Fast Talk Episode 60, Indoor Training

After listening to the rest of the podcast, seems like it’s their opinion that the trainer is boring, leads to overtraining, etc. But these are just their own perceptions rather than actual facts. They don’t enjoy riding the trainer, therefore nobody else should.

At the end though they did come to reasonable conclusions that some trainer work is good, and very necessary especially for those of us who live in winter 8 months of the year. Just seemed like the conclusion had a more neutral tone than the rest of the podcast, which was very anti-trainer. Seemed strange for a group of cat 1 cyclists to be bashing a different training method to the traditional go outside for 20 hours that’s a bit more updated and with the times, especially with the opportunity with smart trainers nowadays.

1 Like

Good stuff @buh_buh

It comes and goes. Emphasis on a particular discipline for them shifts focus at times.
Great for those that like it, not so great for those with little interest.

Dealing with questions and trying to find “new” content is tough. Everything cycles and come in or out of interest with the seasons and event type changes.

I think the presence of the forum can allow more use for the “snowflake” questions and my offload the PC to give more time for other focus.

Hard to say where it will all go. Not all are winners, but considering the frequency (weekly) compared to other podcasts with far less frequent episodes, AACC does an impressive job addressing topics in detail.

I can’t tell you how many times I have listened to them address a question, thinking they are missing one or more key points… only to have them directly capture the issue. They more often than not hit all the points that I can see. That is not common with other podcasts, as I am almost always left with comments or issues that were only partially addressed. The FT guys seem to end on on that side more often than not.

There is always room for improvement and change, but as rule, I think the AACC does a better job than most other PC’s that I listen to regularly.

If you wait for the youtube version of AACC to be posted, there is a topical table of contents with links that take you directly to that point in the video where the discussion begins. You can by-pass what you don’t care for and go direct to what you want to hear.

Don’t get me wrong it’s still very good, and for the vast majority of the time, a very educational and entertaining show.

I would love to see them have more high quality guests rather than just interviewing their mates. Maybe someone who could challenge their own views.

:star::star::star::star::star:

1 Like

Cheers,

I listen on the train on my way to work so not really an option. Anyway, I do actually like listening to the whole thing.

I just think they need to get some of the ‘tightness’ back.

Mike

1 Like

I’ve said before that in the past I have taken some good things from the Fast Talk episodes. The one that really stuck was a guest a while back who said the biggest issue was not trusting the FTP number, and training to too a high a number.

However, in recent months I think it’s become too bias, and that’s reflected in the guests they’re getting, trying to confirm that bias imo. I feel it came with the change in co-host that it lost it’s focus. It kinda struck me that Trevor went out of his way not to mention TR as a platform, when he was mentioning Zwift and Sufferfest - that really didn’t make sense to me, as if you don’t support indoor riding, TR probably has the lowest start up costs (taking into account Computer/ Device hardware requirements). It was no surprise that he’s anti-indoors as if long indoor rides are bad, it doesn’t really fit with his preferred training approach.

I think their wrong on them being mindnumbing anyway - it’s about the only time I get to watch the series or films I want to watch! Extend warm down is regularly the tool to get to the end of an episode!

1 Like

It was more of a Zwift promo than anything else.

1 Like

Partially, but Zwift is responsible for the massive increase in overall trainer use. TR was getting people, but largely lulling from an existing pool of dedicated cyclist who already trained, and some indoors but looking to go next level.

Zwift did a great job of making indoor fun and interactive, which opens the doors to way more people. We wouldn’t have the same hardware options we see today without their expansion in the industry.

Still, FT could have done a better job at least going into a few minutes on the most popular options (apps and trainers). Another missed opportunity.

Isn’t Kevin one of the coaches on the Zwift Podcast, with Greg H and Matt Rowe? And one of the builders of their set workouts. So maybe too closely linked to feature more?

Yup, KP is on the Zwift Coaching PC and designs a bunch of the Z workouts.

True, but I don’t think they mentioned Peloton which has a valuation of $4B and is likely a bit bigger than Zwift.

Peleton sure is big, but it is targeted at a very different market. More “fitness” than “cycling” really.
Crossover between the groups for sure, but they have very notable differences.


Look back 5 years, and I doubt most people spend more than $300 on a fluid trainer. Only the super crazy-dedicated cyclists got smart trainers that were well over $1000 (Computrainer).

Zwift is almost solely responsible for the expansion that sees more trainer options in the first place, and the fact that people started spending that big cash for smart trainers.

2 Likes

Yep, this. Peloton is targeting people that would otherwise spend $30 per class on SoulCycle. Spin class people are not really concerned about their performance on the bike. Very, very few people are likely using Peloton with an eye towards racing. The $4B valuation is due to the fact that this segment is really big, they have a very high HHI and Peloton is good at what it does.

Zwift, in my opinion, is primarily targeted at folks that would rather be out on a club ride with their buddies. The “Trevor Connors” of the world, if you will. They’re likely riding inside due to time constraints, poor weather or safety concerns. The gameification is the big draw and whatever training plans/coaching within the system is more of a cherry on top. I’d say it’s probably 50/50 on users that are primarily driven by performance gains vs. general fitness. A lot their users are into cycling/triathlon for the healthy lifestyle, rather than trying to podium at their A race. This is still a pretty big pot of people, but not nearly as big as the spin class types.

TR is targeted almost entirely towards users seeking performance gains primarily. I suspect the big split in the user base is between the part time users that use it as a winter training/bad weather tool and those that train almost entirely indoors year round. This is the smallest pot of people, but TR users likely ride A LOT more and are willing to spend a lot more of their income on their hobby.

4 Likes

I totally agree, @bherbers.
Fantastic thoughts and summary. :smiley:

For sure. If you want a window into Peloton users, go to the Peloton Facebook group - a very different segment than cyclists :grin:

Now that’s a term you don’t often come across on a cycling forum :+1:t3:

1 Like

And all of this could’ve been remedied by the following hypothetical introduction:

Trevor: “So we’re here with our guests Nate Pearson, of TrainerRoad; Jim Whatever of Zwift, and the Minister of Minions of Sufferlandia, Joe Bob…and we’re going to talk about indoor training”.

They have done this with other topics. Why not this one?

4 Likes

Great post! They really should have included the people pushing the boundaries on this.

1 Like

I’m glad I’m finally getting some use out of my MBA haha.

1 Like

Listened to this again and missed this first time around: Matt Hayman’s coach found a trainer block (4-10 days) finishing before priority race=higher core temp=more blood plasma=higher VO2=more 02 to muscles=more aerobically fit=conserve glycogen=late race performance.

Higher core temp. Who knew? :muscle:

1 Like