There’s a lot of app talk and not a lot about training.
I want to compliment Alex and Andrea for your novel approach to tempo training in your Sweet Spot Progression A and B workouts.
I took your advice and am training off an ramp style FTP rather than long-form test FTP. The difference for me is workouts just shy of 7% harder than what the long-form FTP test result would be.
The Sweet Spot A style workouts have a nice repeating structure that starts 70%-78%-84% and ends 72%-80%-90%. I did #4 tonight that has the structure repeat 3x (note that all of the intervals are really 75%-83%-90% of my long-form FTP).
These are very manageable and a good way I think for recreational cyclists to work through building fatigue resistance.
If you do these I wouldn’t make them shorter then 75 or 90 minutes though or the structure is reduced. The 60 minute version only does 2x sets rather than 3x sets. The 3rd set is where the money is, IMHO.
I’m sure there’s a good reason many coaches insist on long difficult intervals, maybe all the way up to 3x30 at 90+%, to get ready for racing, but if you aren’t racing that seems like a good way to burn out.
The only constructive criticism I have is the rests are quite long. I skip part of the 6 minutes at 40% at the beginning and will skip some of the between set rest at 40%, once I’m good to go I’ll skip to the start of the next one.
I know, I believe bugs should come close to an end soon. At least it keeps the forum busy Yes most pros prefer progressions over blocks, as you pointed out they are more enjoyable. Progressions tend to be natural other than sprints which can be reverse progressions And yes in our app the longer breaks turn out great as it is so easy to just hit the next button if you start getting bored
I am really happy you are seeing the value. This was all Andrea, my job was just making sure the developer did it right. I should get him to show up here some time. He is very friendly. He and I are both addicted to AI at the moment so we talk a lot.
Even the A#4 workout has lengthy bouts of work. Each set has a 11 minutes of work, the first 8 minute progression, a brief rest, and then 3 more minutes at the higher power. Repeat that 3 times – so 33 minutes of work.
So there’s enough work that you’re doing something, but not so much work that burn out is a real threat.
The cycling nerd in me is still struggling with the concept of a long-form FTP test and really knowing what my capabilities are versus the ramp test, but I’ll get there eventually Trust the process I guess!
I’ve done these a few times now completing the A#6 workout tonight with some recovery/Z2 skips to make it fit my time available.
Any comments or other thoughts if I’m executing these properly?
I consider these to be workouts to push your power curve to the right. My HR didn’t get too high, but I was working at what I think is the right level, RPE 5/10 “slightly challenging”, and could feel it in my muscles. HR was 139 max versus LTHR of ~ 166. The higher power intervals had HR is low 130s.
I definitely feel like this is more a tempo progression than necessarily a “sweet spot” workout. I’m enjoying them for what it’s worth.
Workout: 3 repeats of 11 minutes (4m 70%-3m 78%-4m 84%) w/ a brief break then 4 more minutes at 84% for a total of 45 minutes of work.
Traditionally when talking about sweet spot, people are talking about blocks of sweet spot. Progressions are much more tempo’ish then a block of SS and I would say more natural but also different. For everyone except those that love sustained suffering these are more enjoyable.
It’s not so much about the single workout, it’s more about the long term plan and progression. The purpose of this weeks workouts should always be to prepare you for next weeks workouts, this is the idea of progressive overload. As compared to the thinking that I am going to kill myself as much today so I can be as fast as possible next week (I want to raise my FTP 50w in a week…). Both have a place, it’s just the later is best left for a peak block.
This slide from a Tim Cusick presentation often makes an appearance in relation to “sweet spot progression”
Such a block would come after a decent base / tempo period.
He stresses that it is one example of “many ways to skin a cat” and that the principle is to build to a longer TIZ with no breaks, rather than using more short intervals with breaks to hit the target time in zone.
The term progression has 2 meanings in this case. These are interval progressions, z2, z3, SS. This style of progression term is was used for a long time but block style of suffering is more popular since TSS was invented.
Tim’s is more connected to this now, less in fashion, style of sustained block type of suffering which makes a lot of sense for TT racers and you mentioned can give quick FTP test wins (other benefits as well). So not saying anything wrong with it, just the polarized study proved that it’s not the holy grail that many believed at the time the study came out. Again, Tim’s suggested progressions have a place, just not the general “good for most/all” category previously believed.
Just repeating my and Andrea’s opinions here. Andrea says pros think amateurs are crazy for doing stuff like this. But also harder for them than some of us and obviously time crunched has some bering on this.
Oh yes, I was actually say that for @Ivegotabike as he was talking about a different kind of progression. I don’t know that their is such a think as “looks good”. Meaning to me the workout itself looks good. Your bodies response is very individual. If it feels like the right intensity to you then it’s likely good and will continue to progress (get harder) obviously.
If you can find the time to fit in the complete workout in its full (2h) form, the contribution it makes towards your aim of building / maintaining fatigue resistance will be much larger than the truncated version (~1h?) that you had time for on this occasion.
The second hour of a workout like that is very different to the first hour and, with your aim in mind, would be significantly more beneficial to do than even completing the 1 hour version twice on consecutive days would be.
That block after the three progressions - it looks to be about 35 minutes at about 65% - will be highly beneficial too.
I don’t think bumping it up closer to Z2/Z3 border will provide much additional benefit. That said, it shouldn’t do any significant harm, so whatever makes it best for you is the right choice.
The intention would be to bring HR closer to MAF / LT1 to get bang for the buck. This might be an artifact and isn’t real but directionally intervals.icu says I’m getting better:
I stick with my previous post: I don’t think raising the power in the Z2 elements of that workout will make any difference either way. Whatever adjustment makes you more likely to complete the full workout more often is the right adjustment.
PS Am I reading the legend on those graphs correctly? Blue is 2025 and red is a short subset of 2025?
Yes. Red is the last 42 days and blue is all of 2025.
My power/HR ratio seems to be getting better, although it is 1) outdoors influenced by hot temperature outside which we haven’t had lately and 2) indoors different workout types where recoveries come after hard intervals.
I’ll keep your intensity advice in mind and when time is available just finish the planned workout.
Yes most pros prefer progressions over blocks, as you pointed out they are more enjoyable. Progressions tend to be natural other than sprints which can be reverse progressions 
