A significant problem I see in integrating strength work is creating plans that dovetail with the kit people have.
Some folk have literally nothing. Others might have a doorway pull-up bar and a couple of fixed dumbbells or a kettlebell or two. The lucky few will have access a power cage, barbell and plates, either at home or at a gym.
Good luck writing plans for that range of options.
In contrast, every TR user has something with pedals that go round.
The internet is already full of all the strength training information you could ever possibly need. Takes 2 seconds to find something appropriate with your own experience, kit levels and goals in mind.
I think thereās also a liability issue in there as well. Itās one thing for endurance training but with resistance training the risk of injury is very high when people may not have the best form. Even if they do, risk is there.
Now imagine where you have āprogression levelsā for resistance training.
Lawsuits galore.
Bingo! TR has some general guidance on when to integrate the strength training. You can find many super simple routines on YouTube. Strength training doesnāt need to be complicated.
Itās always a thing, which is why lawyers exist.
I get your point, I know different companies have put out training plans for lifting. I know people sign disclaimers.
Disclaimers donāt absolve companies of every liability.
With TRs method of providing training, it seems to me a recipe for trouble. Itās one thing to add watts or time to an interval and itās no big deal. People fail and they turn it down.
Add weight until failure and people get injured.
Iām not familiar with the types of plans the other companies offer, is it just suggested workouts or is it interval type specific training?
And TR does offer suggested workouts, they even have a nifty little calculator as I am sure people posted.
As an example, FASCAT has multiple āstrength and conditioningā plans. The weightlifting oriented programs provides specific set/rep information.
Am not suggesting the FASCAT programs are good or should be followed or that TR should offer the same plans. Simply showing that a well established player in the preformatted training plan business is offering the types of weight / strength programs being discussed.
To see more about what a competitor is doing, look at the Off Season offerings on their website.
Thatās why I asked this question.
Your reply makes sense to me.
I guess my question is what more do people want? Do they want plan builder to be able to put resistance training blocks in? Obviously you can do it manually but they want AI involved as well?
Iād bet that as TR continues to refine their training they offer more customization. I hope, I wish I could pick a plan with 4 days instead of 3 or 5, among other things.
Thatās why I answered 
I think the general frustration with TR plans is that by and large they emphasize threshold / Vo2max training methods and are aligned more toward time crunched. Itās understandable from some perspective.
The frustration some folks seem to have is that TR is a market leader, the team is well liked, and folks want to see them thrive and to grow and to offer more. While TR is focused on ML/AI and all in for that approach, they are leaving gaps by not evolving the plans. On the one hand being all in on one strategy (ML/AI) allows focus. On the other hand, folks familiar with caveats of ML/AI being applied to human health and physiology might suggest hedging oneās bets by offering some of the other things customers want. Thatās up to Nate and the TR team.
One of the fascinating things about this is how much folks (users) really like TR. Everyone (more or less) is rooting for success and hoping the team evolves and thrives. Offering constructive criticism and thoughts is a free gift to the team. They can do with it what they choose but knowing what your passionate customers think is always useful to a business.
I was talking to the other guy but I think I messed up the ārespondā part
100% agreed with everything you wrote.
Such a great comment. I really think this gets lost on the folks who think any critical comment is a āhaterā. I LOVE TR. I love my wife. Heck, I love myself. That doesnāt mean we canāt improve or never do anything wrong. The focus of 99.9% of the comments come from a place of caring and wanting to see positive evolution.
One training plan I would love to see is x2 week, perhaps 2 hour sessions each following AI progression and the rest free reignā¦. Eg choose your own indoor, outdoor rides
This would be perfect. One high-intensity day a week (that scaled with AI and PLs) as an additional would be great, too, for those of us doing a lot of their riding outdoors and want to try some version of polarized training. Iāve been able to get the two-day week working now by dropping a regular āLong Rideā or āPractice Raceā C-event on top of the Saturday intensity day, then adding in lots of Zone 2 rides on top.
I get that it could be cleaner and I would assume they will enable us to tailor our plan more like this, but is it not dead simple to do what you are already doing. I donāt even bother deleting the Saturday workout, I just go ride whatever I want and everything is fine. I donāt need TR to provide me the ultimate configurability because it takes less than 5 minutes to make my adjustments on my own.
āSo theyāre suboptimal for developing strength for cycling.ā
I reckon thatās pretty much exactly the sort of comment TR would get if they were to incorporate that sort of strength workout into SSB.
I think part of the failure of AT to monitor intensity is probably as much on us as it is on them. The solution relies on feedback to decide to progress or not and how much. I think we are mostly a bunch of stubborn hamsters on the wheel that donāt provide the proper feedback to the system to inform the system we need to ease up. If there is a tweak they should make, they should increase the sensitivity of the feedback system so that if you provide a VH or multiple VH in a row, it should ask you whether or not the intensity needs to be dialed back.
Same could be saud of cycle training.
IMO, not the same as TR training app. Weāre here to ride bikes with supplementary āotherā stuff if we please, not the other way around.
Personally, TR does everything I want from it an more. Its immeasurably more advanced than when I started back in 2018 each advance is nothing short of a bonus from what it was previously. I boggle a little when people complain about what its not or what it āshouldā be.
This. And why they continue to be on the TrainerRoad forum, for so long, just to complain about how poor it is and why x is better. TR is obviously better in one respect, in having the forum!
āNoā that comment wouldnāt be posted or āNoā that sort of training wouldnāt be suboptimal?
I find your anecdotal explanation not a comparison at all. It really makes no sense. As well you are making judgements based on your assumption of what my experience is.
I believe I have been using tr for 4 or 5 years. I believe I have a level of knowledge that if TR put out a stretching plan or a strength plan that I would be able to figure it out and make it work for me. I have lifted weights in the past and nothing has killed me. I do not need āoptimalā all I need is āpossibleā. I could probably put my own plan together by going through a few hundred podcasts and videos! My point is why should I??? The TR team has more than enough experience. They do their own strength training and stretching and everything else. I cant think of one good reason not to share it with their āathletesā.
I dont have anger towards you. I was civil and respectful. I pointed out that your anecdotal story was pointless and not a great comparison of my point. Did Alex charge his wife monthly for tt setup advice? I have the experience to lift a weight or do a stretch. If TR offers a plan its my choice on how I implement it.
your example has as much to do with my point as the Thor Love and Thunder commercial has to do with yours.
I disagree with you. You choose to take that as anger or not civil or lack of respect then thatās on you.
