When you characterized people expressing their point of view in this thread as shiting in TR’s house.
Congrats- you hit the 1,000th post!!
I’d argue it could make people worse.
This video & thread led to this thought about 8 times during my 2 hours SS workout: “This is a waste of time, is ultimately making me slower, sweet spot is terrible, I should probably blow up my whole training plan and go more polarized”
I’d like to point out that this thread has almost 3% as many replies as the video has views 
(2.x% anyway)
You’d pay to watch a genetically gifted kid beat up on a middle aged band geek? 
A band geek without any natural athletic ability who has built his fitness (impressively so) through hard work and public failures, all while simultaneously creating a multi million dollar business that has changed the indoor cycling fitness industry? @Nate_Pearson is an inspiration to us regular folks that have to grind out every watt because our parents short changed us on genetics.
TR has room for improvement but the comments in here are getting exponentially dumb.
He used @chad and it cropped up in my email. Again, just appreciation–nothing more, nothing less.
I didn’t do that.
I characterized people shitting on TR’s house as those who are figuratively shitting on their house while standing on their lawn.
And I applauded TR leadership’s admirable restraint.
If you want to be excellent to one another, I’d suggest we all start with our hosts.
I’m all for differing opinions … and do your homework, I’ve had some well trafficked posts here over the years about how TR plans have and haven’t worked for me and the adjustments I’ve made as a result. Click on my profile and take a read.
But I’ve never attacked TR on a forum they set up because I had a disappointing result. I’ve succeeded, failed, changed course, pivoted, adjusted and shared my experience.
Opinions and ideas are great. They make this place interesting. I love them.
Those with an axe to grind, dogmatists, ideologues and anyone else who can’t figure out how to not listen to a podcast that annoys them just seem like jerks, in my opinion, to their hosts.
Be an artist, not a critic.
Good luck🤘
Why does everyone have the same exact training plan? I would think TR has enough users they could play around with training plans a bit, assign users to say A or B plans and then compare users in each group to see which helps people more. Allow TR to tweak the training over time
I certainly don’t want to perpetuate this thread, but I have a problem with the “evidence” that Dylan uses in his video to disparage SS training. First, it is a bit hard to compare the workout intensities in the experiment he references to our use of FTP (please, do not get into a discussion of FTP 
) The polarized group did 6x4 minute intervals at 105-110% of LTP (lactate turning point). The threshold group did 60 minutes at between 83-86% of the polarized intensity (all measured in watts). I could not find a way to translate LTP to FTP. I’m wondering if the threshold group might be actually working at less than SS. They were detrained for 4 weeks, jumping into 60 minutes straight at SS is a pretty tall ask, and their workout was described as “moderate intensity”
However, my biggest concern with using the results of the study is that it was based on just 12 participants! 12! We might as well just use all the excellent anecdotal evidence that has been presented on this and Dylan’s forum.
Bruce
Yes, seems to me SSBLV + with endurance rides sprinkled in the off days would be a good way to answer his criticisms on MV & HVs.
I’m sure in one of Seilor’s vidoes he said that the elite athletes do pretty much the same workouts over and over. Increasing pace/power as they get fitter. Apparently some people can keep adapting just by increasing pace/power. Does that scale down to a 6hr week? Possibly. Some (normal?) people get bored without more variety because they don’t have the discipline that an elite athlete has.
This is an absolutely fascinating thread. It’s like some are surprised that there are different training philosophies that different coaches subscribe to. I’m surprised how tribal the discussion is, but perhaps I shouldn’t be because…well, the internet.
I’ve never found TR that dogmatic about their training plans. They just sort of provide some off-the-shelf plans based on your goals, and feel free to adjust as needed. I view it is a constant experiment of trying to figure out what works best for me. I guess I’m comfortable with this ambiguity.
They do seem to recommend that most people start with Low Volume and kind of slowly figure things out from there.
For those who are more critical about the TR plans. I would assume they have the experience in which they would be able to develop their own plan based on whatever philosophy they like pretty easily.
So should TR develop alternative training plans based on different training philosophies? It’s totally a question of whether the time an effort will lead to ROI. My guess based on zero evidence is that adding in more training plans will not really lead to more users.
Got it. Glad to hear.
I think this is my favorite post in the history of the forum🤘
It’s no surprise you are from Michigan, where all well-thought, hard riding cyclists are from as a matter of verifiable fact 
Well said, @MI-XC … when most people tire of these incendiary threads, that’s when I think they become the most interesting. The trolls reveal themselves as such, and the thinkers do as well…
Good luck👍
I think Nate said the same thing. Ftp goes up and you just do more wattage and it’s a different stimulus
I didn’t say it was the optimal plan for time crunched amateur’s. I also didn’t say it was optimal for compliance. I said it was ‘optimal base training’.
I was simply illustrating a point. Every single individual training on TrainerRoad, who religiously sticks to a cookie cutter plan, is training a million miles from optimal endurance training.
I hate even stating such an obvious example, but do you not wonder why professional athletes across a multitude of endurance sports train in the manner they do?
They do so, because current science and coaching has lead us there. If training 6hrs a week on a trainer, doing mostly sweetspot made athletes fastest, do you not think they would switch to this system?
They don’t, because IT IS NOT OPTIMAL.
It is a hack.
It is because amateur’s do not have the time to train optimally for cycling.
Accept it.
Accept that TrainerRoad’s plans are far from optimal.
Accept that Dylan and every other high level coach, world tour team, physiologist and anybody who has actually dug into the science has come to accept.
The optimal distribution of yearly training for cyclists is most likely pyramidal or hybrid polarized. This absolutely includes sweetspot, tempo and plenty in the middle. They all include A TON of endurance.
TrainerRoad’s plans generally significantly increase the intensity because of reduced duration and reduced compliance.
It’s essentially endurance training, minus the endurance.
If you want to be the best possible version of yourself as a cyclist. Find the time to include more endurance training, find the time to increase your yearly volume and take the simple, but incredibly useful advice repeated time and time again…
Make your hard days hard, make your easy days easy.
Yep, grammar, not my strength
There you go. Great points.
No, this is fundamentally wrong.
You are populating this thread with entirely inaccurate information.
A 2hr sweetspot ride is not the same stress as a 3hr Z2 ride. Not even remotely.
Maybe you mean TSS?
patrickhill: Totally agree with your assessment, especially the FTP. How did you come to the 72% of the highest ramp test power. Trial and error? Just feel that my ramp test FTP is a little high as some of the SS base workouts are very difficult