I believe the amount of oxygen it takes to produce that power may not be linear. At least that is my take from reading an article by running guru lydiard when talking about running paces.
I discovered the problem with auto-pause as well. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think it does not show me my really IF intensity for the workout, especially if I take an auto-pause break for a significant period of time. As a consequence, when I review my past workouts, I don’t remember really how tough the work out was if I don’t see how long I had to stop to rest.
So happy you guys are so on top it on making these improvements on TR! TR is one of the BEST investments I’ve ever made to my biking arsenal and fitness. I don’t compete or anything, but one does not have to to reap the enormous benefits of overall well-being with TR. Thank you Nate, Chad, Jonathan, and your entire team at TR!!
+1 to the “Show auto-pause” fix (or having the option to show it).
Please prioritize it - should not be too complicated, is it?
From what I read and what I think this could help us to get good workouts done and stick to the intensity and the amount of intervalls I like it.
We will see how it works but I think we all will profit from it. More compliance is good!
Thanks! Good idea!
Please consider excluding cadence from your pass/fail assessment. I regularly do the workouts at lower cadence because I am working in torque for MTB climbs. If you make me fail, the overall TR product will not be aligned to my objectives.
People are obsessed with machine learning, if you want to get better at sprinting than practice, you don’t need a ML algorithm to tell you to do sprint workouts if that is your goal.
I would guess they aren’t taking cadence into consideration regarding pass/fail or compliance of a workout. Chad mentions fairly regularly in workout text what recommended cadences are but also gives the caveat to do what’s best for you based on your personal needs and goals.
I personally use my own cadence and power targets to decide if I passed or failed my attempt at a workout though. And, like you, that’s just based on my goals outside of the training program. Although, often times, my cadence targets are the same as those recommendations.
There are a lot of riders that hit all their workouts between their first two ramp tests. So not really straight sandbagging but maybe just not a learning curve on the ramp test?
I hope the downloadable files will include the real time data also.
SSB MV2 starting Dec 31. Delete SSB MV2 from calendar. Add SSB MV2 to calendar. Plan adjusted.
Now, as long as you make any adjustments to Sustained Power Build before Feb 11, I’m good.
I’ve come back to TrainerRoad after two winters of using a competing app. Sweet Spot low volume seems considerably harder than I remember even though my current FTP is comparable to previous seasons. I am 42 and my goals have nothing to do with racing. I’m just hoping to at least maintain my fitness over the winter. Should I be selecting a different plan? I don’t follow the calendar to the day and continue to ride trails/road as weather allows.
You could also do the Sprint Distance Tri Specialty plan, designed for a 12.5 mi TT.
Might take a bit of manual finagling to adjust the plan for run/swim workouts. It also has VO2 sessions which I don’t think the 40k plan does.
I can see where you are coming from @CrunchyGears.
We accept that Chad is a top coach and has designed the workouts with skill and purpose.
Therefore if a number of people have not completed a specific workout it will now be dumbed down. In the example Nate gives a 2:00 RIB maybe extended to 2:30. What about the original purpose of the session, that has now been reduced because some cannot complete it.
Much of the data will be TR sessions which are predominantly based around sweetspot. Therefore your data is rather self-fulfilling in that it will prove SS works.
I think you fly in the face of a lot of arguments that 80/20 or polarised can give benefits.
The argument isn’t does 80/20 work. It works insofar that you are putting stress on your body and your body will respond. The question is ‘Does 80/20 make the best use of my 4-8 hours a week to train getting faster on my bike?’ I don’t think that question has been answered in a convincing manner at all.
Here’s your machine learning: 100+ years of bike racing!
All those men & women didn’t spend hours staring at a screen, they went out & rode hills, sprints, rooty single track, sandy/muddy stretches, cross-winds, big gears, etc et al.
Team Sky could only make Wiggins 10% faster than Merckx. Take away all the modern gear, the marginal gains, the power meters…and the old timers doing olde timey training would not be significantly slower than modern day robo riders.
Totally agree. But then again, not sure it’s been answered unequivocallly that SS/Thrsh training is the best use of 4-8 hours/week. If you stand back and look at it, it’s all still a bit archaic and guessy, but it’s the best we have with what we know.
We know that people spending all day riding ‘medium hard’ end up plateauing hard. See your generic club rider. We know that tons of people that do threshold + VO2 get faster. See TrainerRoad users. TrainerRoad prioritizes getting as much of the intensity in that they expect you to handle without cracking. Then fill with endurance.
You could replace all the threshold work with equivalent tss from endurance and focus all your intensity in VO2. It would probably work. But filling 200-400 of tss at 65% would make me want to gouge my eyes out. Especially on a trainer.
I swapped plans just over a week ago without any issues so the same thing should apply if you want swap. I was just over mid way through the high volume plan. I went back and deleted the plan from my calendar and then added in the mid volume from the same starting week. All my completed rides stayed in place, no additional workouts were added to days in the past and new ones were added to the future.