I’d argue that Nate has A LOT of data to work with but does he have to means/resources to analyze it? You specifically mentioned “big data” and that conjures up, in my mind at least, Hadoop, HPCC, etc.
All the walnuts in the world won’t do you much good unless you have a means to open them…other than saying you have a lot of walnuts 
All the best,
Steve
These are not off the couch guys over training.
Very good points. There may also be some subtle things at play within all of this. Like how to manage people’s expectations around ‘set-it-and-forget-it’ training plans.
A long time ago in galaxy far far away when racing at a high level, I worked with a coach (as did my teammates). Training plans were always based on a review of available data at the time (pre consumer power-meters) and qualitative feedback from me. The feedback on how I felt was an integral part of how my plans evolved and were optimised.
With the advent of tools like TR, it’s easy to forget that such things are still essentially tools, less wholesale substitutes for coaching. All training plans better seen as fluid or dynamic to some degree — requiring work to optimise and personalise.
Whether that is best done through self-coaching, a form of A.I./ML-driven ‘coaching’, or a hybrid that integrates human coaches, makes for some interesting debate and product strategy discussion.
I do think Dylan makes some good points. I dont agree with all he had to say, but I think criticism can also be. good thing.
I dont think TR owe Dylan the time to have some sort of discussion but I think it does serve a good opportunity to take a look at how they might improve TR and also address some concerns of customers that really like TR.
I agree that the TR folks do not owe Dylan a discussion I do think a discussion could be a very good thing, there is nothing wrong with honest constructive criticism and in the end the product could possibly be improved
It is kind of clear that TR Is only an ecosystem that provides a structure to training but does not provide coaching and fine tuning either the training or the plans per individual. As well, the dangers of overtraining were discussed on multiple podcasts. There is no set rule that one must follow the Rx’ed plan and one should see, understand and react to the possibility of overtraining. There is also sufficient functionality on the calendar to move, change or push plans to suit one’s needs. What might be interesting is if TR was able to incorporate Whoop or other personal health and recovery data and make adjustments to the workouts and plans.
So why are you still here? Seems counter intuitive to use a platform of a product which isn’t worth the money. Doesn’t Zwift have forums too?
So what about his age. Strawman argument. Stop deflecting. The science is the science. Good scientists and coaches are constantly changing their philosophy when science takes them in a different direction. I believe he says that you can improve on both programs but studies show a better result in polarized. If he’s right then all anyone is saying is TR’s programs that are very heavy SS isn’t optimized for most people. They can either defend it on other grounds or say “hey, we are offering other programs since studies are showing x”. But why throw Dylan under the table because of his age and lack of experience? Please…
Would just say, i’ve been on sufferfest for 3 years prior to switching to TR this.
3 previous years on their structured, tailored plans have been threshold training distributions; c.45/45/10
vs my current distribution of c. 62/34/3 on TR. (pyramidal).
Not making any quality judgement one way or the other, enjoyed Sufferfest, enjoying TR - but you need to actually look at the data that comes out, simply saying TR is “Threshold” because it has a clear preference for sweetspot, doesn’t actually make it so.
n=1
I hope so, to me his response came across as very snarky. Made me cringe.
Personal attacks are not cool, and it may not have been one but could have easily been read that way.
This forum has more interesting content (non related to TR methodology) than any other. Check the KM threads, the ISM thread, many more. TR Forum != TR Plans
must have, but not too surprising. He probably didn’t recognize who the person was referring to and he probably didn’t know what the video was about. I’m sure there has been some internal discussions today about best way to handle this. I’m hoping they discuss it. I don’t think they need to respond to Dylan as this topic has been touched on regularly for as long as I’ve been here.
And yet you still engage in discussions about their product? Also you regularly ask the community for advice. Why would you do that? Obviously, you know better then they all do.
I find it weird to have people using the service of a company and yet still talk down on it. But to each their own. Certainly you have all rights to do so.
My grasp of training science is limited, but once upon a time I wasn’t a bad cyclist.
As a budding cx racer, a friend of my dad’s took me to see Brian Rourke for some training advice.
Brian’s prescription was this:
Doesn’t seem modern science has added much 
meh…there are peeps out there who are waaAAAaay more fast than I’ll ever be.
I was/am only “fast” in my little fish bowl. 
:
One side of the coin which has not been addressed (maybe it has, just lost in the junk), is the type of cyclist which (successfully) uses TR plans. How many people know what “type” of athlete they are before embarking on the TR journey? Make your own conclusions:
https://alancouzens.com/blog/athlete_type.html
https://www.alancouzens.com/blog/athlete_type_2.html
https://alancouzens.com/blog/vol_int_responder.html
:
Addendum:
FWIW, I lean toward ‘Quick Responder’:
As well as ‘Q1: High Reactivity/Low Training Response (High Dopamine/Low Serotonin)’ “brain type”:
All of which is most likely why TR plans don’t work for me and why “polarized” training blocks make me fast.
Addendum deux:
Considering all the above, it’s not going to matter what type of athlete you are if you only have 6hrs/wk to train. TR plans will work for some, will burn-out others, and be negligible for the rest. Also, over time, the majority of subs populating TR will be the ‘intensity responders’, which leads to bias.
I failed and this. My parents are not genetically gifted for sports…
But like, internet fast. LOL.
I knew I wouldn’t get them outta ya. Oh well, I’ll take my flattery elsewhere, I suppose.
While in a formal sense the Forum is their service, in reality is more about the users who generate the content. So I don’t associate the forum with TR at all, I don’t read the propaganda posts, I don’t read their blog or listen to their podcast.
I believe the specific things I’ve criticized are:
Regarding this tread. I’m interested in the methodology discussion. There are fine people on both sides
Cheers
Maybe I’m wrong but at age 56 and just starting TR last November, I thought something for the older folks might be good but then… does it make sense? The plans and intensity is based on personal goals and FTPs. TR does not know the person’s recovery rate or the health status. There are many who are people who are more fit than me at this age and at the same time, I think I am much more fit than most in my age group. I think the spread is quite wide so how can TR take all this into account? The calendar allows for changing workouts and pushing weeks and it should be up to the individual to fine tune the plan to match reality. What might be interesting is if you can link health and recovery data from products like Whoop to TR and then TR makes “on the fly” modifications to the plan based on current healthy status.
