AI Training - Will it work?

Call me crazy, but before we start poo-pooing the effort in advance, shouldn’t we at least wait how people like it and whether the majority of users feels it is an improvement? And it seems once the plumbing is in place, they can iterate on the algorithm and make sure they optimize the algorithm for the right things.

During the podcast I thought they covered all the important caveats: problematic data sets, the issue of bias, etc.

1 Like

Check out the TR Bell Curve…”more people faster” doesn’t mean more fast people.

If I want to get fast, I’m going to seek out a coach who produces 5w/kg cyclists vs a service that produces 3w/kg cyclists.

TR produced that 5 wpkg cyclist. :tipping_hand_man:t2:

Anyway, what’s the context. 5 wpkg in your 50s on 3.5 hours per week? :joy:

Fast vs faster.

I want to see the coach, who can whip 60+ yo to 5 W/kg :joy:
Seriously though, so many of the critics seem to be biased towards the high performance end. (E.g. all the coaches on the social medias).
Virtually 0 of us are pros. I think most TR users just want to get faster withing their means (age, work/life, health, motivation, commitment, goals… you name it). I don’t think a majority even has the desire to get to near pro levels.
So if TR would produce only 5 W/kg athletes, that would only mean the vast majority of customers would be gone. I certainly have no use for a training service, that only caters to the very fast.

Oh and since this is the AI thread, not “the other thread” here a little snippet about ML… I’m no expert, but if it was impossible to apply ML to real-world datasets, it would be a pretty useless technology.


If I’m looking to get faster — 3w/kg — I go with TR.

If I’m looking to get fast — 5w/kg — I go with a real coach.

1 Like

Nobody is stopping you :joy:


That’s a damn big gap between those two points. At what point are you suggesting TR doesn’t work anymore?

Wondering if the AT stuff will shift the bell curve. If it doesn’t, does that mean it worked or didn’t work?

Also, if TR is producing mostly >3w/kg cyclists, the whole POL vs SS argument is pretty pointless because probably ANY type of structured training — cookie cutter or AT — will get most people to that point.

That’s for sure gonna be interesting to see. Would be quite remarkable if it did.

1 Like

Nah, recreational cyclists and ambitious age groupers.


Could be tons of reasons for this, from lack of volume, to lack of compliance, to user base being over-weight w/ older people, etc.

Do that, I save the money and buy a new bike. Every other year. :joy:


[Some people might choose to spend $10,000 on a bike and $200 for a training app and then complain that a personal coach is “too expensive”. But also complain when they don’t get faster by not following the training app.

Good luck trying to wrangle some people, AT.]

What could TR do differently to make it work for you?

Ok now we are just having the same silly discussion for the 50th time on the 10th thread. This was such a nice thread before :man_facepalming:t2:


Nah it’s 12,500 € and 129 € respectively. And as I have told you , a 129 euro 5 wpkg engine. :joy:

It might be able to work…if they start classifying custom workouts and non-plans in AT. Only downfall is recommending TR workouts. I’d have to create a suite of custom w/o which AT pulls from…but then again, if I’m already doing 90% of the work… :man_shrugging:t2:

Will be interesting to see where it is in a year.

1 Like

Cool. So then you’re probably wasting money on TR. :+1:t2:

Whilst I’m not a forum MOD, I think it would be productive to keep at least one eye on my final question when I started this thread.

Is this optimum training?

adjective - 1. most conducive to a favourable outcome; best.

noun - 1. the most favourable situation or level for growth, reproduction, or success.

Lets all be really honest for a moment. We (the forum) like to discuss things looking at a whole. The ‘Bigger Picture’, so-to-speak. Why? Because we think it’s the right thing to do?

When you get down to the bare tacks, it’s really all about YOU. Be honest. Do you really care if TrainerRoad works for anybody else? Be that in its current format or any other version on the horizon.

Cards on the table. I don’t. Why the hell would I want my competition to have access to a great resource, with a proven track record, at a (in my current financial situation) very competitive price. Why in the world would I want that?

Ok, recent history would demonstrate that around half of this forum disagree with me. TR has no proven track record. Maybe it does, but it’s a negative one, with a history of burnt out athletes.

Thing is, and this is what leaves a nasty taste in peoples mouths. I don’t care. TR works for me. Whilst I don’t wish anybody any ill and I don’t take pleasure seeing people fail, I don’t want my competition getting faster for £-$20 per month. Yes, I’m selfish and self-centred but I can be honest and admit it.

Do I think ML will work? With the information I have, gained from the Podcast and this forum, my answer is… I think it’s a really positive step forward to making more people faster. I think it could work. Again, if I’m honest, I find this personally troubling. My competition will have another tool at their disposal.

Is it OPTIMAL? With the information I currently have at my disposal, I can’t honestly say? Neither can best part of the current commentators. We have to wait for our opportunity and enter into it with an open mind. Be honest with our inputs if we want constructive feedback, back.

Yeah, I’m not going to make many friends with this post but I am being honest. I don’t get on my trainer in the morning and hope that TR or any other training platform or coach is making you faster too. That’s just madness.