Exactly this. TR gives you the base plan and numerous ways to adjust based on your own goals / available time / genetics / history etc.
1 Like
Again, I would argue it is not. I for my part would pick a coach by his reputation which ultimately boils down to the success of his/her athletes. Picking a coach only because he/she is loud on YouTube seems to be counter intuitive.
1 Like
Iâm not sure but the video doesnât take into account all the weekly tips and resources from their blog site.
1 Like
Please read 1) rest of thread 2) the notes to the plans which offer a substitution for the Sunday ride for a Z2 long ride
2 Likes
Dylan Johnson never argued sweet spot training doesnât âworkâ. It clearly does.
He argues a polarized approach would yield better gains.
8 Likes
Ummm, he was using the same logic (and wording) as what being used against himâŚas way to show how ridiculous ancedotal information is.
âŚwhile simultaneously opening and closing his video with anecdotes to support his points. Quite a funny editorial choice on his behalf. 
1 Like
I was just reading your post when you removed it!!!
[quote=ârthompson, post:47, topic:53136â]
On the other hand, I think TR plans are often misunderstood and thus assertions are made about their plans that lack context or full understanding. [/quote]
I do agree with this, but I think the challenge is that it puts the onus on the user to go look for that info and context by reading blog posts, listening to the podcasts, joining the forum, etc. Which is fine for people who are naturally inclined that way anyway (all of us here!), but not so helpful for somebody who just wants a plan to follow and doesnât want to have to spend hours of their time reading around the best way to use that plan, modify the plan, etc.
The problem is actually compounded by the ease of use of the Plans and now the Plan Builder. I.e. TR makes it very easy to just put a plan on your calendar and get started, and if you want to modify that plan you have to do so manually. Plan Builder doesnât ask you the question of whether you have the time and desire to do long weekend Z2 rides, it just puts a SS weekend ride on your calendar and then you have to manually change it. Which made sense when TR was an indoor-only platform (the population of riders willing to do 10+ hours/week of TR indoor riding and >2hr indoor rides is vanishingly small). Doesnât stack up now itâs positioning itself as not just an indoor platform but a more holistic coaching/planning solution you can use all year round regardless of whether you want to ride indoors or outdoors. Particularly as Chad himself has on multiple occasions extolled the virtues of a long Z2 ride.
I think either the plans need a complete overhaul, particularly the HV ones. Or they need a smarter Plan Builder which helps users to adapt the plans in line with the guidance from the podcast/blogs without needing to actually go do their own research and then manually adjust the plans themselves. I would guess they have something coming on the latter solution and are focusing on that.
6 Likes
I used to have confidence in my TR programs, but Iâm now looking into other apps after watching that YT video.
Oh, I see what you did there Dylan, upset a customer base, and strangely you also offer of-the shelf plans; I get it, itâs a dog eat dog market place. For every argument, thereâs a counter-argument.
Seriously, who knew off-the-shelf plans have strengths and limitations? The main limiter for the gen pop is not which one is optimal, but time constraints.
I only have 6-7 hours a week to train. Strangely, my current TR plan (SSB mid-volume) is similar to what Dylan recommends for people who have only 6 hours to train.
The most optimised training plan is useless unless the individual has confidence in it and I suspect there are quite a few TR subscribers now mulling things over.
Commit to a plan, follow it, but listen to your body (comes with experience) if you feel knackered take a day or two off. If youâre not motivated to go ride outside for enjoyment or cross-train.
Donât get bogged down with competing companies. Pick whichever one feels right to you, confidence is everything.
17 Likes
I was talking about Team Buntyâs reply to Captain Doughnut. I also donât remember DJâs critique using anecedotal informationâŚif you tell me where in the timeline you are talking about I will reasses.
That might be so. But the one study that Dylan quotes as his âscientific proofâ that time crunched polarized is better than a trainerroad plan, just doesnât âproofâ that. Like I said, I kind of enjoyed the video. But as far as science goes⌠the video doesnât do a good job.
1 Like
I am the very definition of a time pressed, new to structured training cyclist. I started with TR in November and it was extremely clear to me from the very first day I signed on with a LV plan that you are replacing hours with intensity and that also, further rides at Z2 would be the ideal way to supplement the plan if one had time. IF ONE HAD TIME. The very reason I signed up for trainerroad was that I didnât and donât have time for any more hours on the bike than dictated by the LV plan. Obviously I understand that consequently my gainz will be limited as a result. Hereâs my intervals.icu since Nov, with other activities in there as well, which has ended up with my training load being largely pyramidal.
My compliance with the LV plan is probably 90%, and like many others my weekend rides have almost certainly been at too high intensity, as theyâve been with friends and I live in a mountainous country so Z2 is practically impossible to achieve for me with my FTP. All I wanted to add to the very interesting debate really was to say that as a first time user of structured training, TR has given me exactly what I paid for. Of course its possible that if I had worked on a different basis, I may have had a different outcome but I suspect for many casual cyclists like myself, weâre largely looking for the promise of improving as best we can with the time constraints given us. I certainly want to do this without having to do any thinking at all, as Iâm not an expert and Iâm happy to assume the folks in TR are. This forum is a superset of trainerroad users that almost certainly represents a much more heavily invested bunch of cyclists than the âaverageâ TR user - for me, TR allows me jump on the trainer, load up whatever workout the plan calls for, and just get on with it with no requirement for any thinking on my part. This is what I want!
27 Likes
Ah right. Towards the end like 13ish minutes. He leads this into his FOMO closing argument.
In terms of whether the science favours one training approach or the other, one individual study is neither here nor there (due to problems with the design, results, etc). What you want is a meta analysis of a range of studies. As far as I am aware there are no public meta analyses of polarised v threshold training. The only such study I am aware of is one by a researcher interviewed recently on the That Triathlon Show podcast. In the interview the researcher says the meta study does identify a small benefit for polarised over threshold training, everything else being equal.
Given the benefits of polarised over threshold are small (if they exist at all), I like to use TR for its simplicity and user-friendliness.
5 Likes
Yup. The big one I see is that the studies compare POL to SS/Threshold in which no hard Z3 work is done. Itâs a logical fallacy to jump to the conclusion that the SS in the studies is representative of TR.
In the 6hr study the POL group did lots of VO2 Max and the Thresh group did none, then they âracedâ in 6 weeks. I plugged a 40k TT race in 6 weeks into Plan Builder, chose MV with little training done in the last 6 weeks (to mimic the 4 week de training of the study), and TR gave me a plan with 10 endurance rides, 5 SS rides, 6 threshold rides and 6 VO2 Max rides.
Too much intensity? Maybe, and thatâs a valid criticism. Not optimal training? Who knows, the studies DJ cites donât answer that at all. Yes, it would be sub optimal to choose SSB HV six weeks before a goal race, but nobody would do that.
4 Likes
This wouldnât even help in this case because all of those studies look at threshold training with basically no higher intensity workouts, and then look at results of high intensity tests. To be representative of POL vs TR weâd need a bunch of studies looking at POL vs PYR, and so far only a couple of those have been done (with results showing them to be equally effective).
Still not seeing it. I seeing him making fun of ancedotal information. I also see him talking about his own n=1 personal experience, but he says this doesnât mean much because it is only an n of 1.
Itâs a competitor trying to push his business by talking bad about their competition. No reasonable company would comment on that. Why would they! I have never seen any company do that.
2 Likes