It all sounds good, but again it can sound good and be completely wrong advice. For example this sweet spot workout may not be good at reducing this drift. It might but I think their is limited science to show this so that would be my next question. “Can you prove that this sweet spot workout is good for improving my goal and provide links” and frequently when you review the material provided you realize it came to questionable conclusions. Again I am in love with GPT and feel the value and information is amazing but regarding training it tends to sound very convincing but not necessarily be right in the final suggestions. Personally I don’t know this. I think most people see a fair amount of drift at sweet spot so I am not sure it is “fixable.” I also think it’s likely a great workout for this time of year so not questioning your thinking.
Thanks Alex, that’s interesting!
If I keep doing this workout I can report back later what the HR actually does. Larger scale science is great, but all I really care about is N of 1.
Dave
Yes this is part of the problem is training is very situational and the science of training is even much more hit or miss. Also as an example the interpretation of polarized training is questionable. The easy answer is vo2max+easy is better than sweet spot but that is not universally true.
So your approach is perfect. Find something that makes sense to you and try it. ChatGPT is a great augment to that.
Interestingly I asked ChatGPT about polarized and it was adamant that given my limiters it wasn’t a good idea. I did some 4x8s earlier this year but only a couple times.
I know 4x8 at 104% hurts more than 2x20 at 90%, but the muscular response seemed similar to me.
Dave
Not sure all the info it knows about you, but there is a 50/50 chance it is right. Either Polarized is good for you or it is not, but generally if your goal is something related to sweet spot and your goal date is not too far away then sweet spot should be a good choice. Part of the problem of GPT is it gets locked into ideas that are wrong, but it is so convincing in it’s arguments. But still in many cases it is very good, you just have to decide for yourself. For me it just gives a wider sense of understanding.
I argued with it some more and have it absolutely convinced Dead Simple Training with one weekly 4x8, one weekly long ride, and easy rides whenever I have time is the best way to go.
Personally, I don’t know. I just want to be able to ride 50-60 mile rides outside and not feel so tired the day after.
I think the takeaway is that ChatGPT for training is User Beware! It will agree with whatever you argue if you are adamant enough.
Dave
My personal solution to your post ride recovery problems is weekly long rides and strictly below AeT “Zone 2” on stuff that I know has the potential to require more recovery that I want to provide (i.e. next day). Intensity is what inflicts the most damage so as long as I keep it down I minimize recovery needs. Maybe after 100km+ I might be tired when I arrive home but later in the day and for sure the next day I am fine.
AI - Yes, this is why anyone calling their training product that is AI based is risky… As I mentioned, I finally figured out how to use AI what I consider safely and reliability in TrainerDay (After years of struggling with trying to figure out how to add AI or more dynamic training) but I am not trying to use it in the traditional sense like you are and FasCat is. TR’s approach of machine learning is not really AI from my perspective, they use some AI but the value of that AI is limited and it’s mostly just rules based, which is better than true AI, it’s just not really AI in my terminology (AI marketing). Our approach will limit these negative aspects of AI like TR’s does but even be a bit more AI from how I would term it.
Hi Dave,
I admire all the experimenting you do. Nice work. What I have seen from chat gpt is that it’s right, but the advice doesn’t always make sense to me. It misses the fine details.
And I know I’m repeating myself, but 4x8 is an unnecessarily hard workout for amateurs like us. If you would do more shorter intervals you would probably spend more quality time in zone, and recover better.
Besides that, it is always a good idea to bring some variation to your schedule. In load, as well as intensity. This way, you will only feel tired the day after once a month or even once every 8 or 12 weeks, depending on the ramp rate.
Have fun, Coach Robert
Thanks Robert.
It seems like I mess around a lot and I know I do, but most of the madness in that regard is just related to the indoor trainer.
My outside rides are consistent. I know the best way to get better in hour 3 or 4 of a ride is to regularly ride into hour 3 or 4, but time is limited and I can get only get those in maybe once a weekend.
Given the time I have available I haven’t improved very much the past couple years. I think if I stuck to a plan where I combine fun outside rides and once a week indoor interval sessions I could probably make some good gains, but my consistency is lacking.
Dave
I’ve done the 4x8 on three different occasions now and have opinions.
An amateur cyclist could certainly do worse than one long ride, one quality interval workout, and the remainder of available training time at an easy intensity.
I’ll submit that 4x8 when performed at an intensity that is hard but leaves one interval left in reserve qualifies as that quality interval workout.
Is the 4x8 too hard for amateurs? I would say No if you follow my guidance to always leave an interval in reserve.
I don’t think there is magic in 4x8, but I tried longer sweet spot intervals and find them to be boring and fatiguing.
Dave
Agreed, that is the exact recommendation I just gave someone on reddit. One long ride, one interval, the rest z2 or z1… for a generic simple recommendation it’s likely reasonably optimized for most people.
The only major reason to offer something different for simple, is if they are inconsistent you might want to focus on fun only, whatever that means, until they figure out how to be consistent.
Sorry for my late reply, Dave.
You are doing great with all the experiments that you do.
Personally, I would do shorter intervals with a higher intensity. They will bring you more diversified changes. Ideal for time-crunched cyclists.
It is always difficult for experienced riders to grow if you haven’t got the time.
That is why I advise my clients to optimize their lifestyle. Sometimes they can find a half hour to do an extra training, but most of the time there is room for improvement on nutrition, sleep and recovery.
Every rider has their own life, which makes progress a puzzle where the pieces change shape all the time.
As long as you have fun, you are doing great. Love your experiments.
I’m pretty well set on my personal plan so I’m going to stay the course, but I’m interested in what the shorter high intensity intervals would be.
Dave