I didn’t find Rue the Day that hard… am I alone in that?
It’s not supposed to be super hard, I wound it up to +10% by the last set the first time but @Coach.Neal.H explains
3 Likes
If you want to brag, there’s always level mode and RPE where you can go and smash your PRs. No one is forcing you to keep the intensity settings where they are:
11 Likes
For me it’s the storyline, a direct answer to the complaints raised about easier workouts.
Was just trying to find out what is TSS and IF? What are they measurements of ? Couldn’t find the info. Thanks for the help!
1 Like
here you go
2 Likes
Thank you sir!
1 Like
It felt exactly like… 45 minutes of IF of 0.89, which, it is. Afterward, not the slightest bit spent, not enough really. It was definitely nothing like Tabata HIIT. I psyched myself up for it, was thinking of doing level mode to maybe try to go over targets, but the storyline made me nervous, so stuck to erg mode, wished I hadn’t.
I like thinking of 100% as actually 100%, even if it’s not something to do all the time. IF isn’t the whole story, but 89% doesn’t seem like 100%, and for HIIT, it seems well, kind of soft.
It’s possible that it’s time I re-evaluate my MAP.
I like 40/20’s and they are generally something I’m good at. With correct numbers Rue the Day is hard. Not bucket worthy, but hard.
2 Likes
40/20s (45/15 I think in RdT?) are great, and of course you can adjust them easily enough. Rather than retesting I may give 14 vice grips a go at old suff levels. If that is easy, it’s definitely my numbers. 14VG is presently one of only two SUFF activities with IF over .95 (not counting extra shot), and it used to be a bit harder.
1 Like
Indeed 40/20. A little math, for a default MAP vs FTP profile the average power over the 7 minutes and 40 seconds works out to almost exactly FTP, give or take half a percent and choosing a middle value for the slightly varying levels of the intervals. I get a normalized power over that time that is above FTP by an amount of 36% of the difference of FTP and MAP (call it 36% of MAP excess). MAP can be defined as how far over FTP you can go for 5 minutes. This is going over FTP by only 36% of that but for about 1.5 times as long. Enh… that seems like what I felt.
Go about 7.5% harder on the on intervals and it brings that to about 64% instead of 36%. 64% of MAP excess for 1.5 as long as MAP, that sounds right about maximal to me, no?
I feel like a few percent more on these targets might not be unreasonable at all.
So there’s a whole other thread on just RtD, maybe better to discuss that there, but summary, many people say it’s not so bad, anecdotes of not finishing 14VG but fiding RtD ok… and Neal said:
“Overall, this session should be challenging but should not be nearly impossible to finish. Training isn’t always about hitting your maximum - in fact, only on occasion should a session put you at your limit…and this one generally should never put you there. It might be good to make sure that your current FTP and MAP settings are accurate…as generally speaking, most folks will see heart rate getting into Zone 4 by around the 5th or 6th effort during these kinds of sets/efforts. Keep up the great work!”
So, my HR was actually above that. I was knocking on zone 5 by 4th or 5th effort (but never went much higher either). So I don’t think there’s a problem with my levels. It apparently isn’t meant to be real hard. Kind of weird to hype it as a rare super tough workout when 14VG is still quite harder.
EVERYONE gets that 100% all the time isn’t right. The fact is 100% on suff workouts no longer means 100%. Sometimes HIIT calls for a time or two a week of 100% though, for a few weeks. Many HIIT plans call for that. With all they hype, I expected this to be that. It isn’t. And what’s lost is, if you want to find 100%, you’re kind of on your own. It’s not an IF of 1. It’s true the long recoveries mean you probably can’t get IF=1, but .89 isn’t it either. I guess it’s about .96
It depends on your 4dp profile of course. 14VG is if 0.89 for me. It was 0.92 for me before the changes.
Edit: to point out the obvious drawback here of using an FTP-based metric like IF to gauge a HIIT session…
Fa
All true. I’m making statements based on the default profile, which happens to match me pretty well presently. But I addressed that too, more than once, in different ways, including by comparing the effort as fraction of what I called MAP excess.
But you’re right, and this is why I found it so great when Sufferfest actually used to work out, it seemed to me quite well, what 100% really was. Now I can figure it out, but no, it’s not as simple as adjusting IF to 1. In this case I think getting the NP of each set to 65% percent of the way from FTP to MAP is probably about it, but that’s still a little fuzzy, sort of MAP corrected, but still NP based too, so still approximate.
I looked at a few examples of 40/20s and ok, this one for a default 4DP profile has intervals at about 120% of ftp. That’s a typical number thrown around for these but is often stated as the lower end for 40/20s and is often seen with 12 interval sets, not 8. Some people just say go as hard as absolutely possible on every interval, and don’t even worry that yes, you’ll fade a lot. So everything is all fine and good, but to come out with a big response about proving the videos are super tough, and then that’s it? There are a lot of comments in that thread about how it’s not tough, including the one from Neal. Many descriptions of 40/20s prescribing completely depleting anaerobic reserves to push on VO2.
Note that the IF reported is no longer for the default profile, it’s for your own profile. Before the System changes it was for the default.
Yes, correct.
Prior to the re-adjusted workouts, there were certain videos that would always break me, 9H, The Shovel, Tool Shed and The Wretched.
I would avoid them until I was due for a new FF test, and able to complete them without cracking.
I am happy that the workouts have been altered. I still have the engagement of Sufferlandria while knowing that every video should be possible. And not only possible but productive, providing the intended training stimulus. That’s training with finesse.
5 Likes
As the initiator of this thread, I for one was sceptical of the changes when they came in, however following the response from @Coach.Neal.H I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt and stick with it. Some time on I have not been disappointed, I am the fittest I have been in years, possibly ever, so for me at least the new approach is working. What’s more, all the new content is great. Recently did a week with the UCI and loved it. If you still want a killer workout then try the Mont Ventoux challenge in pro rides. Did it a couple of months ago, and I cracked on the final push, it was tough. I’ll go back soon and get it cracked. In the meantime it’s 4dp prep this week, then into a 12 week plan to take me onto my best TT season yet!
13 Likes
I guess I just don’t see what was gained as far as sub-maximal training. That was always and still is both easily possible and prescribed in the plans. I see what was lost, the well-calibrated 100% points, that got Sufferefest its name, and that sure, not everyone ever wanted, but also didn’t have to use.
I guess Neal can spend more time thinking about the balance he wants at the planned level, and less figuring out precisely what everyone can tolerate. I just feel the precision balance is a lot less important at submaximal efforts, but in the end, he’s the one making that effort. In the end either way we can adjust as we want. It’s just about it being more or less obvious or difficult how/when to do that.
Anyway, as 40/20 programs go, RdT is certainly not on the tough end at all, so the story line is kind of funny.