Cool!!! I have two young daughters and was once a Pro. I’m in my late 50s now and with a full schedule of life the “Vintage Metrics” gave me what I need to keep a level of fitness without spending a “Pro Level” of training on the road…Not to mention the wife and daughters like having me around vs seeing me pedaling away…
These new metrics don’t work for my training is what I’m saying. Why change something that worked so well for all of us??? And with the systm new cool tech at least give us the option to head back to the old “Bleeding Eyes”
It worked for you. It did not work so well for a huge number of the rest of us. For various reasons. Hence the change. And yes it worked but the new numbers work better. Neil Henderson knows his stuff.
If I get fitter faster on lower week load it means I actually have the energy level to ride harder on the weekend. Brilliant
So, then what does that say about @Coach.Neal.H from the “Vintage SUF App”…Was that all just something that you need to avoid in the cow pasture And what about all those old Vintage Training plans he had??? I think I have a few still saved.
I never heard anyone say it was too hard…It was SUFFERFEST, that is what made it… I haven’t heard this tone of “too hard” until “systm” came in. In fact “Nine Hammers” was a TEST to see where you were at. And it worked, just like it said, if you forgot.
@Yojimbo , “Bleeding Eye Sufferlandrian”!!! I’m with you, the changes and the following statements don’t add up. For all of you that was the point of the Whole 4DP that happen a few years ago. So say the Old SUF App didn’t have sports science behind it is quite an inditement on @Coach.Neal.H FYI…
How do you know the new numbers, in terms of an overall training program rather than as a single workout, don’t work even better for you?
For example, I could generally get through Thin Air. I’d need a rest/very easy day prior and would usually be ruined for the following day, at least. If I was only doing Thin Air during a week then yes, I may be better on the old numbers. For a weeks worth of training, looking at the bigger picture, I’d probably be better on the new numbers.
Are they really THAT different? I’ve been taking it easy for a couple of weeks due to end of season break and the flu, so haven’t done any hardcore workouts since the change to SYSTM. If you really find them too easy, can you not just bump up the intensity a few notches?
This resonates with me too. I pushed pretty this last year using SUF plans and the volume was a fair bit lower than I was previously used to, but intensity was considerably higher. I had mixed results with this approach. I saw some intial gains, especially in MAP and above intensity. But then I hit a plateau and didn’t really make any overall improvement over the previous year. I also started failing quite a few of the tougher workouts and had to dial them down considerably to make it through. It was starting to feel a little counter-productive at times.
The positive side is that I more or less achieved the same overall level with less volume. But I think for next season I will ramp up my volume again, but tone down the intensity. I’m sticking with SYSTM again, based on the changes, and will be more inclined to dial some workouts down if they feel OTT. Like you I’m aiming to build endurance for long events.
@Peteski, Yup. that is what I am working on. My hope was to get the info from the people who know how to get back to the “Vintage Bleeding Eyes” metrics. @Coach.Neal.H has stated earlier that 1/2 of the Sufferfest have been changed. It takes me quite a while to figure out how to adjust the #s to get back to the “SUF App” days. Quite frustrating as the reason for doing this workout is time-saving to be with my family. Now, I am spending more time fixing something that was not broken…
@TTDragon, I know because I had a long LOVE of Cycling which took me from Climb Mt. Evans (a few times) to a Professional. I have taken the time to educate myself in sports medicine/physiology/ nutrition. The “Vintage Bleeding Eyes” Sufferfest was the answer for my training and has been for years now. Why change it and make it ??? easier???
I’m glad it works for you now. Thin Air wipes me out as well and I would generally do a couple of recovery days after.
I don’t believe there was any attempt on Dame Lisa’s part to discredit you. She was simply pointing out that while you personally don’t believe that the adjustments Sir Neal has made to the OG workouts work for you, that based on the analysis of a SUF ton of data, he came to the decision to make those adjustments in order to offer most people the most benefit. If you’re not in the group of “most people” then you’re an outlier. I would personally take that as a compliment.
I’d also echo what others have said, i.e. before discounting the changes that the team has made to the workouts, why not implement a plan and see what your results are. You might be pleasantly surprised.
They are looking for a broader base of users. Ex pros are not a big market. I think most people will welcome a bit of toning down. I know I will. But looking quickly at the workout library, there still seems to be plenty of suffering to be had!
@CavaliereNero Everyone in this thread is just providing their perspective about the changes based on the information that has been provided.
I guess time will tell which workouts provided better gains - the legacy targets or the new targets. So far I have only done one of the legacy workouts - Nine Hammers - as I have been spending time riding outside and also checking out the new content. On fresh numbers I felt that Nine Hammers was still very very very difficult but I actually finished it this time - 1st time that happened. It was a good feeling.
In case anyone is wondering, I can confirm half Monty isn’t any easier! I still can’t get to the end of the ramp. I’ve been following the mental training plan and everything. I’m beginning to think yoda really is asking the impossible!!
And what about all those old Vintage Training plans he had??? I think I have a few still saved.
