It was previously about 97.5%, lowered to 95%. I never said it was easy. I actually first did this with the GCN video version as a video I used while travelling and just done to HR. I’d aim to not recover below LTHR, at least by the second set, which actually is quite a lot more difficult than I ever did it in SUFF, just comparing HR, and admittedly the last time I did it in SYSTM now, my FTP was probably set a touch low from the looks of HR.
Anyway, nope especially doing it to LTHR, it was certainly not a toodle around the park, but the thing about this workout is, I never feel destroyed after it’s done, as advertised.
Yeh, I’m not seeing the 97.5 only the 95 but I’m not gonna nitpick. I just don’t see the point in getting fussed over changes that are made. Sir Neal has already, in this thread, fully provided his rationale as well as his suggestion to anyone who doesn’t like his revisions.
It seems the change wasn’t actually made in the transition to SYSTM when many other things were changed. It was changed earlier, late 2020 or so. You call it a nitpick. I don’t.
Fair enough. I guess I just don’t understand the issue. Coach Neal has explained why he’s made adjustments. Some adjustments were made pre SYSTM some were made post SYSTM. I remember adjustments being made to Defender after they analyzed a bunch of data and found that Rohan Denis couldn’t even finish it as it was originally conceived. To me, that’s one of the reasons I loved SUF. That things were never static. It’s one of the reasons I’m sticking with SYSTM. Same people behind it but WAY more stuff to choose from.
Sorry for dredging up an old post (i just joined the forum).
I would like to add that whilst I agree with the logic of toning down the workouts so we can achieve greater consistency, there is a small problem for those of us that use the library as stand alone workouts rather than as part of a plan.
When we have done a workout before, we know what to expect from them and then know when to fit them in to our training. But when they change, they are no longer quite what we expected.
Just as a couple of examples, Angels used to have 3x8 supra threshold, whereas now it’s more like 3x8 at FTP. Or Long Scream was pretty much a nuclear race day simulation type effort, whilst now its just a hard FTP session.
My request would be that for future changes to workouts there is an accompanying forum/blog post with an overview (no need to go into super fine details) of the changes so that users like me can continue to pick and choose workouts without getting a surprise because the workout became easier.
I’ve tried a few.
Didn’t find Norway too bad.
Strada Bianchi is tough, but not full gas (to be expected since you are only doing ~1/3rd of what the pro did that day!)
Giro d’Italia 1 looks to be a full nuclear option, but not tried it yet to confirm.
Something like Long Scream is also quite easy for us users to modify to our suiting with the FTP bias - we just need the change log (patch notes if you like) so we can anticipate it in advance. Angels would be more tricky to change with the bias settings.
Hello @AndyP - welcome to the forum! Unfortunately, the time and effort required to communicate every line of change for any workouts that have been updated is simply not reasonable for us to do. And it’s all well in the past (the adjustments were made over a year ago, though not released until SYSTM launched last September).
While we make some updates to workouts on rare occasion, it is not something that occurs frequently. While I understand that you might feel from frustration from those changes, all of the reasons that we do so have been discussed before, and as has been mentioned - if you’re looking for harder sessions, ProRides will always fit the bill!
As Theodore Roosevelt wisely said… “Comparison is the thief of joy.”
I used Sufferfest 5 or 6 years ago, then was away for many years. Tomorrow will mark my 1 year anniversary back. Being 66 years old now, everything is tougher in general. That said, sometimes I feel a workout is too easy. I can and do use two measures to reach the effort level I think more accurately reflects my RPE.
I can switch to level mode and simply work harder or I can stay in ERG mode and bump up the intensity to 105% or 110% or whatever. I know this may not seem ideal to maintain the science around any specific workout, but I know two things.
6 years ago all I had was RPE and I progressed just fine. In the past year I have likewise made good progress.
I know my body. I know how I feel, when I think I could have and should have gone harder, and when I should back off.
The point is, it’s your ride. Do what you know works for you. The plans and workouts are generally well designed and directionally correct. But they are not ideal for every person in every circumstance. If a workout doesn’t allow you to Suffer enough, that is a very easy fix.
110% has been the single number that I keep ending up at in order to bring the current settings back to roughly the intensity of the old ones, although I suspect it might be even a percentage point or two higher.
As this thread has been continued I would like to enquire, what has happened to " Intensity- density" as a replacement for TSS. This was mentioned as being worked on well over in a year ago now?
Its one thing to lower the intensity because the data backs it up, its another thing to lower intensity bcz the corporate/new boss wants my grandma to also us it! What a shame!!!
You grandma’s efforts would have been scaled to her FF/HM results in the older versions of the workouts anyway, I think you need to have as bit more faith in her.
but man, my heart beat is no longer in sync with the music beat!!!
In a more serious note, whats the point of that “glitch” in the last inerval in Blender where it adds a minute if u actually have no problem doing the interval for another 3 min???
I can no longer brag about completing 9 hammers, completing it is no different than completing any other session.
oh well,those r all personal experiences! Maybe Elon musk should over take sufferfest and give it back to the people.
