Exactly. Many people tend to drop the Z2 rides because they find them “boring”. Without wanting to publicly single anyone out, that very thing has already been said within this thread and in virtually every other thread like it. Because of the lack of user compliance with the Z2 rides, TR has been put into a bit of a quandary. What is the most optimal training plan? Research can suggest that it involves more Z2 training and fewer intensity sessions, but does that remain the most optimal approach when the user base isn’t compliant with doing the Z2 sessions? I think most everyone agrees that consistency is key. Coming from that perspective, the most optimal training plan isn’t necessarily the one research suggests would work best, but the one that any particular user base will actually consistently follow.
That‘s a point Coach Chad raises often: sweet spot is not „high intensity“. I tend to disagree when I‘m starting after the off-season, and agree after ssb1 when my fitness is starting to increase.
DJ calls calls sweet spot intervals „threshold“ repeatedely. To me (n=1) the distinction couldn‘t be clearer: I recover from sweet spot work in time for the next day‘s workout every single time. I recover from lengthy threshold intervals in time for the next workout… never 
+1 to all the “I love TR and recommend it to all my friends, but they should change their plans” comments.
I tell my friends to do LV plans and add easy riding as much as they can on all the other days. This is all TR really needs to do to go from LV to MV and HV. LV could even go for just two hard workouts a week and the third easy. I truly believe that this approach would be better for the vast majority of riders (but maybe TR fears they would lose subscribers to more HIIT focused, popular platforms).
Also, very pleasantly surprised by all the thoughtful and mature comments here. I didn’t even need to make popcorn. This be a good community.
Trying doing intervals longer than 20min.
Or TiZ longer than 45min.
Or cutting the rest intervals from 10min down to 2min.
So why doesn’t @Nate_Pearson show us statistics that proves the efficiency of the TR training plans?
The beating of the dead horse continues yet again on this forum.
@HansDampf In terms of effectiveness I would say it works. I am closing in on 5 wpkg in my third season with TrainerRoad. All that while having a newborn at home, working 10+ hours, and building a house. But meh, what do I know. 
Though as this is an endurance sports and my time commitment, recovery routines, life stress and nutrition are far from ideal - I am quite happy with the product. As seem to be many others here on the forum.
Its our favourite past-time! (poor horse though)
I had a doublespeak moment on that podcast too, so not disagreeing. But threads like this one (and the one that that podcast generated) won’t get you any closer to an honest and open discussion.
I’m not suggesting I have the answer, but I recognize what not to do.
Yes.
As an amateur long course triathlete I certainly appreciate the difference between competitive volume and what I can do. But I also appreciate how much risk-free intensity I can do on the bike, half of which as running would cripple me - so different disciplines, different models for training.
While I think the point earlier was correct about there being a bias on posters in this forum being more obsessed than most, I suspect there are a much bigger number of lurkers and TR subscribers who are regular club riders who get beaten up on the weekend Sunday ride…because they’re riding too hard. I (would like to) think that 6 weeks on SSB LV teaches riders what different levels of effort are and what they can sustain, and how and why to take those long weekend rides easier.
I think DJ is just right. Also, I feel that he is not more or less harsh than TR with others.
Quite frankly, after listening to the last AACC Episode with Keegan, I was a bit astonished about some statements concerning Polarized training.
Believing and sticking to ones own training principles (aka sweet spot/treshold) is absolutely fine. They run a Business and have to stand behind their product. I understand that. But: almost making fun of other training philosophies and talking dismissive (almost arrogant) about it, is self-defeating at least. Especially when science is pointing strongly (!) into another direction (polarized/pyramidal).
Anyone else using TR but only doing the week day stuff? I’m on MVSSB and into MV Build and I try to ride 1hr easy M, W, F. I do prescribed TR workouts on T and Th, with maybe extended cooldown. On weekends, I ride 3-5 hrs on Sat and 1.5-2.5 on Sunday, mostly steady, any spicy stuff might come on Sat group ride but that’s it. To me, this feels like a blend of both approaches and I get enough intensity during the week already. FTP at 375W, highest its ever been, 30W increase since I started the “best of both worlds”. Anyone else? this can’t be so binary, only one or another
I do, repeatedly In fact I‘ve been experimenting with 1h uninterrupted sweet spot intervals lately, does that qualify?
Since you asked so nicely.
Etc.
Please don’t discount “old data.” Pythagoras and Aristotle showed the earth was round back in the B.C. Has anybody yet showed compelling modern research to disprove that?
It’s a good start. Go for 1x120! 
And thank you for breaking from the short TR intervals!
:
As an aside, and perhaps proof the world is ending, I can’t believe I’m “liking” obnyd posts in this thread. 
If you use plan builder and say your current training load is either low or moderate, it recommends the low volume plan.
I think the problem is people ignore the advice.
To quote DJ
“This is an example of anecdotal evidence”.
And i beg your pardon. I meant effectiveness and efficiency. I’m interested to see empirical data about the efficiency of a TR training plan.
There’s so much straw manning going on on this thread. He never said it wasn’t effective, only that the science shows SS isn’t as effective as polarised. He also directly addresses the point about time required in the week to see benefits - i.e. you need less from polarized from SS.
There’s no need for people to get defensive - nothing was presented in a sensationalist or disrespectful way.
Hopefully this will be positive - if so there are two outcomes. Either TR presents some counter-evidence that highlights the benefits of SS (i.e. uses science to refute his point) or simply adds a polarized training plan to the app. I really doubt the later is that hard to do.
I think TR could really use this criticism as an opportunity to win some more people over.
Thanks for sharing. Im with you on PYR. However, the issue at hand is that if you add the TiZ of the 3 phases of a TR plan, that is not PYR at all…I believe Mr @Captain_Doughnutman shared the stats above in this thread.