fstrnu

Edit - This post has been re-written as of 2019-02-27.

If I could, I'd re-title this thread to The Cycling SW Industry Should Not Fear Informed Athletes.

However, since they do, the original title is still relevant.

The cycling software industry continues to squander the opportunity to truly revolutionize indoor training.

Incredibly, but conveniently, TrainerRoad dismisses the value of HR.

Zwift training plans are incoherent so they can't even by evaluated.

Training Peaks at least acknowledges the value of HR information but is not a major player indoors. Their ACWR-based offerings, while arguable as a necessary evil outdoors, somewhat cannibalizes the ability to fully embrace the power of EF and decoupling indoors under controlled conditions because it would marginalize the universal applicability.

The only coach which appears to both believe and not be conflicted with a true N=1 approach to training is Joe Friel, whose book Fast After 50 may as well be re-branded as "how to train indoors".

For athletes who can't bother reading, however, one alternative I've been exploring is a hybrid using (a) the counseling TrainerRoad support gives regarding how to assemble their modular plans based on athlete's unique circumstances with (b) modification of workouts to make them more "load management friendly" in order to better ensure proper stimulus and recovery.

Obviously, integrating this ability into TR itself would be preferable; at least for the "can't be bothered" and "don't have to think" constituencies. But the reality is that athletes can get 99% of this now by doing the following.

But first, and to be fair, some examples.

TR support will help you piece together the right training plans as best they can based on your personal circumstances. "Personal" = Good. This is very good.

So what you'll have is an outline of 12 weeks or whatever of base followed by 6 weeks or whatever of build, etc. up to your event. Awesome.

You'll also have blocks starting with a test and then progressing until the final rest week. This is not terrible and is still valuable as a guide but problems do start here because of known problems with testing, limitations of FTP, load/rate/recovery being a personal thing and what have you.

The good news is that there are alternative ways to prescribe intensity, duration, frequency and progression which are not incompatible with the good "bones" that TR provides. Even the interval structure is largely salvageable after arbitrary variation is removed, i.e. workouts are converted to actual interval workouts.

One example of how to do this is to replace percent FTP with MSI (maximum sustainable intensity). MSI is the maximum power that you can sustain across all work intervals in the workout. Combined with duration which can still be dictated by the interval structure (i.e. 4 x 8 or whatever is prescribed), MSI will ensure both proper workout intensity and progression. So MSI can replace progression based on combined interval duration.

The same thing can be done with endurance workouts but duration is what needs to be replaced and you replace it by targeting a cardiac drift of 5-10%.

You can also determine when you can enter build because when drift is between 5-10% and duration = target event duration (or, of course, 50% or 75% for longer events), then you are ready for Build.

So use the TR framework. Use the TR microcycles. Use the TR workout structure. But ensure proper stimulus and progression via MSI and drift.

Consistent progression along a single programming variable also facilitates more meaningful load monitoring. For example, one consideration of load monitoring is whether you are improving. Progression along a single programming variable clarifies this. If your endurance sessions are becoming longer that is because you are able to do more for the same impact to the body which equals clear improvement. Same goes when MSI increases.

The ability to recover is also easier to determine when load and progression are clear. If you are not improving then you are either getting inadequate stimulus or recovery. So if fatigue is not a problem then you need to add load which, since intensity and duration are good, means simply increasing frequency. If fatigue is a problem, decrease frequency.

A problem remains for TR, though, because everything I just said can be done for free and better using manual ERG mode for too many reasons to mention but one is that manual control allows adding/extending/splitting intervals, etc. which is critical to ensuring adequate stimulus and preserving workout quality.

BUT, if TR built this stuff into the software they would but dominate the market as well as have more than enough data to truly prove empirically that people are improving beyond simply anecdotal accounts of a dozen or so rabid fans. Also, make Jonathan head coach. Chad is a spin class instructor for crying out loud.

SkepticCyclist

Wow, you have certainly given this a lot of thought.

I have no doubt that much of what you say is likely accurate. However, I don't think that means there is no place for software plans. When I started cycling, I just tried to ride as much as I could. That worked in the beginning, but I rapidly reached a point where I didn't seem to be improving much. Introducing TrainerRoad as a form of structured training resulted in significant improvements in my cycling performance.

I am now at a point where I think I need to retain the services of a coach to progress further and reach my potential. I agree that, at some point, it is best to design and, perhaps more importantly, modify your training based on your own personal conditions, schedule, goals, strengths, weaknesses, etc., whether you do that independently or with the assistance of a coach. To do it right, that will require monitoring one's condition, including fatigue, in some manner. Having said that, I still think my time with the more generic structured training was invaluable, taught me a lot, and was a great transition. I think it has its place.

redlude97

I've done a lot of reading and research on the topic ie friels training bible and power meter books, coggans work etc, I have a PhD(not in a directly relevant field, chemical engineering/immunology), and I've read quite a bit of the literature as well ie sieler et al. I'm still not sure I can put together a plan that is better than a prescribed plan as a new training with power user, because I simply don't have the experience to know if the training plan I design will work, whereas even these predesigned plans have been used by other athletes successfully to build fitness in an efficient manner that least to race results. So I think a caveat of your thinking is that it really applies more the experienced racer with at least a few years of training experience or obviously the best case being a good coach as you suggest.

rubiksoval

Experience is more important than reading a book about intervals.

Ironically, however, experience also reveals that there's a lot of stuff that will work for quite a long time, and a lot of it is embracing the notion that you're going to have to really suffer to make the most of your abilities.

Best training plan in the world won't help if you wimp out every time it starts to hurt or every time you start a ride tired. .

rubiksoval

Also, what's going on with the post? Are you offering a product or a service here or...what? Not really sure where you're going.

fstrnu

Why do you think you need to retain a coach to progress further?

fstrnu

You're overthinking it. Your reading too many different things. Start with the Training Bible. Just do what Joe tells you to do. Building a training plan does not require experience. I don't blame you at all for thinking it's overwhelming the way some people present things. Stick with Joe. He's the best teacher out there. He's also recommends interval repeats.

Also, you probably noticed the focus of research on interval repeats. Ever thought about why that is?

fstrnu

The more you understanding your training the faster you accumulate experience. Interval repeats are intuitive and therefore aids understanding.

fstrnu

I believe in the informed athlete so am advocating for this. There are so many market forces against athletes taking control of their training that many don't even consider the possibility of using their brains in any capacity. They just show up, ask what app will think for them and often end up spending more time working around software than learning how to train. It's quite sad.

For old guys like me, understanding training was a given, in fact a fun, part of cycling. We documented what we did in training logs and asked questions to understand and learn from our training. This generation of cyclists (and I mean new cyclists of all ages) simply assumes it's all been worked out for them, which we all know is ridiculous but it sells.

It's not all the athletes' fault though. Shameless vendors (some more than others to be fair) have simply gone too far with the baloney and over-complicating everything to confuse athletes with allegedly black magic solutions. It's disgusting.

There I said it. But let the record reflect that you asked

rubiksoval

Where do you get the idea that interval repeats are intuitive?

I'd assert that structured interval training is not intuitive in the least.

Now, unstructured, reactive intervals (group rides, hills, etc), there may be something to that. More akin to fartlek training in that regard.

rubiksoval

Said what, though?

I still don't understand what your point is, here.

You're advocating thinking for yourself about training? Okay. Great. But, so what?

You could apply that to every single facet of life you could think of. But that's not how humans do things. One, it's not effective and two, it's not efficient. Adults that are cycling as a hobby need both in their training if performance is their goal, because they have other, more significant life demands that they need to think about.

gregf83 

redlude97

I guess maybe I'm misunderstanding your point if it's just KISS, but how does a new training cyclist know how many intervals and what type to repeat in a week, or how many weeks to continue a certain set of intervals etc maybe your only point is that complicated erg intervals are unnecessary which I agree with. But in the broad scheme the software based modules of training blocks for addressing various types of fitness required for racing seem like they are pretty effective for many athletes in terms of race specificity

Carbonfiberboy 

I disagree with that. I think you are wrong about your whole list of "simple to understand." IME, none of that is simple to understand. When I first started serious training, I did exactly what you say, building a lovely periodized training plan straight out of the Bible, starting with where I was and taking me to where I wanted to be. Total failure. I must have taken the training load up too fast, because I could't stay with the plan. I was constantly overreaching so that I had to take days off, which left me even further behind the plan. It does take experience to draft a plan, whether it's your own or your coach's. In that way, it might be better to start with a canned plan. At least then someone in the loop has some experience with training, because it's not the trainee who does.

I think the best teacher for developing a training plan for the self-coached is a premium membership at TrainingPeaks or one of its analogues. There's really no way to be immediately successful at this without data and a coach or experience. The very first thing is to get an uploading heart rate monitor or Garmin or a power meter. Then at least you have data you can plug into TrainingPeaks or one of its analogues. Without data you're out in the boonies, hacking at blackberries with a machete. Sure you can get strong doing that, but it's nasty work.

All that said, I have used the same structured training plan for many years, maybe 15. It's a piece of old Windows software from a company that went out of business long ago. It still runs on my Win7 machine and I have data on there going back all those years. I don't do exactly what the program says because my goals are not the exact goals of that program. Rather I use it as a framework for progressive periodized workouts in a year-long training plan. I've also tried the usual 12-week canned plans, but found them unsatisfactory. 12 weeks is just way too short a time to get from A to Z, at least it is for me. Every year, I need to go from doing 20 mile rides to 400k, from squatting with the bar to half squats with 240. You don't do that in 12 weeks. The average beginning trainee needs to understand that the ideal training plan is about 7 years long. There are no canned plans like that.

Experience is the best teacher and it starts when you begin. None of this is simple, not diet, not the training, not the progression, none of it. I've been training and researching for over 20 years and I'm still a beginner, really. It's been interesting, but a personal coach who's coached 100s of athletes = 100s of lifetimes of learning to train. Personally, I have valued the control, interest level, intellectual satisfaction, and low cost of self-coaching over the certainly better progress I could have obtained through a coach. BTW, "self-coached" is a better descriptor than "independent athlete," describing process rather than relationship.

Trying to take my rant back to your original point, I think experience is the key, no matter how it's obtained: from a canned training plan, Zwift, TrainerRoad, Friel's or other training books, wherever. We are all different and the same thing doesn't work for everyone. Experience starts when you begin. Grab something and have at it.

fstrnu

Definition 1d:

Definition of Intuitive
1a : known or perceived by intuition : directly apprehended
had an intuitive awareness of his sister's feelings
b : knowable by intuition
intuitive truths
c : based on or agreeing with intuition
intuitive responses
makes intuitive sense
d : readily learned or understood
software with an intuitive interface
2 : knowing or perceiving by intuition
3 : possessing or given to intuition or insight
an intuitive mind

fstrnu

Believe me it doesn't take much thought to outperform software and people routinely put more thought into working around software that doesn't work than it would take to understand the basics.

fstrnu

See above.

fstrnu

From OP:

I believe the answer is to provide athletes coherent and clearly/consistently progressed indoor training plan templates which can get them started along with guidance on how to monitor and make the inevitable adjustments.

redlude97

besides being very handwavy I'm still not sure what that means on a practical level. No one else here seems to be able to follow along with what you are exactly trying to do either. Based on that paragraph I dont see how its differentiated from say picking and choosing a trainerroad program that fits your needs and time schedule

fstrnu

From OP:

I believe the answer is to provide athletes coherent and clearly/consistently progressed indoor training plan templates which can get them started along with guidance on how to monitor and make the inevitable adjustments.

Agree 100% regarding importance of data.

100% agree experience is key and you won't accumulate experience with your eyes closed and your brain turned off.

rubiksoval

You said interval sets are intuitive. Now you're introducing an entirely new stipulation concerning following a virtual program being intuitive. That's not what you said before.

So far you're really throwing a lot of stuff out there that doesn't make a lot of sense.

And frankly, I STILL don't get the point.

rubiksoval

I'm not really believing anything you're saying, because it doesn't seem like you really understand the topic at hand, here.

fstrnu

fstrnu

Not new stipulation. See OP quote below.

And all athletes aren't without guilt. They COULD understand if they would bother but they can be lazy too ; not ONLY manipulated.

From OP:

Education cannot be the answer as no one is going to choose effort over the candy that is offered by vendors.

I believe the answer is to provide athletes coherent and clearly/consistently progressed indoor training plan templates which can get them started along with guidance on how to monitor and make the inevitable adjustments.

rubiksoval

Yes, a new stipulation.

Because interval training is not intuitive. Now you're making some random assertion that people can learn how to follow instructions from a program? Big deal.

And what's this manipulation garbage? What's your beef with coaching and coaching software again?