Isn’t that how most training plans are geared towards, regardless of discipline?
I feel for you. I think a lot of us share those same sentiments you do.
2 Likes
Well, my social rides are pretty intense and prep for epic single day adventures
In the past, I used to do a lot of quasi competitive group rides and actual races (started road riding in 1970). The past 4-5 years now I migrated almost exclusively to solo mtb rides…XC and what might be classified nowadays as down-country. I’m my only competition. I need pretty good fitness to accomplish the rides I want to do and enjoy them, so that’s why I’m here, coming from Trainerroad and Zwift. So far, I’ve only done 4wk building blocks and the 1wk HM/FF plans. Their structure and the purpose of each workout seems clear to me. I’ve had no issues following them, though some of the workouts can be quite tough, but that’s to be expected. Perhaps the only thing I find a bit questionable are some of the very short cadence and Stand/Sit intervals, but I do those too.
1 Like
I think so.
If you have done the MTP, and you are a KOS, I find it interesting that you stop workouts half-way through. There is nothing in the Positive Thinking section that forbids using doughnuts as a reward for finishing.
I find parts of strength training frustrating, but I have found benefits to it, so I keep at it.
I do agree that for many people, given their goals, HM is good enough.
I will have more to say about training plans in a reply to another post.
1 Like
To put everything out on the table, I use Training Peaks, Xert, SYSTM, and Rouvy. I use Strava as a “universal transfer”. I use a Garmin to record my outside rides.
TP is used to record the ride metrics, and my subjective rating of the ride, and any notes about the ride. I usually enter those right after the ride or workout. Those include my RPE for the workout or ride. I am experimenting with Xert to help me deal with fatigue, and get a better measure of power metrics.
The best part of SYSTM is the coupling of FF/HM with well-designed workouts, including those for skills and techniques. MTP, Strength Training, and Yoga are also part of the attraction. Rouvy has none of those features, unless you do workouts designed by a coach (or anybody else) which you can play within Rouvy. I tried self-designed workouts with not the greatest results.
Why active recovery and endurance rides on Rouvy? First I find most of the Inspiration/Active Recovery rides boring. Exceptions include Thursday Fields, Earth Cycle, and I Just Want to Ride.
Second, when I ride to RPE, I wish to calibrate myself to how I would pace myself in real life. I am not interesting in doing Level Mode/RPE to simulate the workout. For example, I have no interest in doing a racing/speed workout to RPE. I would just rather do it in ERG mode as a workout. I find it unrealistic to attempt an On Location ride the way I would do it in real life. Doing an 8% climb at the rate I would do it in real life, for example, would take longer than the time in the video.
Third, with Rouvy, I feel all the road variations that I would feel on the ride in real life, at the pace I would do it in real life. I can also do rides that I have done outdoors within Rouvy. I can also ride places that I will never get to in real life, at the pace I would do them. I can also simulate my Mount Sufferlandria in Rouvy.
So you might ask, why would I not do, in real life, a ride at the pace of an On Location ride?
Aside from general fitness, I ride for enjoyment, and that includes climbing. I tend to do those at an endurance pace. That enables me to enjoy the scenery. In addition if I did the rides at On Location pace, I would accumulate too much fatigue (remember I am in my late 60s) to ride frequently enough.
Does that give you a better idea?
2 Likes
Hmmmm donuts as a reward hey!? You might be on to something.
To be clear, I don’t quit workouts that often and really do try to follow the workouts as they are intended. Usually, if I’m not feeling it, I will dial things back. My stopping halfway was in the context of confessions that I don’t ALWAYS follow SYSTM and Coaches 100% as the OP set out as the topic.
When I’ve quit a workout halfway or sooner it’s usually me listening to what my body is telling me (something I’ve ignored in the past and suffered the consequences of overtraining or injury).
Also, if I have set a big SAG for myself I am much more inclined to stick to the SYSTM/coaches recommendations than I am if I’m just aimlessly riding indoors or just riding for general fitness.
2 Likes
I understand that other people have these same issues, and I have raised this problem before in the forums, but the coaches seem unwilling to respond.
Stephen Seiler gave a talk about training methodologies. The talk is still relevant:
The interesting part for this discussion starts at 28:08.
This was a study using competitive, but non-elite cyclists who trained with three different periodization strategies, but were exposed to the same volume and intensity of training. There was no statistically significant difference between the approaches, but if you look at the individual results. You see a wide variety of success:
What I take from this is that training plans have to be individualized because the response to training is highly variable. People who say the training plans work, and look at my fantastic results, may fall in the rightmost category. Others could fall elsewhere.
The issue is, of course, that most people cannot afford to have the training individualized for them. They cannot afford to continually have new plans drawn up for them, and pay for weekly consultations to adapt the plans to changing circumstances, and revise the plan as it is seen how they respond to the training. This is what Xert is trying to do with its Adaptive Training Strategy. Of course, it is an open issue whether that works.
This is why I suspect that the coaches cannot answer the question because it is a classic “It depends”. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to understand the logic behind how the plans are put together
2 Likes
Thanks for that insight. We stick to what works for ourselves but try what works for others I guess.
2 Likes
I guess that’s why SYSTM does the 4DP profile to try identify some individuality to each Sufferlandrian, and set them apart from the group as a whole.
While this is not ideally individualized as it would be with a personal coach and a direct channel to coaching, it does start the separation in line with your take on training plans.
Having been coached in endurance sports for several years and now self-coached, I have followed and tweaked the training process along the way. If I spent more time in this realm, no doubt I would increase my knowledge.
As such, it would be interesting to hear from some of our SYSTM coaches wrt to your stance that you raise. Possibly in a podcast of two.
As such, I will tag them and hopefully they reach out to you, if not us all.
@Coach.Neal.H @Coach.Suzie.S @Coach.Mac.C @Coach.Spencer.R @coach.jinger.g
2 Likes
I’m not sure @Heretic’s chart implies that more customization would help a lot (except maybe manipulating volume and progression more dynamically—which requires at least weekly feedback from your coach and is what you get when your hire one). My big take-away from the chart is that it illustrates the high individual variation in the dose-response relationship to training. Because the study’s subjects were competitive cyclists, the real dose-response relationship is likely more extreme (because competitive cyclists are partly self selected to better dose-response—because that makes it much easier to get competitive). Combined with individual variation in robustness to training (how much you can do without getting injured or sick), I suspect that some people’s results will always be better than others, no matter how customized the plan.
2 Likes
Just judging from the responses on the forum, different individuals respond differently to the same % of their individual 4DP component. For example, different amounts of fatigue might result at the same MAP percentage depending on their individual ability to reuse lactate, or carry away metabolic products.
You are years ahead of me because of your experience in being able to tweak the plans. I do agree that the plans serve as a good starting point, but most of us do not have your knowledge and understanding.
1 Like
I suspect that customization would help because there were people who had a negative response to the training stimulus. Now there are medical conditions where this is true, but this should not be the case for the cyclists studied.
Also we know that people have different abilities (sprinting, endurance, clearing metabolic products at different rates, etc.) so I suspect that some of the varying response has to do with tailoring the training to their abilities. Everybody in the study basically had the same training.
Of course, as you say, we cannot know for sure, but that is a problem with all sports science given our current state of knowledge.
2 Likes