You’ll have to explain the second sentence.
Point was this
The internet is already full of all the cycle training information you could ever possibly need. Takes 2 seconds to find something appropriate with your own experience, kit levels and goals in mind.
If your approach to strength training is 2 seconds and pick first search result , why not the same approach to your cycle training? Why does one warrant an app but not the other?
Do strength training apps include supplementary cycling workouts? Pick your poison.
I long wonder about this. You tried (or maybe didn’t) a product, found it wasn’t for you, gave feedback, but are compelled to stay very active in the forum.
It isn’t unique to TR either. There are a few people on a car forum I visit that have literally 1000s of posts bad-mouthing on countless threads long after they either never-bought the car, sold it, and/or swear they would never buy the car again.
Best I figure it is either wanting to warn people about the deficiencies/evils of a product, by which perhaps there is a sense of vindication in their decision, or they are hoping/waiting for the feature change that will make them re-consider the product 
You appreciate that Jonathan was uploading TR “sound bites” a long time ago don’t you? A change in aesthetic can hardly be attributed to one, moderately popular YouTuber.
Dylan puts out some interesting stuff but relies on “clickbait” for most of his popularity.
Just enjoy the ride and stop trying to force the connection IMHO.
Have you ever watched the Podcast feed? That’s where he sits, since he shifted to his new home and built out his man-cave/started doing the Pod remotely.
I think that Kolie Moore has had a larger impact on TR in general. Dylan used TR’s popularity and a clickbait title to generate views and increase his viewership more than anything.
But you do you, I don’t want to get further into a debate. It seems like a personal vendetta to me lol.
If thats the case, I think they need to grow up and start acting like a professional company that had some criticism, it doesn’t seem to me that that episode has done them any harm. so why act like it has
Maybe @Crosshair is backwards hat dylan… 
I kid!
I actually think Dylan had a few good points in his video. I look at it almost as an intro for AI training as it was so close to being ready when the video came out. Almost like it was a co-ordinated effort… You have problem with our plans??? WELL here is TR HYPERGAIN BEAST MODE with AI… SMACK DOWN!!! MIKE DROP!!!
LOL
I like Dylan and find him entertaining. I like the TR crew and really liked Jonathans new video… Dont really care about format. Dont really care about style. Good information and loving the TR training experience.
I really don’t see the point in choosing sides or making an issue out of it. Dylan’s video was interesting at the time but TR has far surpassed the issues that were raised on the video IMO. If I am wrong I could always go to another or better product(although I do not feel one exists)!
Good job on the last video Jonathon. I very much enjoyed it.
I really don’t understand why people are saying that video looked like a Dylan video. It feels like a real stretch to me. I watch Dylan more than I watch TR (because I don’t have the time for 2+ hour videos), and I just don’t see it. It’s a video with a guy talking about things and showing material that backs up his argument. Kind of like every informative video on every topic, not just cycling.
It’s not a “pick one or the other” thing. As Bbt67 pointed out, many of the competing products incorporate strength (and more) into their cycling plans, so in their cases, it’s “pick both”.
I think you misunderstood my post and took it personal. I wasn’t making any judgement on your experience level, I was talking about the general fact that TR’s audience spans from beginners to world-class athletes. Where you are on the spectrum didn’t matter for my arguments.
This confuses me to no end: I completely agree with you, TR should include that in its offerings and schedule strength sessions at least as an option in its plans. I said so many times, including in this very thread.
The only place where we part ways is that TR’s current solution does work for me, too, although it is clearly not as good as having strength sessions as part of training plans with e. g. a clear progression. One life lesson I have learnt for myself is that if I were to wait for the perfect tool, very little would get done. So I try to make do with what I have the best way I can.
Ingesting both is good. In my observation, both sides reacted well to it: TR’s deep dive on polarized was really great, and Dylan’s video motivated TR’s team to create polarized plans — win-win-win.
Given the thread (doh!), the polarized debate invariably comes to mind. Staying non-ideological and having an open, yet skeptical mind has worked well for me. Sweet spot training is not as bad as adherents of polarized claim, and polarized training isn’t a panacea either. But what fanboys forget is that it isn’t “either-or”, “and” is also an option 
I have done two polarized blocks with specific intentions, and they have worked well for me. Polarized blocks are another arrow in my quiver.
So not to make a joke of anything but I am ON the spectrum and at times have trouble understanding. It seems that I just added 2+2 and ended up with three.
So I think we agree. We just don’t really agree on how we agree 
My apologies!
No problem, these things happen!
Happy posting!
The thing that always amuses me when we have this sweetspot vs polarised debate is that I’m pretty sure I remember a video where Dylan said that early in his cycling career he built a whole bunch of fitness on a diet of sweetspot training.
So a whole bunch of his aerobic base and muscle endurance was built by sweetspot. All the adaptations he got doing sweetspot were carried over when he switched to a more polarised model.
So many ways to skin cats. Some optimal. Some good enough.
One benefits the other, the other doesn’t.
Curious, I just watched the Polarized Training AACCP on youtube. This video is a direct response to criticisms of TR training plans. Polarized Training Deep Dive and TrainerRoad’s Training Plans – Ask a Cycling Coach 299 - YouTube
After watching the video, and especially listening to breakdown of the science, the limitations of these studies, all of the different variables, I still don’t know what the best way forward is.
More importantly, I am very encouraged that Nate and Amber seem to feel the same.
They did NOT dismiss polarized training. They said it did show promise, and not only that but they built training plans around it.
To me, it shows an openness to learn, a willingness to look at areas to improve, and shows that a LOT of thought process goes into what they do. This makes me trust TR a lot more. I hate nothing more than confident fools who will blind you with confidence until you learn more and figure out that although confident, they were incorrect the whole time. Typically those people have fragile egos and will react aggressively when challenged or questioned. TR is willing to look at the science and makes very valid questions about the quoted studies.
Good stuff TR.
My tl;dr is: rather than either polarized or sweet spot, I say polarized and sweet spot. One of my more popular posts is me summarizing my experiences after my first polarized block. I have done a second one in the meantime, and my opinion hasn’t changed much. The tl;dr of my experiences is:
And the hard workouts were just hard.Hence, I use polarized blocks with that purpose in mind, i. e. whenever I want to build my base and train my mental fortitude. Personally, I recommend trying it, e. g. before you start a new training block. See how your body reacts and whether it makes sense for you to integrate it in your training plan.
I think that the type of training you’re mentioning with the analogy of a “longer life bar” akin video games is talked about way too little. Its all about quick gains that shows itself on a ramp test or the like.
I started with getting burned out from TR Mid, thought that I’d try a coach, and ended up being able to ride 8-10 hours a week in the winter, and around 13-14 hours in the summer.
Z2 mixed with 1 really hard session per week, and 1 mid session (LT1 intervals or 3x25min tempo intervals for example)
The gains from that volume, consistency and whatnot, has resulted in a huge improvement in LT1. I have gone from around 190w to 235w, and goal is to get to 250w by the end of November.
My LT2/CP on the other hand hasn’t gone up by much, still at around 285, with FTP at around 305w. Because thats not what we are training at the moment.
What this means in practise is that riding 25-26 hour weeks on Mallorca are no issue, doing hard intervals at the end of a 4-5 hour ride is no issue. My efficiency is what has gone up immensely. But its not something that you might feel too much of if you’re just doing shorter and harder rides, or if youre not riding back to back a lot.
This of course is my personal view on it, but I feel that if TR spoke more about long term gains as a cyclist, and less about FTP gains, then you might touch base with the real endurance athlete. Not only for those looking to see FTP go up every 4 weeks.
My numbers are a bit different but similar result. Working with a coach on my aerobic engine. Endurance went from 150W to 200W. FTP went from 250 to 270. Resting heart rate dropped 10bpm. Took about 18 months to fix 4 years of overdoing intensity.