Perfect.
Yes, that is the one, thank you.
@Dafydd ^^^
I think the real issue is culture-shock.
The old branding of Sufferfest, GvA, some of the commentaries in the video, talk in the forum, etc. created a sort of self-reinforcing āpositive self-talkā, perhaps of the incorrect variety. Then the re-branding came when many people thought all they were getting was an improved Sufferfest and an Android app. I hope somebody in the marketing/branding department learned a lesson.
My two centsā¦
Like many others I regret seeing The Sufferfest reduced to a side show in the new app and Iām thinking the unique humour and hard workouts that brought me here in the first place will never be the same. Will GvA still be behind the scenes making us all work that little bit harder?
Iām also generally okay with the difficulty adjustments to many of the videos. I say this because some of those videos, for me, were impossible to finish and I dreaded having to do them. Maybe I can finish them now, but it still feels like something has disappeared.
It does make me wonder why the difficulty levels were so high in the first place, since surely the sports scientist that work here would know that these are overly difficult. The timing of these changes also looks very suspicious, because they coincide with the release of the new app. That makes it look like the new overlords have required that the difficulty levels be reduced to attract more customers.
Itās also regrettable that there was no advance notice given regarding these changes, and there is no option to undo them and go back to the way they were for people that would like that option. There are many other features in the app that should be there that are not there. This makes it look like the app was rushed out in an unfinished state which is not very professional.
Overall, I find the new app rather disappointing. My eagerness to stay here has reduced, although I will stick around and give it a good try.
David McQuillen was the one who started The Sufferfest as just video workouts you could purchase and download. It was simply a project where he made videos for himself to make his own indoor workouts more entertaining and others enjoyed them and asked him to make them available, and then it spread. He was an athlete, not a sport scientist. And it was not his main job at the time, either.
So, many of the original workouts were not created by modern sports scientists. And on top of that, modern sports science is really quite young and the differences in training in just the past 10 years are quite large. Even differences in the past 5 years. The old maxim āHow do you become a better rider: Ride your bike, ride your bike, ride your bike.ā just isnāt valid anymore. Itās become more and more obvious and well-known that smashing yourself to bits isnāt the best and most efficient way to be a better athlete.
The modern crew of sports scientists has not been here from the beginning. And they have been constantly reviewing and updating workouts. The warm ups, cool downs, videos, etc for a few workouts have been modified over the years. So, itās not like the videos have all been left untouched since the beginning. Plus, sports science has been changing quickly enough that even a few of the workouts created by the current crew of sports scientist have been reviewed and updated.
But at the same time, I do understand why some feel a sense of loss at the changes. Humans have a problem with change. Familiarity is comforting. Changing familiar things, even for the right reasons is always hard for the majority of people to accept. Itās a natural oddity of human nature.
Totally agree. Dunning-Kruger effect.
Some workouts suit some people better than others. I generally could get myself through Thin Air. I needed a rest day first, and generally wasnāt hitting targets the following day. The big picture is to dial it down a bit, to achieve more overall.
Yes, I know that Dave M started all this and that he likely developed the program for each video without knowing a whole lot about training science. He probably just honoured the name of his creation and made each workout tough enough, metaphorically, to knock you out.
But Neal H has been around for some years now and many of the newer videos have workouts developed by him and / or his team, as have been the multi-week training programs. Now I havenāt studied if only workouts made by Dave M have been changed, but Iām guessing not. In which case, as I said above, the timing makes it look like the changes were mandated instead of something the sports scientists initiated on their own. Itās not exactly been a secret that many people canāt finish some of the sessions - there are even posts in the forumās about it.
Still, as I also said, Iām ok with the changes if it means I can now finish the sessions and not fall over sometimes when I get off my bike.
Iām thankful that they took the time to review the workouts and correct them. And while science can be precise, that precision requires empirical data to measure.
Suppose that they hadnāt adjusted the workouts? We would be none the wiser, and happily smash ourselves to bits on each one. Or we would silently and secretly dial it down, or bail, with another chink in our armor and our ego on the ones we could not finish. The Shovel was my nemesis. I hated it and would avoid it at all costs.
My point is that they care deeply about their product. They are so committed to providing the best training platform available that they are willing to endure an onslaught of abuse from their user base to do so.
Just look at all the vitriol in this forum because of the recent changes. Frankly itās embarrassing for the way that many of us have responded to these changes. Itās abusive and it really needs to stop.
We can accept the changes, trust the science and train. Or we can go elsewhere to what? Thereās nothing else quite like it.
I noticed a few sessions had been tamed down a little well before the move to SYSTM. Some of the GCN workouts for example had been tweaked to make them slightly easier to complete. I only noticed because I had done some of them earlier in the year and noticed the subtle changes when I compared them. The changes also made a lot of sense to me, for example gradually tweaking down the intensity over multiple threshold intervals to match the inevitable fatigue.
The overall plans were also being fine tuned along the way. To me it just looks like everything is being periodically reviewed and tweaked based on user feedback, completion data and new science. I worked for years at the cutting edge of motorsport engineering (F1) and that was a constant moving target! Thatās just how science works. Itās not a static occupation.
If I had to speculate about the move to SYSTM, it would be that they took the opportunity to review all the old videos and finally bring them up to date with the latest science. For me there was an obvious disconnect between the old-school literal Sufferfest videos and the newer, more scientific workouts. For that reason I was strongly favouring the newer videos. My history with SUF is only 1 year, so the old videos didnāt hold any sentimental value for me, which is what I suspect is really causing a backlash now.
Very well said @Sir_Brian_M
Some people just like to get angry about change. Thereās a big difference between constructive criticism and the cynical ranting that we often see in these situations. I agree it is embarrassing. If I didnāt get on with SYSTM for whatever reason, I would try something else, but there are always going to be pros and cons.
Having weighed up the few alternatives and considered the future potential of SYSTM Iām going to stick with it for another year at least. I would have actually been more likely to leave had it stayed on the old SUF platform as I was starting to find the Suffering a bit too much at times. The revised plans and workouts look more sustainable in the long haul for me, which is what I was looking for.
I loved the fact that 9 hammers was almost impossible to do, it gave me such a boost when I did get to the end.
Iāll know by the end of march if these diluted workouts are better or not. Iāll just follow the training plan until then (the proof is in the pudding and all that 
)
I did Nine Hammers about two weeks ago, and I did not find it to be changed, based on several metrics that I looked at.
It was as hard as ever.
@TLa It still is almost impossible to do - I think you will be pleased.
Well if 9 Hammers is easier, I sure didnāt notice it when I did it yesterday. Itās just as brutal as ever.
Did The Toolshed on Monday. Hammer 8 and 9 are still terrible. At least the digging part is a welcome break from the hammering.
Ok so I just got completely demolished by 14 vice grips. I thought you guys said everything was easy now!!!
Half is easy. sometimesā¦ 
So like many here, I suspectā¦ I came to sufferfest over the competing systems (ahem), because of the humour, and because I love thrashing myself to within an inch of my life. I got fitter, faster, stronger.
Butā¦
As much as I hate to admit it, you need to rest, to improve. Thatās just how your body works. I have had to have this smacked into me the hard way several times, and it took me months to get back to the levels I was peaking at - which is totally counter productive.
So Iām working with a coach atm, and a lot of what heās been drilling into me is to back off. Donāt kill myself every time. Iām far better off increasing volume of training at intensities that will trigger desired adaptations. Because the more time you can sustain in those zones, the more adaptation youāll get.
In my case - Iām after endurance. So I need to spend a lot of time in endurance zones and sst. If Iām trying to do every 6 hour session like a raceā¦ It takes too long to recover, to train effectively again soon.
Does it mess with my head? Yep.
Did I accidentally do a hard one when lockdown ended in Sydney, just because it felt so amazing being out again? You bet.
Does it feel like āsuffering liteā? Yep.
But Iām determined to get sustainably stronger and faster. Iāve been getting pbs on 20-30km segments when Iām consciously moderating my intensity in 150k rides. So afaict, itās working.
I like science. If Iām presented with new evidence that forces me to challenge previously held beliefs, then it might be uncomfortable, but Iāll listen.
On the actual suff vids Iāve always adjusted the intensity based upon how I was feeling. In general that meant raising it 1-2% every interval set. You still can.
Personally, I think the issue around workout history and comparison is a much more important one to address.
I do agree with the communication / messaging comments. I think there should have been better messaging around what had changed for the suff community.
Lol. Thin Air got me after 50 minutes yesterday as well. So so so close ā¦ā¦
@sir_james.p ,
Ciao James. Iām working on getting back to the old SUF App metrics. Any help will be greatly appreciated from ALL. I think I got āThin Airā back if not it may a bit more SUFFERLANDRIA 
