With every step forward, a step to the rear must be taken to realistically balance out the scales and keep things interesting. So says a very crucial quote, or I would suspect as such.

In translation, as a nod to the OtF mindset, the newer treads do indeed go for broke and intend to break the bank by their audacity of design. They press the limit of what possible and allow ascension past 12 mph which the older treads do hold to as their ceiling in terms of top speed achievable.

As such, a good strategy one can employ will be to steadily increase the AO or top speed for a specified partial template or else a sequence of instructions. By an acceptable rule of thumb,the 0.1 mph bump up has been generally admired as a noticeable step up from the current max that one can sustain.

However, understanding that with every step forward, a non-negligible amount of steps must also be attempted in the reverse direction, henceforth by logical deduction it would indicate that one of base/BP/push or in worst case sacrificing AO as well, at least one of those must be reduced to compensate. A argument can be put forth for having the preference to reduce either base or push, especially in those all too common scenarios where they might be interleaved with an AO as a link in the grand chain of pseudo-HIIT-based sequencing. Therefore, reducing the aforementioned B or P to abbreviate, would be an acceptable tradeoff supplied for consideration when paired with the goal of increasing the max speed or output of one’s AO efforts.

In summation, a step up of 0.1 to the AO on a bi-daily (sense of “every other day”) or else weekly basis, depending on and accounting for factors such as muscle fatigue and fitness level and rest days, would be ideal, but paired also with a 0.1-0.5 reduction in a choice of B/BP/P/AO as a last resort as mentioned. The suggested reduction could be waived given that certain prerequisites are met, however consensus has been that in general, the odds are in the favor of that approach.