Agreed. I think TR is a valuable tool to supplement/compliment training. I don’t think it’s the one stop shop for training that many want to make it out to be. JMO
Making some assumptions here…I think TR and other similar platforms are in a tough position. They need to market a product that is easy to use so high numbers use it to turn a profit. But, anyone who has been at this sport for a while sort of understands, training with power can get messy really quick. Cue the ramp test. It’s quick and easy but, it’s probably not super accurate for many. I read a TP article by Kolie saying the 20 minute protocol might only be accurate for 50-60% of athletes. He goes onto further delineate track and TT specialist as the aerobic/anaerobic contributions are so different. Not many would do Kolie’s protocol or Coggan’s. So I think they had to compromise and listening to Kolie the validity of the ramp test with power only is probably less than what I wrote above!
What? Does TR market compliance? They’ve been pretty tight lipped on the matter as far as I can tell but maybe I’m out of the loop. You are right to ask the question…maybe I’m just making an assumption. But in the past there were a certain subset of workouts that always had a poor compliance rate and if you took a close look at the ride feed there were many failures that looked like the athlete just couldn’t handle the intensity. Many times you’d see ~threshold workouts where the athlete was backpedalling, trying, backpedalling trying again…or giving in, then trying again, then giving in…at heart rates that were ~associated with VO2peak from a proximal ramp. My heart goes out to those riders.
So is it better to have those riders doing some workout that is sub-optimal to threshold adaptation but more likely to be completed? Or is AT just ‘bringing them back into the fold’ after evaluating surveys and adapting future workouts? I don’t know but I’d like to listen to a discussion about it.
Just from my personal perspective…though it may not be 100% rational…it bothers me to watch those athletes struggle with workouts through no fault of their own. Especially when there’s no ‘give up’ & they just keep trying. It’s just…IDK. Those are real people that would be making real progress if there were a guiding hand on the tiller. It bothers me just to leave them struggle.
This is exactly what I said in the podcast, as a joke iirc, but I meant it. They developed an ML algorithm to help correct the ramp test’s flaws due to individual variation of anaerobic contributions and % MLSS of vo2max. The same issues exist with the 20 minute test but to a smaller degree. Does it help correct it? Yes? Good on TR. However, my criticisms of the ramp test are still valid. The time and energy it probably wastes for some people while the workouts are adjusted is unnecessary, so if the PD modeling behind the scenes gets where other platforms are I hope it goes away altogether for the good of TR users. And still, I think the AT stuff is a Rube Goldberg way around a problem that doesn’t need to exist in the first place.
Also, MLSS is not hard to find. Most people can ride right to it if given the right coaching cues.
I believe TR can be used to success right out of the can, but I suspect the ROI quickly diminishes after a couple of years, IMO. This is/was my experience.
Completely serious, TR was a good tool for teaching me what NOT to do. Sometimes I’m a little pissed it took me two years to realize TR’s SSB and Build was ineffective programming for me. But I did learn some good “what not to do” lessons.
2018 was my first three full months of TR, and I watched fitness drop despite doing similar volume as first two years with a road bike:
In WKO its painful to look at the decline, essentially slid back to 2015 fitness which was built on 2x per week Spin HIIT and another ride or two on the road using a XC Mtn bike.
On the positive side, TR has really good trainer control. Although I also learned that Erg wasn’t helping matters. N=1 and all that.
My first FTP test in TR (Dec 2017) was 8-min, and then ramp tests. Most of the ramp tests seemed reasonable, although from time to time I had some way to low estimates (when WKO shows 89% FTP-vs-pVO2max), and manually set FTP. My lower response to the plans appears to be more about the programming - TR SSB and Build plans - rather than individual workout compliance (to Brennus point).
TR should have you on the successful athlete podcast! To paraphrase Nate’s podcast comments, there are different ways to get fast. If it works for you, keep doing it!
Sorry for digging this convo up again, but you say that you were getting a low response to TR SSB and build plans - I’m curious what has been working for you instead this time of the year if you don’t mind sharing?
I’m in the second SSB2 low volume, and I’m questioning if this type of work is best for me this time of the year - Each week there is a pretty darn challenging SS workout, a vo2 max and over/under threshold workout.
The SS workout today is 3x16 min at 94%! Can I do it? Yes, but I’m questioning the timing of this work in December. All the research that I’ve read points to 2 hard sessions being the max for most people per week, and at 45 years old I think this is a a lot of hard sessions.
With TR SSB my some of my thoughts are summed up in this post yesterday: Differences between high and medium volume SSB plans - #30 by WindWarrior where that once a month really long 1-3 hour interval is often a hard push on a metric or imperial century. I seem to respond well to infrequent big overloads and recovery week keeping a couple toned down intensity workouts (vs TR’s all endurance recovery week). So if I was using TR, my approach might be cherry picking 2 workouts from SSB1/SSB2, possibly dialing down the number of intervals, and then 3 days of zone2/endurance. I’ve got almost 15 years on you, and am finally starting to notice the impact of aging in terms of recovery. Some people start feeling that sooner. For context I still have a head of dark hair and can read a menu or my phone with or without glasses, call me a late bloomer on aging.
My coach has taught me a lot about minimum effective dose in order to elicit adaptations. Right now we are building up threshold, after having built a large base over 1 year. My best training happens in December/January/February while I’m not on allergy meds. Monday was shorter over/unders wrapped into 2 hours you can see the intervals here Where did you ride OUTSIDE today (2021) - #1321 by WindWarrior something like 3-min at 85% and 1-min at 115%, repeat that twice, and do four sets. Tuesdays are generally 2 hour endurance rides 72-77%. Yesterday was 2 hours with threshold intervals of 8-min at 95%, 3 sets of those and it felt really easy and I could have gone a lot longer and done more sets. But Friday is more tempo and some above threshold repeatability, so I just did the Wed threshold work as a little can go a long way before I start needing 40-70 minute efforts in March. Saturday is 3 hour endurance ride. Its basically an Individualized variation of the two weeks shown here Sweet Spot Part 3 – FasCat Coaching
About two years ago I tried the FasCat off-the-shelf 18 weeks of sweet spot plan (skipped the first 4 weeks), and within 3 months I saw improvements. The plans have fewer intervals than TR, and initially I was concerned about not doing enough sweet spot intervals (or even long ones like TR Wright Peak). But to my surprise I could still go out and nail 40-70 minutes at threshold. And FTP bumped above 260 about 4% higher than I was seeing on TR (and the ‘before AT’ build plans destroyed me). However if you want to work on fatigue resistance, then mixing in longer tempo intervals say 85-90% are gold IMHO and a lot of info about that on the Sweet Spot Progression thread.
Hope that helps, its somewhat specific to where I currently am but the general rules of thumb are: a) 2-3 hard sessions a week, b) fewer intervals, and c) more endurance. Its surprisingly similar to what Brandan Housler wrote here 2021: what worked for you, what didn’t - #8 by brendanhousler and he won 2 US masters championships this year (road and Fondo I believe). I don’t have that level of talent, but that approach is working better for me.
Great info. Thanks for taking the time and sharing your experience, and jealous about the hair lol.
I like the concept of ‘minimum effective dose’. This is how I generally train in the outdoor months when my volume is higher and able to do lots of z2.
I struggle with indoor riding mainly due to not wanting to do longer rides on the trainer, which is TRs angle of giving you more work with low volume. On the flip side, I’m not really keen on doing so much hard riding in dec! No free lunch as my economics professor used to say….
Yeah, I took the suck it up buttercup route and bought 5 pair of thermal bibs. Light rain falling on me twice this week, that got me to 5.5+ hours in 3 days. Thats me in the avatar pic rocking the hair LOL.
I’m note the one who asked the question, but I still found it incredibly helpful. Your insight all across this board is a wonderful gift as someone just starting to figure this stuff out.
In your previous post you mentioned WKO5 having your FTP at 89% of vo2max – I think I understand why this is improbable, but I was wondering how it ended up correcting? I’m still in the process of providing my PD Curve with accurate, current data points. It also currently estimates my the FTP-VO2max ratio at 89%. In my case, however, I believe that the FTP is at most only a few watts off (FTP derived via a 53 minute TTE test). Do you think that as I provide new tests to updated the PD curve that WKO5 will adjust its vo2max calculations etc. until that ratio is a more realistic number?
First off I’m glad you found my posts helpful! When I get to 88% or 89% its time for more vo2 work! Coach Chad covered this in a deep dive:
WKO modeling relies on an accurate power duration curve. And even then models are models, so its not perfect but can give a good or very good estimate depending on the model. Feeding the model with good max efforts every 4-6 weeks is necessary to get good estimates from the model. Post any WKO questions in another thread!
I’ve been very interested in 'getting rid of FTP tests but still knowing my FTP" for a while
This is a key point that I have only more recently come to appreciate more fully how this limits these types of estimates to my training. At times the WKO/intervals.icu estimates line up pretty closely with my ramp and/or longer FTP tests, at other times not so much. It has also been interesting to see how setting a new recent power PR at a short (30ish second, if I recall) led to a decrease in modeled FTP. My general training routine does not include maximal efforts (and TR plans have very few in general.)
My take away is that following a TR training plan, I will generally not get truly max efforts at any time length other than FTP tests, and maybe some short sprints that are all out. I think that this is going to be a major limitation for TR’s adaptive training having good FTP predictions without testing. I’m realizing that the models are likely good enough to get rid of FTP testing, however in order to do that you need to ‘test’ your maximal efforts at different lengths on a consistent basis. You can’t get away from maximal efforts, just things called “FTP tests”
We’ll see if TR is able to do some big data/ML ‘magic’ that can use HR or perceived exertion to remove the need for maximal efforts. I think that eventually something like this will reduce the need for maximal efforts, but I think that will not be for a while (ie 5+ year timeline for new modeling to be released and be demonstrated to be good/better.)
I think it really helps to develop a feeling for different efforts, and to observe how power & HR relate. When riding consistently my ftp is pretty stable except for a couple months coming back from a break, or the bump I see about a month after a big overload week. It is pretty easy to go long periods of time without formal testing, or to stop feeding the model with max efforts until its desired/appropriate. Xert’s free real-time ftp estimator (link for DCRainmaker article) for Garmin was my first experience with modeling in 2017.
Even back in 2017 DCRainmaker noted 4 different platforms that modeled FTP. Going out and hammering on Wed night worlds, or on a group ride, or on a Strava segment, is my kind of fun and part of what I enjoy about cycling. Even done infrequently means I haven’t waited for ‘eventually’ to pass. Heck you don’t even need a tool, if someone teaches you how to interpret your power curve. And even better, enjoying that type of fun has always improved performance versus strictly sticking to structured training Win win. Don’t overthink it
Does TR market compliance? They’ve been pretty tight lipped on the matter as far as I can tell but maybe I’m out of the loop. You are right to ask the question…maybe I’m just making an assumption. But in the past there were a certain subset of workouts that always had a poor compliance rate and if you took a close look at the ride feed there were many failures that looked like the athlete just couldn’t handle the intensity. Many times you’d see ~threshold workouts where the athlete was backpedalling, trying, backpedalling trying again…or giving in, then trying again, then giving in…at heart rates that were ~associated with VO2peak from a proximal ramp. My heart goes out to those riders.
