I never felt like it was needed either. I don’t think I’ll get much, if any, value out of it.
I’ve not got the e-mail but can see the values in the app, got 9.9 for a ERG workout !!! (ok I didn’t manage to hold the power at a low cadence and the Neo is a bit crap at low cadence)
Don’t think I have any use for the figure, wonder if helps them improve their AI as now they have workout compliance rather than did you do what you said you did (the TR way)
here is recent non-trivial workout where I called an audible based on how I felt:
- Did I do all the intervals? Yes.
- Did I change the workout structure? Yes.
- Was it wrong/FAIL to change the workout structure? Maybe (LOL). Ok, how about Yes and No. That first 30-sec jobber was my 3rd best all-time (#1 from 2016). This would require a longer discussion.
- Did I hit overall load (102 target, 118 actual)? Yes.
Would be great to see someone using Join post something similar, I’m curious.
Yeah, not much value in the Workout Score for me either. I know doing a workout as prescribed is important so I do my best (by matching duration, NP and limiting variability as best as I can), but don’t need a number on it per se. Especially as it could be a gentle nudge towards indoor training and ERG mode just to get a higher Workout Score, which is the opposite of why I like Join. I told them as much in the survey they linked to in their email.
It also uses RPE, but is that really fair? What if I execute a workout in ERG mode but found it harder than suggested due to other factors (ie lack of sleep, stress, recently updated FTP, whatever). People could end up trying to game the Workout Score instead of giving it the correct RPE and maybe see their plan adjusted.
Now what I would like to see instead:
- Being able to plan rides/events (with priority) more than 7 days in the future.
- Seeing dates in the personal plan overview (instead of week numbers, or in addition to).
- Being able to favorite workouts so I can quickly replace a suggested workout with one of my favorites from the same category.
yes, workout scores can provide the wrong incentives even if you only train outside. I think its better to provide guidelines such as “if you are feeling strong, its ok to extend duration but try and keep power in range” and feedback like “it looks like you felt strong and added a little time to the intervals, that was inline with our pre-workout guidelines, good job but watch out for any impact on workouts this week”
I can’t remember it updating either, but I now have the workout score in my completed workouts.
If you click the little (i) next to it, you get some more info. They rate the execution of the workout for the durations, workload, intensity, RPE, and TiZ. I think this is how they evaluated the workout completion before anyway, but now they’ve made it a public score.
Last workout I did was rated 5.6, “execution can be significantly improved”. I’d agree, I didn’t have the right road, so there’s some downhill in the threshold block, the interval duration was too short, and I only did 3.5 of 4 intervals.
I don’t think they do, it doesn’t even appear in their release notes (and they do put details into their release notes other than “under the bonnet improvements”)
i think that just a side effect of the (Dutch ?) teams communication, two of the last 3 release notes start with “we are excited to bring”, I think they just want to sound upbeat about what they have released
Same here. This feature is kinda “meh”.
Ok but…what features are missing from the app?
It sort of distracts from the fact that they haven’t made a dent into their new features timeline they published about 6 months ago, lol.
Today’s workout prescription:
- 40 minutes @ 155-181W
- 5x4 minutes @ 297 - 323W with 4 minutes of easy spinning in between (129-155W)
- 40 minutes @ 155-181W
My completed activity:
- 43m @ 143W (153W NP)
- 5 x 4m @ 319W (324W NP)
- 41m @ 140W (161W NP)
Join’s Workout Score: 9.1!
Which I agree with. My power was towards the low end for the endurance intervals, but the NP was in range and personally I believe the meat of this workout is in the VO2Max intervals anyway. For the VO2Max intervals I was towards the upper end of the range, which shouldn’t be a problem as these intervals should be max (but evenly over all 5 intervals).
So for today, I think their score is pretty much spot on.
Just been thinking about the workout score, and find it interesting what they don’t evaluate. For example, there is no score of when during the workout you did the intervals. There is also no score to see if your rest intervals were the prescribed length (or even the work intervals) - though if you make them too long you’ll likely not make the TiZ or TSS requirements.
I’ve made a switch to Join a month ago hoping to break through a plateau and it seems like it worked so far!
Quite a few years back I was actually coached by the company headed by Jim (the founder of Join) and was doing pretty well back then. I recognize almost identical patterns in the plan and workouts Join prescribes - it’s a very different approach to TR for sure. I remember telling my coach I had 8-10 hours a week to train, he came back with 12-14 hour plan but man he was right. In the first two weeks Join AI was conservative, but I did a few big rides lately and it now pushes a pretty aggressive training schedule.
So that kind of feels like training with a coach - I do need the volume as I will be doing a long cross country stage race in August but man, 19 hours is a commitment (I do have the time so it’s not a bug, almost 0 intensity this week - just pure endurance).
I really like how it took a couple of weeks to gather data, gauge individual potential, recalibrate and offer a plan that’s the most optimal rather than sticking to a rigid schedule and rigid hours.
The app itself is appalling and the simplicity of it just infuriates me every time I use it. TR UX is so much more polished!
Final note - whilst in the past the Jim vd Berg / Join approach worked well, I had a bad crash at some point, started indoor TR in 2017 and also saw some serious gains in the next two years. Got to the same level more or less. Go figure. Changing the training stimulus from time to time is just as important as consistency or workout compliance I guess.
Nice! What plan are you on and what is your athletic profile set to?
The plan is a custom multi day event (6 days - each day approx 100 km, 5-6 hours per day). I had to double check my athletic profile - it’s set to Advanced.
If you have a weekly outdoor group ride that includes high intensity (Z4,Z5,Z6), and a specific duration (2 hours), can you input that into the JOIN calendar, and will JOIN adapt training to accommodate the group ride?
Yes, you can add a planned ride and input the expected RPE. Dont worry if it schedules a hard day after, for example ive entered crit races (RPE 9-10) into the app and before i do the crit it may have a Vo2 day after, but once the actual race file is uploaded it adjusts then. I assume it takes into account non workout rides after the file is uploaded.
I just downloaded the app and played around with it a bit. It looks really interesting…kind of seems to solve all the issues I have with TR (well…biggest one being it accommodates outside rides).
Does anyone know if you do a trainerroad workout that ends up on garmin/strava, if it shows up in Join? Probably not super important…but until I get a feel for the app I’m sure I’ll still be doing TR workouts during weekdays.
They do. It imports from whatever you connect.
Just catching up after taking a break from this thread.
RE some of the questions above about pausing workouts before/between intervals, seeing progression and workout scores. Here are a few takes other observations since using Join.
Like others noted, workout scores have no value for me. Mainly because it’s all money-in-bank and informs plan adaptations anyway. Plus, I use TrainingPeaks to evaluate workouts and progression.
Almost all of my Join workouts (for the past 6-8 weeks) have been outside. What I especially like about Join is how easily it integrates with and exports workouts to Training Peaks. (Join feels like it was designed for use with Training Peaks). And how well it synthesizes outdoor rides. It feels like it’s integrating my raw ride data well.
My Wahoo Bolt head unit easily pulls workouts from TrainingPeaks. And on Wahoo cycle computers it’s very easy to pause a workout at any moment. Especially helpful for timing an interval start until after I get through a long intersection. I’ve not used Garmin or others, so can not add anything there.
Not sure how many here are doing polarized training, have tried TR’s versions or spend any time in the TR polarized discussion thread. I did TR’s high volume POL plans (base and build) and they were alright.
From a training philosophy standpoint, they feel very different to the way Jim/Join designs training plans (and applies a polarized approach)
Currently in TR’s Polarized plans, TR takes an either-or approach to a workout. Meaning it’s either a Zone 2/Endurance workout, or it’s a threshold or VO2 workout. Theoretically, this a fair way to do it. It also raised a few questions for me:
- Is the ramp rate right for me?
- Is the total duration, even on high-volume sufficient for the type of events I’m targeting?
- Is the either-or distribution of stimulus right for me, my targets?
This prompted me to try Join. Like everyone, the ability to adjust the availability was a huge plus. I was especially interested in increasing volume in excess of 14 hours a week. And also mixing training stimulus into workouts that bear more resemblance to race dynamics.
The Join workout that I did today is a good example of what I like about underlying training approach to Join. It was 70 mins Z2, followed by mixed V02 and Threshold intervals, and then followed by 70 more mins of Z2 - for a total of 3 hours.
I’m finding the mix of substantial endurance time mixed with hard intervals are working well and keeping me motivated.
I enjoy aspects of TR very much and I’ll continue to use it. The company feels like it’s got a good soul and trying very hard to do the right thing. This thread is a great example of that.
TR is a fantastic all-in-one training ‘platform’, when I consider the technology, UX, and UI design.
Where I have questions about TR, is the underlying ‘coaching’ philosophy and the training design that has been fed into the platform - for me and my goals. My personal perception is that TR’s approach to ‘coaching’ (training design) has not evolved at the same rate as the technical platform has.
With the likes of Join, The BreakAway and other apps/tools — I’m hopeful that we’ll see a lot of cross-pollination between TR and others.
I think you hit the jackpot with your comment. Especially the quoted paragraph.
On the other hand I feel like TR approach is great when it comes to really time crunched athletes - like I mentioned before I did achieve nearly the same season peak on a TR plan indoors (forced by complicated hand fracture). It’s a very condensed and purpose built training strategy.
Join approach to be really effective requires more time commitment - it offers loads of flexibility to enable finding that time wherever possible, true, but I guess some people really only have 4-5 hours or less to train per week and like to know their plan well ahead of time.