Thanks for the tip. Checked my calendar and that was had happened to my “Base 2” as well. Perhaps it’s just TR’s polite way of saying “you are turning 42 this year, perhaps time to reduce the intensity ;)”.
2 Likes
Not on mobile, it’s not. You have to mess around going in to the device settings screen. It’s a much requested feature to make this a one-click operation.
5 Likes
Yep. It’d definitely be a nice to have. Not critical but Zwift has it and it’s a nice feature.
I really dig all these changes! I just wish it wouldn’t have automatically changed all the training blocks I had spent a lot of time putting together for my 2024 calendar 
. Back to the drawing board for me! 
2 Likes
I understand why the Masters Plans are not polarized, but could I use the Masters Plan option if I do the polarized plan?
They’ve been through this a million times. You’re right conceptually but they find no-one does the longer rides on the trainer. The plans are made for the majority. If you want to do longer easier just do it…
4 Likes
A bit of nitpicking I’d say, but - I loaded the Low Volume Masters General Base 1 as a plan starting soon (all good), and the notes associated with the plan, accessed through the calendar, state:
“The Masters low-volume version of General Base I makes optimal use of your training time, with 3 challenging workouts and one Endurance spin during each of its first 3 weeks…”
It’s obviously 2+1, not 3+1.
2 Likes
+1. It is easy to choose an alternate or delete and choose the workout you want.
Maybe I’m being thick headed at the moment, but I’m not sure I understand your concern? Why would you want the Endurance PL to be treated any different than all the rest? Since the implementation of the Masters Plans and my subsequent implementation of them onto my calendar, the endurance days have a ramp rate in progression just like the other zones (though I’m not 7+ in ANY zone).
There are no shortage of Endurance zone WO’s in the TR library at PL 7 and above (with a max of 73% FTP, so not tempo)… just choose one that fits what you desire on the day…
1 Like
Thanks to the TR team for bringing out these new Masters plans!
Having looked through them , they are probably what I “need” but not what I “want”.
As someone who doesn’t like endurance, I would be inclined to go to Train Now and pick something more spicey to replace some of those workouts. So defeating the object of the plan.
Or I would add in Over /Unders within a longer outdoor ride on Sunday.
In the Winter I train indoors most of the time and like the buzz of the high intensity 3x/week.
But in Summer I ride outdoors more, so the Masters plan may well be good then. I do more endurance rides and could throw in some sprints to liven them up a bit, or gnarly hill climbs off road.
I’ve noticed a lot of older folk seem to enjoy long rides, so I’m in the minority I believe.
My experience of long group rides often has me sneaking a short cut home, or to the cafe 
1 Like
I think an issue with this is that it’s always searching for something labelled “Productive”, which discounts the fact that there is actually productive value in adding “Achievable” endurance volume to your plan - and that this can actually be the ideal option if you’re stretching yourself in other types of workouts during the week.
If you keep stretching out to productive endurance rides, you could easily blow out your volume/time constraints because the available PL 7 rides can be 3-6 hours long.
13 Likes
I think there’s an easy solution. in plan builder, you just ask, “do you want your Sunday ride to be “high volume, low intensity” or do you prefer a shorter workout at a higher intensity?”
I’ll add a +1 for longer rides and lower intensity if we can only have one though.
2 Likes
Are these changes being applied to training plans already in progress? Or are they being rolled out for new training plans moving forward? The changes do make sense, but I’m not sure I currently need the additional recovery for my low volume plan.
Giving the masters plan a try, mainly because I’m getting additional intensity from running and xc skiing and this seems like a decent workaround for that since I don’t think adaptive training really takes that into account
However I just realized it has me doing Carpathian Peak +3 (3x20 over unders) for 5 weeks in a row. Um… Is that normal for the first base phase in a plan aimed at masters athletes?
Workouts will adapt as you complete them. You’re fine.
1 Like
the concern is the the point or reason we do “endurance” riding. endurance intensity should be low, because the adaptations we want are based on duration and not intensity. if we ride endurance with increased intensity (>.7 IF), we build much more fatigue over time without extra adaptations. we can do less of if it, so overall the benefit is less. TR should reward us with PL based on duration, not intensity. so if it gives us a 2 hour workout, it really should be 0.5IF - 0.65IF. then over time you will be less fatigued to do your high intensity work. this is where i believe TR are losing the ability to train us properly. just increasing intensity does not make us fitter.
7 Likes
I’m not sure this is true.
1 Like
Hi Nate. on the endurance adaptations, you are correct. 1 hour of high intensity will yield the same endurance benefits as 1 hour of lower endurance. however we can’t continually increase the dose of intensity and therefore adaptation while we can do that with duration. once we get a few hours of training in our week, we should add stress via duration and not intensity. intensity brings fatigue. its the reason why high performing riders with high FTPs, don’t ride regular endurance at 0.73IF. they can do it, but the metabolic stress will be very high, and not yield much overall benefit. from my own experience, riding at 0.7IF feels like a workout, and is close to my LT1, it brings fatigue and makes it hard to increase volume and “dose”.
2 Likes
Please don’t turn this into another zone 2 thread.
15 Likes
You’re right. Obviously if the body doesn’t adapt (change) somehow, performance (“endurance”) won’t either.