fstrnu

This will beat any canned FTP plan:

4 x 4 at maximum sustainable intensity (add intervals if needed to avoid leaving too much in the tank)

4 x 8 at maximum sustainable intensity (do more if you can)

1 x 90 at whatever intensity will produce 5-10% cardiac drift (you should be looking forward to the end of the workout with about 20% to go)

Use RPE, HR and cardiac drift to find the frequency with/at which you can effectively cope/adapt.

rubiksoval

You realize those are three of the most generic, canned workouts you can do, right?

fstrnu

Yes I do.

redlude97

Do you have any numbers/data from you or your athletes that show the gains from this approach?

newduguy

I'd be interested in this as well. And are there control groups doing the "any canned FTP plan" that will show how much better the OP's canned FTP plan is?

fstrnu

As rubiksoval pointed out, there's nothing special about these workouts at all and there are thousands upon thousands of cyclists performing these workouts. They merely hit the three energy systems many of us want to include in any FTP improvement plan. But it's not about the workout structure at all. It's about the principle of individualization. Cyclists have different strengths, load/rate tolerances, available time, personal life schedules, training interruptions, illlness, etc. etc. etc. MSI merely personalizes intensity in a self-regulating way instead of basing workouts on FTP and then troubleshooting why they are too hard or too easy. It's much more effective to simply skip that convoluting step and go straight to the solution which is letting performance be your guide. And load monitoring to ensure you are successfully coping/adapting to the program is just common sense.

Following a one size fits all schedule that attempts to predict where you are going to be on Wednesday six weeks from now is just silly; but it sells a lot of software. If people had any idea how simple this stuff can be they'd never pay for overly complex and arbitrary plans intended to appear to be sophisticated. And there are thousands and thousands of cyclists who use their performance as their guides just as I outline above. Does it matter whether you do 4 x 8 or x 2 x 20? Not really; although there are many studies on various interval structures and their relative effectiveness for various populations. But studies are always flawed. If you want to do 2 x 20s then do them. I use 4 x 8 because they work and are more pleasant. What's most important is that the body receives the message that it needs to adapt. And that's where the third piece of the puzzle comes in and that is that you need to add/extend/split intervals as needed to ensure proper stimulus or preserve workout quality. If you don't, you will almost certainly be working too hard or not hard enough. This is all really common sense but requires athletes to listen to their bodies instead of listening to vendors.

One of the best things a new cyclist can do is listen to advise from other (non-cycling) endurance sports; which still has coherent advice available whilst the training industrial complex has completely brainwashed cyclists (at least most who spend more time in internet forums than training).

redlude97

So the answer is no then

rubiksoval

The answer is always no, which is undoubtedly the result of his completely making things up based on misinterpretations of other people's work.

"Thousands and thousands of cyclists" doing this "program" that he's talking about, yet you'll never meet one of them, and he apparently doesn't know any of them.

But of course, this "individualized" stuff that shows absolutely zero individualization is vastly superior to trainerroad and zwift programs, and everyone that uses those programs is simply lazy and ignorant and whatever else he's so colorfully described. Oh, and brainwashed.

fstrnu

You mean like this lol ==> https://blog.trainerroad.com/how-6-c...82-on-average/

fstrnu

You continue to confuse "workout" with "program". It's really not that complicated.

OBoile

I think what he's trying to say is that doing these workouts each week will basically be as good as any canned coaching program, so why bother paying for said program?

Edit to add: I'm not offering any personal opinion... just trying to clear up any confusion in the discussion.

rubiksoval

Apologies. Let's try again:

Thousand of people do these workouts (which are quite different and likely part of an actual program that works and makes sense for their needs, like the one you linked to above)

No one does your "program" and you have no results from it.


More accurate?

redlude97

could you stop being purposefully obtuse and just answer the question?

fstrnu

4 x 4 at MSI
4 x 8 at MSI
Perform 1 x 90 at whatever intensity will produce 5-10% cardiac drift

These self-regulating workouts achieve personalized stimulus and progression. MSI is the maximum power that you can maintain for all four intervals of each workout. Power increases as you get stronger while interval structures ensure proper energy system targeting for lactate threshold improvement and endurance maintenance.

Workout and rest week frequency is determined via load monitoring. Monitoring of the internal to external load ratio and cardiac drift allows determination of the athlete’s ability to successfully cope with / adapt to the program.

A decreasing internal to external load ratio indicates improved fitness and the need to increase workout intensity in order to continually challenge the body. Disassociation of internal load indicators, such as an increase in RPE or cardiac which coincides with a decrease in average work interval heart rate, indicates suppressed heart rate caused by fatigue.

As recovery quickens with improved fitness, which will become evident from trend analysis of external and internal load metrics, frequency of workouts and rest weeks will be able to increase and decrease, respectively.

redlude97

could you stop being purposefully obtuse and just answer the question?

fstrnu

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/6/2/44/pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nsus_Statement


https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/a...nd-decoupling/

https://fascatcoaching.com/tips/cycling-intervals/

WhyFi

Hi! What's this thread about?

fstrnu

Rhetorical question I'm sure but summary is that software can't compete with humans.

WhyFi

So your generic recommendation of 4x4s, 4x8s, etc is something that available software can't match? Makes sense.

fstrnu

I've already answer this here:

​​​​​​​

WhyFi

That answer looks considerably longer than "yes" or "no."

fstrnu

No

WhyFi

Step 1: do a 4x4 session
Step 2: goto Step 1

There. I just wrote some software that equals your recommendations.

fstrnu

No

fstrnu

OP re-written to incorporate feedback. Thanks all