Welcome to the world of that which passes for sports “science”.
Ah right. So was Tobin associated with Stern, or am I mixing up my Brits?
Fully agree. I challenge anyone to find a more cost-effective training solution. I wouldn’t be where I’m at today without TR, and I never would have been able to convince my spouse that hiring a coach was worth the money. Still can’t.
That being said, I think the real value of TR comes when you learn enough about yourself as an athlete and take the liberties of making adjustments to training plans (and or creating custom workouts) to better suit your individual needs and goals. For some this comes at the cost of burning out or having to fail multiple workouts to realize their FTP is over-estimated. A coach could likely mitigate this much quicker, but you pay…A LOT MORE.
That being said, I fully agree with most of what Dylan has to say. I haven’t followed a TR plan as-is in 3 or 4 years as I found them to either lack enough time-in-zone for my needs or just contain far too much intensity.
To defend TR, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone from the team blindly suggest all athletes jump right into a mid-vol plan. In fact, Chad has always taken a conservative stance and has on many occasions advocated for a less-is-more approach. I.e. start with low-volume, and then adjust.
However, I would like to see them assess their current plan library and add revamp the Mid Vol Base Plan to account for 18 weeks and a more gradual distribution of intensity.
i agree
long Z2 ride on the trainer isn’t for everyone. It took me awhile to get to the level of where I’m doing 9+hrs of Z2 ride per week on the trainer.
Few things that helped:
-Nice pair of Bibs
-Chamois Cream
-using HR rather than power for Z2 ride
-Ride buddy using discord or zoom
-long zwift group endurance rides.
Who pays less the £400 a month and expects value from it? Considering experience etc. and looking for a decent amount of time actually focussed on you as an individual I can’t see how anything like £180 a month for a coach is going to give you more than TR, Zwift or any other plan you could follow. £180 a month is likely to be giving you less than 4 hours or actual coach time and you have to question the level of experience or attention being offered, how can that be enough to develop an individual plan? What’s a reasonable hourly charge? £50 isn’t much - 1 hour of contact time a week plus 1 hour of planning a week. Not much input for your £400…
My point is really - don’t underestimate the experience, energy and focussed time that a quality coach puts into athletes.
There is a difference between giving a nobody a platform to advertise their business and digging into general training questions. The latter might as well happen. The team does that on a weekly basis on the podcast.
For what it’s worth, this thread is stricken with people who have just registered very recently or are on an account that was mute for years.
exactly.
I’d just add that it’s not just your FTP but also switching/removing workouts/volume and making adjustments per your needs/abilities.
I would tend to agree with this, at least for athletes that are not used to structured training. Maybe if you’ve been doing it consistently for the past 5-10 years it won’t be an issue but for someone off the couch (using myself as an example) event he low volume can be too much. Plus I think if you are only doing TR workouts you are likely doing yourself a disservice. For me at least, I need some variety to keep it interesting otherwise I just end up hating to get on the bike.
I think they almost need to rename the plans to something like “Standard Volume”, “Intense Volume” and “Insane Volume”, that might help with the more is better perception.
This goes with my variety statement above. Earlier in 2020 I was getting bored with just doing TR workouts, tried to sprinkle some Zwift group rides and events in but then the lockdown came and I just got off the bike for a few months. I started back up in August with just SSBLV and between being bored and probably too much intensity for basically being off the couch I stopped.
In December I got back on the bike, just with Zwift group rides, then big events and I’ve increased by FTP by 40W in that time. I do plan on starting a TR plan soon because I think there is going to be a limit how far I can go with zero structure but I’m going to be doing a lot of adjustments this time around and going to emphasize enjoyment over structure.
Which other way got more people faster?
If you have a training plan that 100% of participants can’t maintain it doesn’t seem relevant whether it’s a psychological breakdown or a physical one. The result is the same.
My broader point is that these studies don’t really support your original post.
My son is training for an ultramarathon (running). He is 15 years old.
I happily do pay about $300/month to his CTS coach, because the coach provides personalized insight for the training schedule, nutrition, recovery, strategy, etc. He is always happy to speak on the phone with my son (and me… as a worried Dad) about the plan and progress. To me, the money is absolutely worth it. The coach is a professional; this isn’t his first rodeo – and maybe (maybe) after the first or second ultramarathon, my son would consider self-coaching. At this point in his development and for his specific goals, a personal coach is an investment, not an expense.
This is where I think TR could do a better job. Maybe some instructional videos that discuss this, things to look for, how to adjust etc. I know a lot is covered on the podcasts but having that library readily accessible would be much nicer. Many people are also wearing devices these days that give quantifiable numbers of recovery/energy based on HRV (i.e. Whoop & Garmin), hearing how people should interpret those numbers with the TR workouts might be useful for some.
It (SSB LV plans) works , I believe, because it has 2 days of high intensity - what ‘most’ athletes really need for adaptation to occur - especially masters age like me. There are outliers that need more for sure. This leaves room for endurance/recovery rides and strength training without burning out (both muscle and CNS). Cheers.
Exactly. I believe they addressed this in the podcast from two weeks ago. Which is to say that TR plans are not perfect. They don’t claim it to be. They consistently encourage people to know what feels right and what is reaching or under performing and adjusting as they need to.
What they provide is a huge catalogue of structured workouts, some pretty darn good plans, and excellent podcasts to lean into the how and why of stuff (for free .99 too) in deep dives. And all this at a fraction of the cost of hiring a coach.
Ultimately it’s up to the individual to make calls of whether they’re overreaching or not. Of whether they want to hire someone to analyze their particular data and prescribe training for them (I’d be willing to bet that even then there would be times when the coach asked them to bite off more than they could chew). Critical to the success of ANY plan is consistency. That’s one thing I’ve loved about TR. I never feel like not getting on the bike, and know that while workouts are hard, I feel great once done.
Is it perfect? No. Neither, I’d wager, is ANY coach. I’d also wager that the vast majority of people arguing about it aren’t pros whose pay checks depend on the efficacy or their coaching program. Soooo, why so serious?
Simple explanation:
MOST Trainerroad subscribers, me included in the beginning had an inaccurate FTP set.
All trainerroad had to do was change the percentage of FTP that we use to set a riders baseline fitness and get away from the 95% of FTP figure on a 20 minute test. The talk of ( BURNOUT ) would be less.
Id be willing to wager this figure could realistically be closer to 75 to 80 % of a riders real FTP on a 20 minute test and maybe down to 70% of an 8 minute test. Especially new athletes or more importantly athletes who have a lot of seat time but are new to structured training. These are the athletes who know how to push an effort really hard, especially one effort or very few in a ride or workout which will of course overestimate what a rider can produce on a longer more " endurance " style effort.
This would also allow riders to really push out their SWEET SPOT riding intervals to lengths and time frames that will benefit them.
I like trainer road. I like the guys and their personalities and their knowledge. And its not an easy task to become this popular and be the best training program for every athlete on the spectrum.
Almost an “on ramp” series of videos explaining how to use their program, common questions and pitfalls, how to adjust the programs to fit your needs. I like it.
I have been coached by Hayley Simmonds from AeroCoach (150quid/month) and can only say good things about that also. In the first 13 months, I got my FTP up by around 80W, 280 to 360, while adjusting my training frequently to the things life throws at you (family, work, vacation, illness, lockdown).
If people aren’t doing endurance rides why does TR feel the need to replace them? It’s a user failure, not a TR failure. Prescribing too much intensity then makes it a TR failure.