That sounds like absolutely horrible advice.
As someone with zero coaching background (me), on what basis are you recommending that I have the expertise to devise my own training plan with a higher degree of effectiveness than trainerroad has ALREADY, using collectively decades of coaching experience?
Note this is an entirely different question than whether trainerroads plan is ‘optimal.’
Pretty much. And yet TR plans top out at 12.5 hrs/week for Traditional Base - High Volume III…
Think your % add up to 109% that is time-crunched!
It all comes down to what is ideal. Let’s assume 15 hours is indeed the optimum.
Would 12 hours of TrainerRoad (including added zone one and two) then be 50%, 60,%, 70%, 80%, or 90%? Or are we talking about 100% versus 98%?
Same questions for the folks having no more than 7 hours to spend. Is that then 20% or are we more realistically looking at still 90% plus?
I would argue that it doesn’t really matter. Consistency, progression, periodization, specificity, overload, recovery, nutrition and race skills are far more important than a couple of hours more or less. Especially when the goal events are more on the intense side (eg CX or Crits). Obviously, not so much for Ironmans.
That’s a terrible philosophy! He’s basically saying if you can’t be the best you can be at something then there’s no point trying to be good at it at all. Nearly all of us, in most things we do in life, are trying to do the best we can with what we’ve got, and what we’ve got is almost never ideal.
If you’ve only got 6 hours/week to train, there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to use that 6 hours as effectively as you can. Or at the very least understanding what an optimised 6 hour plan would look like and then making a conscious decision about how to strike a balance between training optimally and having fun.
There’s a range between 6 hours and “just ride your bike” and “optimal training starts at about 15h/week”. You’ll still get faster in between, it’s just unlikely you’ll reach your maximum potential. But life is full of trade offs like that 
My favorite is when the LBS fixes my bottom bracket in 6hrs instead of 15 and keeps the training advice to themselves.
Who says that it is that way? Science cannot even agree on the best way to train. It would surprise me if there is a consensus on time. All this is, is bro science.
Yes, when that other poster initiated that conversation, the person at the LBS should have just stared back, silently, refusing to engage. That’s my favourite.
Would it also surprise you that only going to the gym twice a week won’t let most people reach their maximum potential of skeletal muscle? If not, what’s so surprising / bro sciencey about there being rough observations around a minimum endurance training load where most people stop seeing gains from additional volume? Different systems blah blah blah sure. You’re not going to hit your potential at 6 hours per week. Find me a coach that disagrees with that. Find me a pro that trains max of 6h / week year round. Then let’s talk.
Come on, you characterized people here you disagree with as taking a shit in the TrainerRoad house. You should be able to see how this can be construed as disparaging. You could have easily just said, “I respect TrainerRoad for allowing this to debate to occur”. I would have agree with that, but that is not what you said. Have some people here siding with DJ attacked TrainerRoad, yes. Just as some TrainerRoad defenders have used ad hominem attacks against DJ. However, most people here on both side were engaged in a respectful debate, that overall will help TrainerRoad (user engagement and feedback being useful for improvement). However, your post was not part of this respecful debate — it was part of the problem.
You also doubled down with your disparagement when you said those you are disagreeing with are: “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.”. This is insulting, ad hominem and not constructive to debate.
That was his personal view, not a prescription. It is possible to have a personal opinion on a topic as an individual without advocating that for everyone 
Moreover, in the context of this thread - people stating that they were struggling with TR plans, feeling burned out etc etc - one might well argue that as it doesn’t sound like they are having fun or progressing, those posters might well be better off JRA and having fun.
Again, all you present is bro science. Plus you quote stuff no one has said. Superb!
The science is still out there on what the best training principle is and also on what the minimum time commitment is to eventually reach our genetic potentials. Not to mention ways to determine that potential in the first place.
For most mere mortals that genetic potential is not big enough to be a pro. Regardless of all the time in the world. So who says that this overall lower potential cannot be reached by sub pro standards in time commitment?
Well quite. Anecdote is not science, but then success leaves clues. We know very well, and now better than ever, the rough training schedules of top level endurance athletes. That is often upwards of 20 hours a week, and has been for upwards of 50 years. In the case of such overwhelming evidence of what the best do and have done in practice, for a long time, it strikes me as a little disingenuous to claim that we don’t know that 6 hours isn’t going to be optimal.
I would be very surprised indeed if there were numerous studies which did not show, broadly, that in endurance athletes there is at least a moderately strong correlation between hours of training and performance/fitness.
Excuse me…? You’re coming off as quite hostile in this thread, and frankly I have zero skin in the game of what you believe, so you do you, mate.
I find that for rides like this, i like zwift better… It’s more money the its more engaging.
I have overtrained myself more than once… That’s why I don’t trust myself for any training long term…
The scientific evidence preceding my comment were produced by a guy in a bike shop. That’s as bro sciency as it gets. Here is what I had then written.
All I did was call out your nonsense which relies solely on bro science. Apparently that offends you. So much for being hostile.
I’m sorry, but I genuinely don’t even understand your previous reply. What was I quoting that no one said and that was “brilliant”? What exactly is bro science? What even is your position here? That 6h per week could allow someone to reach their potential maximum performance?
It’s shifting here to. After year TR I feel some entertainment needs.
As I make my own workouts…