I can totally see it!
3 Likes
Cool video though.
Definitely similar to DJs stuff.
I will probably incorporate a couple sprints at the end of my current workouts. I have been wanting to improve my sprinting anyway.
2 Likes
Lol, you are really riled up about this. Itās a YouTube video man, relax. Go do some sprints, get that energy out.
17 Likes
Hmm, like a Dylan video but without the humor. And different from other podcasts that offer the perspective of a full-time coach that has personally trained a lot of people over a long time (decade or more).
3 Likes
Humor is really hard. Dylanās humor doesnāt do anything to me, I cannot relate to his bro persona, but thatās just my taste. The same goes for @Jonathanās video, of course, humor is subjective.
To me in neither case the humor detracts from the content of the videos. Dylan is trying hard to straddle the line between being approachable to a more general audience and being informative. TRās style on the podcast feels more scientific (e. g. limitations and other, ādissentingā literature is often covered, too), but less approachable to the general population.
Doesnāt @Jonathanās work at TR for a decade or so qualify him in ways that are complimentary to a coach? He coaches less 1-to-1 (AFAIK he is coaching a high school mountain bike team, although I reckon that requires different skills than coaching adults), but he has access to a data set that is vastly bigger than any individual coach could amass during a lifetime. To me it is a complimentary qualification.
11 Likes
I asked this elsewhere but got no response.
Are TRās plans going to be revised somehow? What other updates are on the pipeline?
After almost burning out in January thanks to PL progressing to 10 with two weeks left of load, I have essentially only used TR for controlling the trainerā¦
Now, my subscription just got rolled for another year (speaking of legacy pricing) but if things stay as they are I struggle to see much value at the moment.
As far as I know outdoor rides are still not integrated and the HV plans are an intensity feast.
I do somewhat agree with you that TRs data somewhat gives insight to training and whatnot. But if the data isnāt combined with hands on ātalk to the athleteā-coaching, then does the data really give any meaningful insight that hasnāt already been answered by everyone else in the field? Aka, up the volume, do some high intensity, eat well, rest well.
I understand that the data is insane on TRs end. But they are also missing a HUGE part of context to that data, which for me is the context that is the difference between off the shelf products, and tailored products (in this case personal coaching).
It would of course be something completely different if TR set up a huge study with lactate testing, long term follow ups, control group etc. and actually found causations and correlations for whatever claims they make.
If the data that TR was so revolutionary, then there would be no personal coaches left. Physiology on the level that TR is working on, isnt that hard. Its more about just getting on the bike and doing some kind of structure.
1 Like
All your PLs are at 10!? That sounds strange if all PLs are at 10. When was your last ftp test? I usually float between 4-7 PL depending the zone but have never reached 10 because I do a ftp test every 4-6 weeks as recommended by most coaches. Maybe you decided to build your levels and burnt out because you didnāt update or retest your ftp?
4 Likes
Nope it was during base period so 10 was for SS.
I was following SSB HV (as I did for the previous couple of years).
I completed the workouts as prescribed and the plan progressed until hitting 10 with two weeks left of loading and the workouts suggested were mental. Also consider I was already tweaking the plan a bit this year by swapping the Sundays workout which would have been another SS workout.
Since then all my levels are essentially 1 to 1.5 as I really do not have confidence in these plans.
1 Like
Wow that does sound rough, well at least you know to tweak the plan a little. I always opt out of the Sunday SS for endurance it makes the training blocks more bearable.
Saw that video when it first came out. I support both Dylan Jās and TRās methodologies. Iāve used a personal coach before and been a TR user for years. In a perfect world, Iād mixed both approaches depending on my time and feel. But the main problem is me (not the systems), I just donāt ride enough consistently.
TR is capable of supporting all training protocols by utilizing their adaptive trainingās Custom Plan Builder and/or TrainNow features (beyond their preset plans). I can still train w/ Polarized approach while using TRās workouts then make adjustments as needed. Itās hard to beat what TR offers, not to mention the free weekly podcast. No doubt, they push the boundariesā¦why notā¦Tesla did it and succeeded. Ultimately, TR is most cost-effective for me and compatible with my lifestyle.
2 Likes
What makes you think it isnāt? A lot of TR employees have experience being coached and coaching at all levels including the world tour pro level. @Jonathan coaches a high school or middle school mountain bike team, for example.
My earlier point was that TR and its employees have different qualifications than someone whose profession is coaching, but both their expertises is highly relevant for the discussion.
With Adaptive Training, it isnāt as off-the-shelf than many training plans that you can buy online.
Iām confused by this claim.
TR not only can do thus, but they have been doing this already. Lactate measurements here are completely irrelevant. E. g. they have benchmarked AT against their previous plans and found that success rates went up. In principle, they can also benchmark different variations of their training plans against one another (perhaps they already do).
Iām pretty sure in 10, 15 years, most coaches will use tools like TR to create plans. Coaches will select goals, points of emphasis, benchmarks as well as volume, software will do the rest. It sounds as if software will do everything and coaches will just push buttons, but IMHO itāll be more like Photoshop and Illustrators did not make programmers into artists. These pieces of software gave artists new types of tools that removed old limitations and made things that were previously hard and time consuming very easy.
TRās big advantage is that they have the largest database in the world of cycling workouts that includes training plan data and internal logic. Strava has a lot of this information, yes, but not all of it.
2 Likes
When your SS got to 10, did you do an FTP assessment? I understand you hoped TR would recognize the issue and prompt you, but did you take action to remedy the problem by updating your FTP?
2 Likes
But the planās structure and basic principles are still the same. So if you are like me, and respond better to 60-80% endurance and the remainder intervals, well, the current AT isnāt going to fix the basic structure of the plan. All that big data and I still get the same basic plan. Iāve said it in the past, I bought a bike, got fast following the principles in a $20 book (The Time Crunched Cyclist), and then spent 2 years on TR mostly discovering what didnāt work for me. And thatās ok, but if granted a do over I would have hired a coach and figured it out sooner. And now 2 years later, having worked with WKO and also a great coach, I know my physiology, what works for me, types of intervals that produce better results, when to continue extracting gains by extending a block, etc. Iām sure TR will eventually get there, but right now it doesnāt really understand my physiology and a bunch of other stuff.
10 Likes
Are they?
TR does give people like you options, though, e. g. you could pick traditional base or a polarized plan to replace sweet spot base (and in case of polarized, you also have a build option). Then you can customize your plan to accommodate some of your needs.
Of course, Iād like more choice as well, e. g. Iād like an option to automatically replace the Sunday sweet spot ride with an endurance ride (the way it was in past TR plans many moons back). Iād like custom workout length defaults for each day, etc. But from what I can tell, TR has added more options and more options for more custom plans are in the works.
Nothing is perfect, and if you found a better solution for yourself, who am I to argue with that 
But Iād say it is fair that over time TR has added more options.
Let me offer a different perspective: in my mind the primary role of coaches is to guide and educate athletes, not to prescribe workouts. Prescribing workouts comes downstream. Every athlete has to discover for themselves (either by themselves or with the guidance of a coach) how they react to stimulus and take constraints into account, and adjust training plans accordingly. You also opted for self-education, which isnāt everybodyās cup of tea. (I think it is an essential part, though, if you want to progress.)
Overall, I think what you did is exactly right: you tried various things, educated yourself and armed with that knowledge you made an educated choice on what works for you. People on these forums could save themselves so much time (including myself 
) by following that path. Donāt discuss which FTP testing methodology is superior, pick something that works for you, but ā importantly ā validate the numbers and adjust them as necessary, especially in the beginning when you have little experience. Learn what your legs feel like when you spend 10+ minutes at threshold repeatedly and how that feelings differs when you are clearly below or clearly above threshold.
You are right that TR cannot fulfill many of these tasks ā just like I cannot suddenly draw, because I have installed ProCreate on my iPad. People who believe that software like what TR could become will take work away from coaches is too pessimistic. IMHO once powerful software is available, software that makes TP, TR and all the others look like toys, a new generation of coaches will see the advantages and use them so that they can dedicate their time to what matters: interacting with the athlete. Moreover, they can help future athletes navigate this powerful software. Maybe they will use TR Pro that comes with additional features (e. g. powerful benchmarking of key performance metrics, metrics chosen by the coach) that are too complex for many athletes to use.
2 Likes
ā¦ or even just manually bump FTP by 5 watts to force a PL realignment. That seems like a sane approach. 
3 Likes
As stated above by others, AT simply isnāt all what itās hyped to be and does not fix the basic issue with the plan structure.
The FTP was correct and didnāt move throughout the period. I completed workout at those levels so PLs per se were correct. But once you stack them up one after another for weeks disaster is waiting to happen. And consider I was already taming the plan slightly.
Iād like for my FTP to keep increasing with the PLs but 1 thatās not how it works and 2 that does not fix the structure of the plans by simply reassigning easier or harder workouts.
To me at least AT is nothing special so far and in fact I havenāt used it since.
TR I think worked well for the first couple of years but plans need a major redesign and customisation.
AT should adjust the plans based on each userās characteristics and not just single workouts.
1 Like
This post needs to be pinned 
Also thatās exactly what I mean by AT not really doing much of anything at the moment other than saving the hassle of manually picking harder or easier workouts.
I am not saying that they are not qualified coaches, but having listened to almost every podcast for over a year on the trainer, I get a strong sense that they validate their claims through ramp tests and success rate of workouts, thats it.
Of course people are getting faster if you go from no structure to structure.
That might be true! AT is definitely a step forward
What is confusing by this claim? And what does AT have to do with lactate testing?
I am just saying that they donāt seem to validate certain zones, level, and whatnot to the numbers they use. They just seem to do the ramp test, and then they hope for the best.
For example, just the other day a TR employee recommended someone here on the forums to do an almost IF 0.7 endurance ride to add to their training plan. And its those kind of things that makes me go ājeez, why would they do that?ā, instead of maybe recommending a IF 0.6 endurance ride which is going to give same, if not better, adaptations, and not produce as much fatigue.
And this bring me to my point about lactate testing and why I feel like they might not be doing enough testing themselves. It feels like the ātestingā that they do is based on their data. I have never once heard them doing studies on people doing their plans, that is actually physiology testing.
All they do is look at the numbers. Success rates of workouts is a selling point, not a receipt that youāre doing something right physiology wise.
That bothers me a little bit. We are humans.
It feels like you are not being objective in the whole discussion, but trying to protect TR in every way possible. I use TR myself, I do have a coach that coaches riders riding against Pogacar.
All I am saying is that sometimes TR feels like they are misguiding new cyclists a little bit, just saying that structure and hard rides is all you need, unless you have 18 hours a week, then you can do some zone 2.
Claims like that are justā¦ insane. And Iāve heard it too many times to count now.
This is an endurance sport, end of story, you need time on the bike, put in the hours. If you donāt have them, TR is great, but youāll very soon hit a wall because the training TR gives you might have you perform better and better ramp tests. But a ramp test is not indicative of anything at all really, it just sets your zones.
So it becomes this bad circle where TR makes themselves sound like a magic potion.
8 Likes
Iām going from memory here, but I remember TR staff mentioning the following metrics:
- Progression Levels for different power zones
- Scoring of unstructured rides (this is an internal alpha)
- Failure rates of workouts (e. g. with and without AT)
- Pauses during workouts (to my knowledge, this is not publicly accessible)
- An internal fitness metric that subsumes FTP, all Progression Levels, etc. into a single number.
- Benchmarking of modified versions of AT against old plans and older version of AT
- Ramp rates
@Nate_Pearson was a bit vague on what makes AT tick, but he mentioned that they have tested plenty of models, including some with more and others with less parameters. For obvious reasons he didnāt want to go into a lot of details, but if you know anything about Machine Learning and the fact that TR has been working on this for at least 4 years, then it is clear that they have consider many more factors than that.
Again, Iām not saying it is perfect or that TR is better than coaches, Iām just saying that they have probably thought of any metric we can come up with and more.
Yes, what does lactate testing have to do with anything? You now mention FTP tests. All FTP tests are based on prior research, and that includes the ramp test. What TR (and all other platforms I am aware of) do that is problematic is (1) rely on research whose test subjects were likely fitter than the average TR member and (2) they use a fixed percentage to compute FTP from tested power (e. g. 95 % of FTP20 power or 75 % of MAP). With the data set TR has, they can use other techniques to infer FTP. Large-scale lactate testing could conceivable only address point (1), but not point (2).
So yeah, I think lactate testing has nothing to do with it. My recommendation is that you simply donāt hand off your brains when you train, no matter if it is a coach, a piece of training software or a book: validate things yourself. Is the new FTP you got (using whatever approach there is) accurate? Well, try a threshold workout with longer stretches at 100 %, a VO2max workout and, if you can, an outdoor ride where you ride stretches at these power levels. Youāll learn what riding at FTP feels like. Use the knowledge and adjust your FTP if necessary.
Stupid question since this is an opt-in beta feature: have you heard of AI FTP detection? TR has done exactly what you think they did not do: they validated their algorithms against the data that they had.
Now I donāt claim AI FTP detection is perfect, I actually prefer testing (because I like it, really), but clearly they have been working on this for quite a while and at least have attempted exactly what you want them to do.
If you think that, I recommend you read some of my other posts, e. g. when it comes to the state of TRās apps, lack of Health integration, lack of Apple Watch integration and lack of metrics. I just happen to think that the vision they have articulated for TR is a good one.
How do you know that averaging 60 % FTP on your endurance ride will have the same or better outcomes? Is that just your opinion?
I donāt think such a blanket statement is correct in either direction is correct. If possible, longer rides at lower intensity are equal or better than shorter, slightly higher intensity rides (all within Z2). But that is usually a function of how much time you can (or allow the algorithm to) allot to your training on a given day.
(Personally, I prefer to do longer, mellower endurance rides outdoors. But I usually canāt spend more than 3 hours on a ride, Iām a family man.)
6 Likes