $5 per 1,000 video views . Forbes also estimates that for top talent, a YouTuber can make about $5 for every 1,000 video views.
Great link and definitely explains Dylan’s true motive to use this video to monetize his channel. Assuming 60k views at $4 per 1,000 means he’s raked in a massive $240, which is a total win when you factor in the time it took to put the video together.
Just catching up on episodes on That Triathlon Show and yesterday listened to the Wolfram Bott episode - Head Coach for the German Triathlon federation development. He stated he is now following the ‘Norwegian Way’ - more polarized with his athletes. However, when Mikael asked for advise for age groupers he said those training less hours “My advice in regards to training is that the less you train, the more intensity you can do, however, it is easy that it can get bit too hard” (quoting the shows notes. He specifically said the too hard is related to testing n basing on FTP. For his athletes he uses lactate testing version of INSYD.
All this to say both approaches have their place. Seiler made observations of Norwegian of cross-country skiers that led him to observe the 80/20. If you have ever cross-country skied you will know how taxiing it is to go hard. I tried doing an 80/20 running from Matt Fitzgerald and for my fitness standpoint, what he classified as Z2, was actually higher. Likewise, Phil Maffetone observed through many thousands of athletes that MAF zone could be simplified to an age formula and modifiers. This is based on averages, but statistically the deviation from the mean will happen fairly quickly, and I as an individual am quite far from he mean - learned my body. Likewise the ramp test is very likely based on an average distribution, and those that tend to fall on the higher side will suffer more. Too much distributions talk - im in the middle of modeling our tech support and refining our actual distributions…
@RecoveryRide I am American and I still find references to the constitution and its amendments confusing. LOL.
Good stuff, @RecoveryRide. I used to tell my parents that they were infringing on my rights to free speech. How do you think that went over? My daughter does it now. What goes around comes around.
right?
My daughter does it now. What goes around comes around.