The ghost of Jobst Brandt is going to appear any second now.
I’m sorry, but that isn’t a fair characterisation of what was said. To reference the very well documented training loads of endurance athletes (which have been consistently measured, across a range of sports, for many years) as ‘nonsense’ is neither constructive nor accurate.
As I noted above, success leaves clues. It strikes me as stretching credulity to claim that 6 hours could be optimal when the best consistently do 3-5 times that, and have done for a very long time.
And now you’re moving the goal posts. I referenced someone’s opinion. I did not suggest it was a study, neither did he.
In terms of what people in the real world do, Sylta, Tonnesson and Seiler found an average training time of 39.3 hours (+/-10) over 13 days for elite cross country skiers; very crudely, that is 21 hours/week.
Fikerstrand and Seiler found a meaning training time of 1128 hours/year in Olympic rowers; again, crudely, that corresponds to 21.7 hours/week.
Mujika found that elite female triathletes averaged just under 1000 hours per year.
Now, log on to Strava, and see the hours Bernal has put in since Christmas. Look at Van Aert.
I could go on, but I think it’s fairly certain at this point that saying ‘6hrs/week isn’t optimal’ is not broscience, and that is universally reflected in the training of elite athletes.
He’s allowed his personal view, I’m allowed my view that his philosophy doesn’t stack up very well in the real world! It certainly doesn’t apply to the vast majority of people discussing this who a) aren’t pros (or haven’t structured their whole life around cycling) so don’t have 15+ hours/week to train; and b) clearly aren’t satisfied with just riding around or they’d be doing that and not on an internet forum arguing with strangers 
Fully agree that if you’re not being paid to ride a bike (and in the long term even if you are) then it needs to be fun, I’ve said the same thing many times on this forum. There’s a lot of middle ground though between burning yourself out following a TR plan and JRA, and I think that’s where this discussion sits.
This is OT, but there is not “free speech” argument to be made, unless the government is involved. (Like the government telling tr to kill this thread). This is a private forum, and the owners letting talk like this is their choice…
Good for them for letting this go through with all the good and the bad
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Agreed. I rethought it and deleted my entire comment. It’s not worth getting in to that rat’s nest.
Sounds like something a naturally gifted rider would say. 
(If I don’t train, I get my ass handed to me by all of my aerobically gifted friends.)
No I did not. The bro science aspect was always only aimed at training requirements originating from a bike shop. I never said it’s your opinion. Though I called out the other guy who jumped on the band wagon.
Which completely ignores the aspect that we are all different and not everybody has the genetic potential of achieving pro performance, regardless of how many hours you throw at them. Wouldn’t surprise me if some would even benefit from less rather than more.
Perfect examples of where not to look when prescribing training regimens for non professionals.
It is bro science. You are looking at a group with a predisposition to excelling in endurance sports and then project that everybody else should train the same.
Quick two cents:
Like others, low volume + aerobic rides has proven sustainable and effective for n=me.
Having listened to a ridiculous number of hours of the TR crew, I am highly confident that their intentions are honorable: to provide a valuable tool and a positive culture within cycling.
The danger for me: I get a rush out of nailing the workouts, especially the harder ones, which is highly motivating, but that can be a double edged sword if I don’t listen to my dad bod. In the end TR is just a tool, and we are all responsive for ourselves.
TR doesn’t overtrain cyclists, cyclists overtrain cyclists 
Ahh, come on, I went through the trouble of dredging up that Big Lebowski quote and everything.
So you’re dismissing the science as well? I thought it was just the ‘bro science’?
Well, if we can’t look at what the best do, or the scientists’ research, or the anecdotal data of those who have been successful over the last 50 years, there’s no point discussing it further, as there is literally nothing that can dissuade you…
For real, they have plenty of free resources that are there to help.
Was his hat on backwards at the time?? I follow his channel and while I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, it does make me think and reflect which I appreciate. If you watch more of his videos you’ll become familiar with Dylan and ‘Backwards Hat Dylan’ who just spouts sarcasm and bro-science. I can understand being turned off if its your first time watching his content.
I am not discounting the science.
You cannot look at professionals and based on their performance and training make recommendations for the general population.
There are already studies out there which indicate, that there is a strong genetic predisposition to athletic performance. Or more precise, athletic excellence.
To repeat the conclusion:
„Current evidence suggests that a favorable genetic profile, when combined with the appropriate training, is advantageous, if not critical for the achievement of elite athletic status. However, though a few genes have now been repeatedly associated with elite athletic performance, these associations are not strong enough to be predictive and the use of genetic testing of these variants in talent selection is premature.“
More actual science and a paper:
https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/93/1/27/306419
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/192820741.pdf
Acting like it’s all about training hence won’t do the trick. One could even argue that those of us not genetically giftet perhaps need to train differently. Or will also be able to reach their potential with lower volume training.
But as I have said several times by now. We just don’t know yet.
Me too, but not by concious choice.
A teammate of mine used to like to say that it is hard to train hard and train lots at the same time. I think he nailed it.
That’s just like, your opinion, man.
I think a good part of the DJ hate is due to different cultural cues subject to misinterpretation. (Disclaimer: I’ve ridden with him a few times and found him to be just a really nice—if pretty geeky—kid.)
(Well, that and the natural antagonism between the young ultra-endurance MTBer and the aging triathlete, who are like the sperm whale and the giant squid, fated to contend, one against the other, throughout the ages)
The feedback aspect is positive.
The way is done, less soo (as per their 4 quadrants approach)
Seiler’s notion of looking at elite athletes to determine “best practices” is flawed for other reasons as well.
If training were your job, how many truly competitive personalities would choose to do less, not as much or more, as their competition? Very few - so the volume gets racheted up and up and up in hopes of at least keeping up if not gaining an edge, which means the intensity or the frequency of the intensity has to be reduced.
IOW, elite athletes train the way they do as much because they are elite as anything else.
I’m in the same boat, I actually prefer the boring straightforward workouts. I think that TR is trying to optimize for general compliance, and a lot more people require the motivation provided by interval workouts where they are forced to focus on the task at hand in order to stick with something. When you prescribe specific tasks and you complete them, its a psychological win for the user. That psychological win is what keeps people hooked and TR selling licenses.
I was a collegiate XC runner and captain of my team for two years, and the biggest thing I learned from my coach was that “buying in” to a program is in most cases more important than what the actual program specifics are. The more team members we got to believe that our training was the right type of training to do, the better we did as a whole, even if what everyone was doing may not have been optimal for them specifically. A whole lot of racing is psychological.