Anybody been able to find the old Sustained Power Build MV plan? I’ve trawled through a few pages but not seen it yet.
Im losing faith with society.
6 Likes
- Maybe?
just an observation from my own plan (SSB2 HV) with adaptive training and the original posting about a 7x7 sweet spot workout being too easy. So AT is only adjusting Tuesday, Thurs, and Sat workouts, leaving the easy Wed/Fri endurance and Sunday reduced sweet spot workout intact. Of course, given that I’m doing over 60mins of continuous sweet spot, the Sunday workouts are super duper easy. But it’s still a decent workout and a good contrast to the increasingly difficult Saturday sessions (and that’s not to mention what week 5 of the old SSB2 HV looked like). I’m on the record as having enjoyed the structure of the old SSB plans and doing 5 days of SS work, but I’m also trusting the structure of the new stuff to give us a balance of work and rest
3 Likes
Hey all,
I just want to clarify a few misconceptions I see popping up here in this thread. Most importantly, the new plans do not require Adaptive Training to be effective!
These plans use ML-based insights we’ve derived from Adaptive Training to be more progressive, sustainable, and effective in their current form. And it’s true, these plans will be better starting points on which Adaptive Training can build adaptations than the old plans, but that’s because of their more systematic and data-driven design. The new plans weren’t designed for AT at the expense of making you faster now. With or without adaptations, we believe these plans are a big step forward for TrainerRoad athletes.
So how do these new plans relate to Adaptive Training? The systems we’ve built for AT allowed us unprecedented insights into progressions, workout difficulty, and plan compliance, and helped us to better understand what makes our athletes faster. As a result, we didn’t want to wait for Adaptive Training’s full release to improve our training plans, because we are confident these insights can make you faster now. Again, you do not need Adaptive Training to benefit from these plans- but Adaptive Training’s insights inform why these plans look the way they do.
To address another common concern, will some athletes want to modify these plans to fit their individual needs? Sure, but that’s true of any training plan. We expect that far fewer athletes will adjust these plans than we saw in previous versions, and that our athletes will be more consistent and more successful overall- and as a result, get faster.
34 Likes
Thank you, I think that’s the new one.
Thank you for this, it’s a gold mine!
Jonathan, as you know I am the OP. So firstly I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.
WRT that first line. It’s been acknowledged I believe that the plans were tweaked to allow for better adherence, which I (and others) read as having the progressions start at a lower point, and then ramping up at a less steep angle (and there being more consistency in the ramping i.e. not going 4.5 to 6.7 to 5.3 etc.) so that newer users would find it easier to stick with the plans. I think that’s an awesome thing to do as we all want people to stick with the training.
However, this does mean that for some of the old salts (like me), the plans now start with arguably less difficult workouts, but this wouldn’t have mattered had AT been applied because AT would recognise, for example, that I am on level 7 for VO2 Max and start me there rather than at 4.5.
Therefore, to my mind the plans DO need AT to be effective, as without AT changing the jump off point of the plan, I am being offered workouts that really aren’t as testing as they otherwise should be. So, fine if you are just getting started, but not so good if you have a longer training history.
Agreed, this is the simple fix… I could just simply either go with what Train Now suggests or find a workout in the library to bump up the progression, but to be honest that’s not really what I’m looking for from my plan. I see this being a non-issue of course with AT but for now, if I’m honest, it’s a bit of a negative for me.
But that’s me… and I’m n=1 as people are fond of saying on here. It’s still a great product and I’m still (generally) happy with the quality of the plans and the execution bar some bugs I have mentioned above and to your support team.
Again, thanks for responding, much appreciated.
5 Likes
I understand that getting on my bike with some structure is great.
^ This is what has me the most perplexed by the combination of the new plans and TrainNow. Where you have one giving you a Workout based on AT insight that is at level X but then go to TrainNow that has an AT backing that then gives you a workout with level drastically different.
TrainNow just looks at your history and offers a workout based on that with a general plan of building fitness. There is no driving factor, no recovery weeks or anything approaching the complexity of a training plan with TN.
Training Plans, with or without Adaptive Training, have a very specific aim and progression with a target event or training emphasis driving the entire plan progression. These include loading and recovery weeks, different phases of training that include different workout types.
Two very different approaches, so it’s practical to see differences in their related workouts at any given time.
3 Likes
You raise quite a few points, and I did not mean to say that the old plans were great for everyone — they were not, at least not without adaptation. Even though TR has been trying to inform its users on how to use “non-smart” TR, even on a psychological level there are a few road blocks. For example, I think most of us are hesitant to lower their FTP (e. g. if they do not fit in the FTP = 75 % MAP bin) or to opt for a lower volume plan.
If AT wasn’t about to be rolled out, I’d agree with that. IMHO another solution is to steer users more aggressively towards lower volume plans and then let them add extra credit workouts when they want to.
I haven’t heard that before as a point of criticism. Can you be more specific? Currently there are three Build plans for cyclist (Short Power, General, Sustained Power) as well as 4 tri-specific Build Plans. Why doesn’t the Sustained Build plan work for you?
1 Like
The biggest issue with sustained build is the lack of sustained work. TR has substituted the suprathreshold workouts (which IMO were key mentally and physically, especially in preparing for TTs) for on-offs VO2 workouts. That’s just not specific to needing to pedal around threshold for long periods of time. General build also used to include sustained threshold intervals especially in the HV plan, and those have been dumped for short VO2 max intervals. That said, the VO2s themselves are not actually that hard, and certainly don’t build the same stimulus as say 8-10mins at 102-105% FTP.
7 Likes
What about Kaweah on Week 1. That was absolutely brutal!
1 Like
The most confusing aspect for me is in relation to the supposed ‘Vo2max’ workouts they seem to be distinctly lacking in intensity. for anyone who’s just completed the old SSB 2, what stimulus am I going to get from 2 min intervals @ 110%, is just seems laughably easy?
1 Like
Stop me if this has been covered above.
Ive always liked this concept. But:
Can someone explain the benefit of the really long, low power (100W!) breaks in between these intervals?
Basically I think the old plans would have had 4-8mins recovery at Endurance levels.
On this I’m recovered, low heart rate after 2mins then I have another 10mins yawning until the next interval.
Either; shorten the workout, so my ‘minimum effective dose’ is a 30min workout. Or raise the recovery effort level so I’m getting some aerobic development.
4 Likes
The thing was they didn’t change the real distribution of intensity, they just lowered the intensity of the sessions while still having 4 out of 5 rides being something that should be above thst first lactate threshold. Now they’re in a quasi middle ground even more than before, pushing the planned hard days easier and everything closer to the median. True adaptations come from those varied intensities and having the energy to make the hard days truly hard. Clearly now one must complete the specialty phase to peak and is more of tge build when they were just the icing on the cake before, but even those hardly have some of their best workouts from the old build phases.
3 Likes
I don’t understand why that angle isn’t pushed more along with more guidance about how to incorporate group rides, mtb rides, aerobic endurance rides on the weekends into the overall plan. Just seems like a no-brainer to me that people who do incorporate the things that got them into cycling in the first place, and they love doing, into their weekly plans would improve compliance, reduce burnout, etc. There would probably be less posts asking if it is ‘okay’ to do a long aerobic endurance ride outside instead of doing an indoor/outdoor structured workout.
2 Likes
I wholeheartedly agree.
People forget that riding your bike should be fun! It’d be nice if the interface to the TR app and Adaptive Training suggested outdoor rides to athletes, ideally with some optional instructions like “Let’s practice pacing today.” or “Z2 ride” or “Let’s practice climbing.”
I would love to spend more time outdoors but during the week time constraints are such that I have to train indoors in the early morning before my family wakes up. An outdoor ride is a treat.
2 Likes
Looking at the plans the VO2 work is actually more difficult in the base plans (LV and MV anyways) than the build plans- the progression level is about 1 higher than build! Maybe AT solves for that by substituting harder VO2s into build, but then these plans should never have been released to the public without the AT engine.
Back to the point of specificity, here is an early week from 2 separate plans- without looking, tell me which one is better suited to Sustained Power Build? AT can only substitute workouts in, it can’t solve for the wrong workout category being assigned in the first place.
My biggest annoyance is volume. TB1/2 MV are 4 days a week but TB3 is 5 days a week and I want to break it into 5 for all of them, there should be an option for this. If I go to HV, it’s all of a sudden 6 days a week. If I add a day to TB1/2 I’m now messing up the TSS progression week over week. POL plans are the same IIRC