As a long time podcast listener, and I mean, podcasts, not just the TR one, one of things I like about them is that they’re not as strictly tied to the usual commercial media formats of 30 minutes, 1 hour, etc. They could just be however long felt right.
I see part of this debate as the dubious influence of “big podcast” (spotify etc.)
So, I’d like to return to the “flow” state. I got that feel back when the Q&A was tacked on. It just went for however long, then answered some questions, and eventually it was time to call it. Not to say it has to follow that format, or even any format strictly, just let it flow. It doesn’t have to be “Beers with Chad” flow, but if it discouraged Nate from inadvisedly spouting off about a new feature or whatever, well, that would be a loss.
I have not listened to all of it yet but I agree. If 2 hours is too long and difficult logistically, I understand. But if I had a choice 2 hours (or longer) would be my choice. I do love the AACC podcast and listen to it on the weekend rides (trainer or outdoors).
When you do the so called “morning show” two things happen:
Each topic is more thoroughly discussed without rushing through countless preplanned topics and countless new viewer questions.
Personal opinions and preferences are brought to the table.
These are the beyond the numbers actual behaviors by people who know much more than me and it helps to relate to my own real life challenges.
In short, with a two hours when you discuss an issue you do a full circle and close it from all angles so for me it’s done and I learned it (or got wiser about it)…and ready for a new topic.
When doing the short version it lacks for me in the sense that I need to delve more afterwards, much more than previously.
Thank you for the commitment you guys show to putting out such great content week after week.
The podcast length doesn’t impact me - I either pause / skip / revisit as I please (the chapter markers really help with this, thanks for that).
I personally am not the biggest fan of the deep dives - ironically, I find them a little too deep - I kind of just want the clif notes, plus, I work in research and want to get away from the day to day.
I enjoy hearing about the experiences of the pros amongst the hosts - e.g. in the latest episode about shaving, it was cool to hear “the research says X”… “in my experience”…
Some things or suggestions moving forwards…
I wonder what the return on investment is for the podcast, hosts and company? I’m not saying stop, but what’s the why? Really? I don’t think that answering listener questions necessarily makes for faster cyclists…
Are there any guests that could answer listener questions - e.g. a pro in the peleton?
In the past I suggested a rotation of episodes that might look something like week 1 - deep dive, week 2 - listener questions, week 3 - rapid-fire - repeat. Is something similar feasible?
You guys put in a lot of time, so it’s only right that any feedback we provide is similarly well thought out IMHO.
Thanks again for all you do - the podcast is always a highlight of my week!
I’ve responded with 60-90mins being my favoured option.
There’s a fine line between rushing to fit a specific time and letting things ramble, it takes a bit of skill and discipline. Just having an hour (or whatever) time frame and forcing the content to fit into that means that personal anecdotes and banter just gets dropped. Conversely not having a time limit allows for a lot of repetition and wandering. Maybe Jonathan needs a “stop waffling” button* to send to the others but then some of Nate’s stream of conciousness type rambles/rants are amusing. There have been a few episodes where Jonathan has said something like “We’ll skip the next question/topic as we’ll run out of time” so obviously the team are aware of time overruns and the like.
(* a friend used to use one of those chess timers at meetings - when the bell/buzzer went you had to stop speaking and let the next person talk! Didn’t matter if you hadn’t said what you wanted to say - after a couple of meetings most people said the important stuff quickly and at the start.)
Last week’s deep dive on Blood Flow Restriction felt a bit too long but it was the first time (to my knowledge) that it had been discussed on the TR podcast so perhaps excusable in that regard. The deep dives are pitched at about the right level for me, much lighter and they might as well be “the research shows…” much deeper and I might as well sign up to PubMed. The occasional banter helps here as otherwise they’d be like the most boring class at college.
Listener questions are good as they’ll raise topics combinations/effects of topics that the team might not have considered or felt should be covered. They also help clarify misconceptions that can arise.
Personally, i stopped listening to the podcast a while back because i wasn’t interested in becoming friends with the TR staff. I like dialog about training, the science of nutrition and physiological adaptations, etc. I don’t find any extra value at all to learning and listening about the staff’s personal lives.
I have found Chad answering questions to be the most interesting thing and the more i heard about someone’s life ramblings, the less i heard Chad answering questions.
In my opinion, the podcast can be whatever length it needs to be when it focuses on an episode’s content. Plan the topics, align the discussions, and make tge podcast. Fill in some sections with banter, that’s fine and makes it real. But putting in personal chatter on purpose has always seemed a bit over the top.
At the end of the day, isn’t a Podcast dedicated to making people a faster cyclist?. Please, regardless of the length of it, continuously question if the produced content is doing that. Otherwise, keep it to another channel, or…change the intro to reflect the content.
I listened to the 1 hour version today. It just seemed a lot tighter. I agree with some of the comments above. I don’t mind how long it is as long as it is focus. I have no issues with banter, and a bit of topic chatter. It is just natural. I wasn’t so keen on the rapid fire questions. The podcast didn’t need to be made longer for no particular reason. I think the podcast should be as long as it needs to be. I think a dedicated episode once a month for listeners questions might be a good option. The other could be more concise.
I’ve not read through this thread so sorry if these points have already been mentioned.
I started a thread a while ago stating that I was missing the fun banter on the podcast. I feel this was addressed and I’ve enjoyed a fair few out loud laughs since then. I love Chads dry humour, Nates enthusiasm and self deprication, Ambers genuine amusement at life and Ivys facepalm moments and wit, all held together by the nicest guy in the world -Jonathan.
If a shorter podcast smothered this I’d be sorry.
It’s an unfortunate fact of life that bike riding has to take a back seat sometimes but I’m really hoping you’ll all get the chance to challenge yourselves and each other again asap. It’s hilarious when the best laid plans go awry.
Until then, I feel you do a great job with what can be quite dry subjects. Maybe us listeners need to up our questions game?
I’m cool with 1 hr or more. Not less as I think you just have too much to share and the input is too valuable not to share. Podcast is amazing, thanks for what you’re doing!
Seemed a little cut short at one hour. I don’t listen live, but do when on the turbo or stretching/weights.
I definitely prefer it when there is a set of markers on the youtube version, so I can skip through and back.
I must admit I skip past the various Rapid Fire “Which film character do you represent” type questions.
I can even tolerate all the mountain bike race chat, even as a roadie and Time Trialist
One thing I would ask, and I know Jonathan tries to do this, is when Chad is doing a deep dive, a short summary before and after, and on the way through, would help. Sometimes I get lost in the weeds, even though it is helpful. For instance this week, I really felt a summary at the start of “This looks like it may have potential in very short doses, but for goodness sake, if you want to try this, do it under proper supervision (whateven that means) as you can do it too tight, or for too long, and damage yourself!” (Was that a fair summary with a fair caveat?).
Also, (and I don’t know if you do this) put links to the write ups when they occur, and mark the out of date episode topics as such if the advice there has been superceeded. (Perhaps you do, but I don’t know where)
Otherwise, happy with longer ones. (and it is always amusing when Nate starts off on one- especially about new releases that he has not discussed - eg outside rides!!!).
Regardless of preference in podcast duration, the way it has been run has made it an objectively popular podcast. I think chopping it down or overhauling it to please a group that doesn’t want to listen to the whole thing is quite silly. Especially with the addition of bookmarks which are really helpful to identify different topics and timestamps. Now that there is a literal menu to choose from, if you think a lot isn’t relevant to you, listen to what you want to and disregard the rest. Don’t expect McDonalds to get rid of the fries, shakes, and filet o fish because you only like the burgers.
I enjoy the longer podcasts though I can see why someone would want a shorter and more to the point one if they don’t have much time to listen. But I think the recent podcast was missing something with the banter.
Maybe the best approach would be to have a separate podcast for deep dives. Maybe add them to the science of getting faster but alternate weeks. So one week is a DD and the next is an interview with a scientist (maybe they could even be connected to eachother if it works out that way). One week Chad does a deep dive and/or answers listener questions related to the topic then the next a scientist tells him why he missed the mark in places haha.
Then a second more free form one with personal and app updates, banter, random listener questions, etc.
I personally liked the longer ones as I listen to them on long endurance rides but different strokes and I know it can be hard to please everyone.
Hitting an angle that Jon stated in the podcast (but not in the text above) the desire of the hosts to do shorter shows for lower demand on them and their time. I totally sympathize with what is likely a solid time from them to research and/or prep to cover the topics as well as they usually do. Cutting the time (via fewer topics per show) makes sense and I back that 100%.
The irony for me is the polls where the 2 hour show “wins” along with people actually wanting 2 of those shows per week. Dance, monkey… Dance!
Considering that this is a free podcast, I am happy with whatever TR decides even if it is at odds with the poll. We don’t know the full demands or what the podcast may be taking away with regard to TR app progress and such. I like the info and entertainment, but if it comes at the cost of TR development, I am happy to give up a bit of listening time each week if it helps that goal.
but then some of Nate’s stream of conciousness type rambles/rants are amusing. There have been a few episodes where Jonathan has said something like “We’ll skip the next question/topic as we’ll run out of time” so obviously the team are aware of time overruns and the like.
