Why would they want to reply to a random guy on YouTube who is trying to push his business. The guy got zero track record as a coach. Not the mention the lack of relevant academic experience. TrainerRoad replying to such videos would be the equivalent of a pro tour rider commenting on the criticism of a five year old.
Yeah, sick burn, bro 
Is this typical of the US? (£290 per month)
I find it incredible you can charge this amount given the number of coaches out there and the information available. Who pays £300 per month??
Below are 3 coaching companies who are well respected and successful that charge way less.
https://www.onlinecyclecoaching.com/cycling-coach.html (£180 per month)
Private Site £135
https://www.mattbottrillperformancecoaching.com/copy-of-coaching £180
The problem with “The problem with the TR training plans” is that it is not an unbiased criticism of sweet spot training (which I think is clearly an oversimplified description of TR plans) but rather a direct attack on the company (despite what he declares at the start). Without diving into the science, the fact that there is so much arguing about this suggests to me that there is no simple answer, and that different paths can lead to the similar outcomes. As a (neuro) scientist myself, I know that “scientific papers” should never be taken as ultimate proof but rather as evidence, sometimes valuable and often simply misleading. It is very hard to really compare, because the only valid comparison is between the same individual at a given stage of their life following two different paths - which is impossible.
Becuase this has generated on 650 posts in 24 hours, and a lot of their customer want to see their response, and it would be odd for them to not reply (since they reply to a lot smaller issues around here). Also, because this is a larger debate about the benefits of sweet-spot training, and they have a podcast devoted to discussing these exact type of issues.
I disagree. Nate should have dropped this over a year ago. This is a problem largely of his own creation.
Just DROP it.
The number of times Nate drudges up training methodologies (the p word, usually) baffles me. You have a great technology company. You are NOT a coach. And TR is not a coaching company. You have an everyman quality that is endearing. Ppl mistake that for good advice. Often it is.
There are some clear shortcomings that could be addressed in a manner that makes everybody winners. It starts with getting out of the Reddit like gotcha threads.
Responding to this stuff is the last thing I would do.
Have to admit, if I had the money, this is where it would go.
Matt is a brilliant coach (IMO) and I have seen his work turn good riders into fantastic riders.
Evidence not= proof. People confound the two all the time. Good post.
Totally agree with this. There are many fast cyclists (or master chefs, or good clowns or whatever the job) who would be terrible teachers. No doubt. But in the issue being discussed in this thread, I don’t think that’s what Dylan is claiming. He isn’t saying “follow my method and my training plans.” He is simply saying, “look, here is what the science says.”
I’m a neutral observer here. I don’t use TR nor do I use Dylan as a coach. I think there is CLEAR evidence that TR has success for a lot of people. I think Dylan’s point is merely that if you are achieving x success with TR plans, the science would say that you might actually get better results with a different plan.
But, I totally agree about the being good at something not being evidence of being good at teaching it.
Chad and Jonathan have already covered the issues raised in several podcasts though? I disagree TR needs to dignify every vlogger’s sensational clickbait headline with a response.
Their marketing line is “Use science-based planning, training and analysis tools to increase your performance with cycling’s most complete & effective training system.”
They market themselves as the best way to get faster, not providers of good tech.
3 VO2 sessions, not 2, and yes, only a few of the subjects were willing to continue beyond 10 weeks before finally quitting themselves. But, their failure seemed psychological, not physical.
Most racing cyclists I’ve known would go pretty darn hard 5 days a week - i.e., 2 interval sessions and a training race M-F, plus racing for reals on the weekend - for 6-8 months out of the year. The off-season was then spent doing lots and lots of base miles, and/or racing cyclocross or indoor track if that were your thing.
Point being, the human body seems quite capable of handling more than just 1 hard session out of every 5 (the polarized prescription).
I can guarantee TR, Zwift, Sufferfest plans or riding my bike Adhoc are far superior to following Dylan’s training plans (for me), as I can’t afford to follow his!
Wasn’t Bottrill coached by Stern?
I have only read 509 posts here, but so far this is the best one (and should really be a good place to end the thread.)
Bruce
You nailed it. Dylan is partially guilty, and a lot of viewers are absolutely guilty, of attaching themselves to one or a couple of published articles as validation of a perspective, when true research scientists never, ever suggest anything is proof or “causes” anything. We speak of correlations and associations, never of proof or certainty. Folks are accusing TR of not following science when the science is anything but settled, and based on studies with plenty of holes in their approach
They’re marketing the tech too. Make no mistake. You get none of what you copied and pasted without good tech. But you can still come up short, even with the best tech, especially if you overreach. Just play to your strengths, that is my point.
Exactly. That why DJ was more or less “asked to leave” as a coach at his previous job. The company was embarrassed and didn’t want to be associated with DJ’s behavior on YouTube.
These are the only reviews I can find at the moment.
The conclusion would seem to be that although there seem to be multiple patches to success, most elite athletes train pyramidal, not polarized.
Thus, even if you accept Seiler’s premise that what elite athletes do represents “best practices” - which is a dumb idea to begin with - polarized is apparently not the way to go.
Bob Tobin mostly I believe.