I started typing a reply to some of the above posts, but i have deleted them and I will just say this: I am very happy to have a dialogue about the pros and cons of sweetspot or indeed any other training method if it is done is a calm respectful manner. I think you will find I have never used disrespectful or foul language regarding anyone. My blog posts on medium are not about the delivery platform (eg TR / zwift / Xert) but about training methodologies, and this one is part of a series where I look at each method in turn (eg base | sweetspot | threshold). The next one is due to look at the science behind HIT and interval training. Regarding intervals icu; I simply provide background science/calculations and coaching advice to whomever asks; David runs icu independently so I don’t really see the point deleting your data as a “consciousness objector” from the platform if the product is free and beneficial but its entirely up to you. If you think I am incorrect about any observation that is 100% fine, I am happy to read your rebuttal or even better link to a better study, however I would prefer to keep the personal attacks to a minimum. As for being anti-TR, not at all, I repeat, I am for any platform which helps anyone improve their training and that includes TR when it works for you. regards Alex
First of all I’m no expert on anyway of training. I do though remember taking away from one of TR’s podcasts, Coach Chads saying something along the lines of if you stick with one form of training then improvements will eventually stagnate and that you have to change something either that being volume, training methods, something else or a mix, you need to alter something. That makes sense to me and my limited experience.
There for I would guess after years of sweet spot, improvements might end and by switching to the polar way you might suddenly see improvements. You could easily then conclude polar is far better than sweet spot. And with this guess I’m sure this would happen the other way around too, stagnating on the polar method and switching to Sweet spot…improvements, it’s better…
For the record I find TR gives me the variety I need at the moment and has done for the last two years, long may it continue.
Finally…
My n=1 conclusion for what its worth…(2 pence?)
You need variety in your training, mix things up. There is no black and white and only one direction forward.
We have taken many paths to get to where we are and there are many different paths we need to take to maybe keep improving.
@Alex_Fastfitnesstips My biggest “issue” with your post and your video is that you make claims based on TR being SweetSpot for 99% (of what exactly??).
This statement is not interpreted correctly as SS is only a part (a big part for sure, but still only a part) of TR plans. It seems to me like you haven’t looked in to specific plans and the different workouts in each phase. If you did, you would have seen that a very basic plan just starts with a few weeks of mainly SS workouts, but this is what my specialty phase looks like:
not much sweet spot
So I guess my biggest problem with your post and video isn’t questioning SS vs other methods, that’s fine, but why pull TR into this when you have no idea what a total TR plan looks like?
The bigger issue is you are factually misrepresenting TR plans.
I don’t even use TR plans personally, but I see what your are doing as disingenuous and distasteful.
- Make inflammatory disingenuous claims
- Wait for backlash
- Use backlash to increase visibility of own product
- Make half-hearted, equally disingenuous defenses with a “tut tut well I never!” tone
- Repeat as necessary
Have I got it?
B) it’s sometimes necessary to modify plans
@anthonylane After completing 4 seasons on TrainerRoad, I wholeheartedly agree with B) sometimes it’s necessary to modify plans. Either to squeeze in a super long IRONMAN training ride, give myself a mental break, or just to try out some new and fun workouts that don’t usually make it through my SSB, build, and specialization cycles for triathlon.
Does he get access to the data from the site?
Woah, I don’t check the forum for a bit and look at what comes up!
TrainerRoad has built an entire business around sweetspot and relentlessly claim it is best for 99% of athletes (vs traditional base) and if you dare question this assertion, their CEO will come around to your house and not leave until you have signed up to the newly boosted full TR subscription rate (ok just kidding). Joking aside, I did try to have a dialogue with TR but they don’t seem interested in discovering what actually works but I realize they have a product to sell. I have nothing against TR, in fact it’s a good platform but I am curious why trainer road have refused to release any analysed findings based on data despite have millions of user files (and broadcasting many results online) even after making everyone sign a GDPR release clause although to be fair they have not run any kind of randomized study…which makes their 99% claim even more stunning! 99:1 is a hell of a difference. BUT there is surely no denying lots of athletes have improved using sweetspot……so what gives?
I don’t know when he had a dialog discussing what actually works. I just remember saying to him that we’re not 99% sweet spot and him saying we are.
It’s just a block choice in a phase in our plans. If you have 3.5 hours per week you’re going to be faster doing 3.5 hours of sweet spot compared to 3.5 hours of aerobic work for 99% percent of people.
I didn’t think that was a controversial statement.
That “99%” is not scientific and it’s not trying to be. We’re saying “in almost all cases”. People with injuries, hormone issues, or other things that are outside of the bell curve would be captured in that 1%.
Am I not explaining this well? I feel like I’m not being heard. Forum peeps, please call me out on the above if you think it’s bullshit.
Nope, loud and clear. SS is a necessity for time crunched riders. You’ve said the exact thing, ok paraphrasing, that of course 20hrs/week at z2 is the best for base, but for those that have 6 hours, we’ve created a plan that makes most riders improve.
The rest of the year has plenty of variety and intensity, and even SSB2 has VO2 work.
It’s almost like there are people that need to disqualify others in order to qualify themselves, which obviously doesn’t qualify them - what-so-ever.
Sure, we’d love to see the data set that proves SSB works, but I’ll just keep at it knowing that it’s a plan I can adhere to.
Nate, we all get it, and you guys do an excellent job articulating your position for every experience level of cyclist. This guy is clearly trying to drive traffic to himself by being controversial.
You’re not being heard because he has no interest in hearing you. In fact, in a few weeks, this dude is going to come back with another half-baked clickbait vid where he once again takes something that was said, twists it beyond any recognition, and uses it as a launching pad for another intellectually dishonest thesis.
Bonus points for him coming back to the forum shortly after and going into another borderline-unreadable wall of text where he pretends to be a misunderstood genius.
It’s not worth spending mental energy on this, but the blurb on TR releasing studies of their data makes a lot of assumptions, I think most of us know that they are pouring through the data to make the next great leap, why they would want to make that available to others to undercut them would be beyond me. I guess we could ask him where his data is on the athletes he coaches or his own performance.
Anyhow it’s very offputting when people try to build up their own things by going after others. Nate and the TR team seem to let their own work speak for itself without resorting to calling out competitors
No he does not, nor does anyone else.
@Alex_Fastfitnesstips looking forward to you feedback on the comments above, I’m sure your can find some “calm and respectful” comments to “to have a dialogue”
Mod hat on for a reminder.
Keep to the forum guidelines and focus on the topic, not the person. Respectful discussion is something we all value here. So let’s make that happen. Thank you. 
Can TR please show us the data?
Why would they share something that could help their competitors?
That is BS. We pay hard earned money for their program and hard hours on the trainer. Show us the data that it works. They clearly have it.
I don’t see the point of asking for data? TR offers a 30 d money-back guarantee. Isn’t trying it yourself for free better than just assuming or hoping you’ll improve as much as others? What if those folks were more motivated or more trainable than you? Then you’d come up short anyway.
The numbers should be right in front of you.
Are you faster or not?