TR not for "serious" amateurs?

[voldemort]

@Jesse_Vernon1

“TR is great for beginners, but experienced racers self-coach or pay for a coach”. What’s driving that perception?

As people use TR and learn what works and what doesn’t work, they start to deviate from it. As such, I would argue it has less to do with the “seriousness” of the rider, and more to do with the experience of the rider.

Someone might be “serious” but have no experience with structured training. That person will probably turn to TR as an initial source of structure. Overtime, they might start to learn what works and doesn’t work for them and become more self coached.

This is essentially what happened to me. I have found I see the most improvement from one weekday threshold or vo2 sesson, one easy spin, one tempo ride, and two long endurance rides on the weekend.

It is not because I am more serious now. It is because I am more experienced.

[Kuttermax]

It is important to decouple the training plans in TR from the rest of the software. I haven’t followed any of the TR plans for about 3 seasons now after beginning to work with a coach one on one. For me it was the right time for that move and in hindsight has helped me get to a whole different level as an athlete. To me the training plans in TR are a small part of what the software offers.

That being said, I still really value the TR platform and use it all the time. I import the workouts my coach posts in TP. I often substitute TR workouts that are very similar to what my coach wants me working on. TrainNow is helpful here, but just going through the workout library with filters for what I’m looking for has pulled up a ton of interesting options. I use the Calendar all the time to review things and also move things around.

I also think AI FTP detection is an incredibly useful feature. I do a lot of work outside of TR (both Outdoors but all I do use other indoor training apps at times like Wahoo SYSM) and being able to analyze all of this and come up with an FTP has been a great tool. WKO5 has been wildly inaccurate with my FTP as it seems to rely on very specific efforts to detect FTP, while TR seems to be really nailing it for me.

The missing piece for me, and many others, right now is that Progression Levels only take TR workouts into account. Once this hurdle is crossed the software will be even more useful.

[jlsazart]

@voldemort

Someone might be “serious” but have no experience with structured training. That person will probably turn to TR as an initial source of structure. Overtime, they might start to learn what works and doesn’t work for them and become more self coached.

^This. I would commute and ride on weekends for fun. Then I found out that crits are a thing, so I wanted to get “serious” (competitive). Figuring out how to structure training on your own is daunting (because no experience). TR has a variety of plans that are very user friendly and easy to create / follow. Six months in, I still have no clue what works best for me (still minimal experience), but I’m getting a feel for it, and after another few rounds of experimenting, I have no doubt I’ll start having stronger opinions about what feels right or works best for me.

For me, gaining that knowledge/experience with structured training was the biggest draw of TR.

[trpnhntr]

I fairly strictly followed TR plans from cat 4 to cat 1 on the road as a mid to late 30’s rider. I don’t know if that qualifies me as serious or not, but I had pretty consistent results following their plans

That said - even following the plans I took a fair bit of responsibility for timing of workouts within a day or week - when to skip a session, etc.

I’ve since moved to modifying the stock plans or creating my own progressions - primarily due to my (hopefully) ever improving understanding of my physiology and secondarily due to my love of experimentation. Currently am using a TR mid-volume polarized plan as a foundation for my training, and generally allowing AT to modify the hard days, while self-selecting and modifying the endurance days based on time available

[Lydiagould]

I would think Trainer Road IS for serious amateurs ,probably more so than beginner athletes or weekend warriors.
There are many people on here like me ; they have been riding/training for many years, they race or compete in sportives on or off road. They may have dabbled with having a coach on and off in the past ,but programmes such as TR /My Mottiv/CTS etc offer pretty much everything a coach can.
Pro athletes have their own Team support which includes coaching etc, but I had a feeling Ivy , Hannah and Keegan may do some TR sessions?

[ChefAcB]

I think they use TrainerRoad for trainer days when the weather is crap outside.
What @voldemort said
My exact thoughts also, I find myself periodically making adjustments to upcoming workouts. Either because life is busy or I want to have a different progression in a certain energy system other than what AT has picked for me. Nothing against TrainerRoad, my life can be busy like most of us and sometimes even if I passed a workout. I might not like how well I did mentally, so I either do the same workout or something similar.
The other end I’ll swap for longer intervals to get a better TTE workout from what is offered. Haven’t failed a workout since last year my ftp hasn’t moved much but I’m confident in AI ftp giving me a good number. My tte is the best it’s ever been In 3 years.

[Jonathan]

I want to jump in and clarify a few things, particularly on two points.

~TR is great for beginners, but experienced racers self-coach or pay for a coach

TR can help you get faster if you’re brand new to the sport or if you’re training and racing at a very high level. There are athletes around the world (over 150 countries) using TR to accomplish a wide variety of goals across the entire spectrum of experience level.

Like HLab mentioned, the Successful Athletes Podcast is a great place to check out how athletes at all levels use TR.

~As you start to learn what works and what doesn’t, you deviate from TR

This seems to be a narrative amongst a relatively small group, particularly present here on the forum. The forum is certainly not immune to echo chamber dynamics that magnify the perspectives of few. Just something to keep in mind with the very small number of contributors here on the forum vs. the huge number of athletes that use TR for a variety of goals around the world.

TR is designed to provide guidance, autonomy, and flexibility to achieve customization to training. Depending on your situation as an athlete, some extra steps beyond AT can be taken too (adjusting plan volume, workout alternates, adding extra endurance, adjusting recovery strategy, etc.). Education in our ecosystem (podcast, youtube, blog, forum) can be great resources to use in conjunction with our tools to stay on track toward your goals.

AT’s abilities to handle these adjustments at a super deep level is exactly where we’ve focused our product attention. Supporting Progression Level changes for unstructured riding, an easier way to know your FTP changes, and adjusting training in accordance with unplanned training. All stuff in the works that will continue to help give you the right workout at the right time.

[SeanInDC]

Ted King’s Strava feed shows that he completed Slide Mountain -1 this morning. Not a serious amateur, I guess…. but maybe former World Tour pros and current gravel pros can find it useful as well!

[jz91]

Thanks for stepping in and sharing your view.

However I still have some reservations specifically on the use of TR’s plans by more experienced users.

To make a concrete example (but others could be made): sustained build high volume.

Weekly average volume is 10 hour max so hard really to consider high volume especially if one can also ride outdoor.

Also as someone said in this post it’s different to just tuck in Z2 to TR’s workouts than actually planning workouts based on actual time available.

The key issue I would have however is with the overall structure of the plan consisting of 2x Vo2 workouts + a threshold workout and to round off a sweet spot workout each week.

I know this has been heavily debated (see Dylan post) however I have the feeling that AT is now seen and or marketed as the response for everything.

However all AT does is pick a similar workout targeting the same zone but just easier or harder.

I’m not sure how train now would play a role in this as it should provide training suggestions on a particular day so not really a tool to use for a training calendar which is taken care of by AT and the baseline plans.

Finally, there’s a question on what is intended with many high level riders use TR. they might use the platform but do they stick to such weekly structure and workouts or they cherry pick workouts (an updated workout creator on mobile would also be nice) to build their own plan?

Thanks

[hubcyclist]

it’s interesting you mention sustained power, because I was looking at that yesterday out of curiosity. As it stands right now, this is the version of the plan I’d get prior to adaptive training changes along the way

I there are a couple of schools of thought regarding how intense sweet spot is, but in context of doing threshold and a couple of vo2 sessions, it seems pretty intense to me, and I have done a 1x90min at 90% in the past few weeks. Yes, if things get intense, adaptive training can help scale back, but rather than progressive overload, which is how a lot of plans are designed, is it possible there’s actually regressive overload? I can’t answer that, of course. I used adaptive training starting at the early release and for my usage I don’t have anything negative to say. I’ve made my own substitutions to stock plans with adaptive training, but at the moment it’s easier for me to just build out my own blocks with TR workouts outside of plan builder, and I can build my progressions more/less aggressively and such.

[Pbase]

@Crosshair

I love the idea of being able to model different training plan options and seeing where you might then land via an FTP prediction

I would be surprised if we see this. So many of us modify the plans, miss workouts, go on vacation, add in a long weekend ride, do a race or fondo, etc. It seems like the predicted FTP would be negated almost as soon as you start the plan.

[Bones]

I used TR’s AT when it first came out, but I haven’t been a subscriber for a while. One thing that bothered me about the AT was when it got too hard and I was marking like 3 workouts in a row very hard, it just kept giving slightly lower versions. What I really needed was a couple of days off (in retrospect).

Does the current version of AT start giving you days off to replace hard sessions, or even easy days to replace hard sessions when you clearly indicate you are fatigued and not recovering well?

[jz91]

Nope, see my post just above.

Same target zones just harder or easier (should specify more or less TiZ or longer shorter recovery between intervals)

[dougaldoughnut]

Try Join Cycling. It does this.

@Bones

[Bones]

@jz91

Nope, see my post just above.

Same target zones just harder or easier (should specify more or less TiZ or longer shorter recovery between intervals)

Sorry missed that. That’s too bad, because this was a big part of why I haven’t returned. I’m not sure if I consider myself a ‘serious cyclist’, but I’ve definitely been around a while and consider myself an experienced cyclist.

I’m probably like a lot of folks, where if it’s on the plan, I try and do it - even if I think it may be a bad idea. When I’ve designed my own plans, I’ve definitely had better judgment when choosing to rest or do a hard session. This is where a real coach trumps both- assuming they are good, they will know when to push things or dial back and rest.

So, maybe its that a lot folks who are experienced riders don’t use TR because of difficulties adhering to the plan, due to; not enough rest built in, not accounting for higher volume outside rides coupled with the TR workouts, ad hoc group rides being factored in, etc.

So TR works for me in a ‘lab setting’ but not my reality of cycling that actually happens!

[Pbase]

@Bones

maybe its that a lot folks who are experienced riders don’t use TR

I would be careful with that assumption. As mentioned above, a few people here or in other places looking for different functionality or enhancements shouldn’t be seen as “experienced riders don’t use TR”. I think that couldn’t be further from the truth.

[Bones]

@Pbase

I would be careful with that assumption. As mentioned above, a few people here or in other places looking for different functionality or enhancements shouldn’t be seen as “experienced riders don’t use TR”. I think that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Maybe that came out wrong. I’m not making assumptions, but just coming up with some possible reasons why some people (experienced or not) may not feel TR works for them.

I actually do think it’s a great product, but for a variety of reasons over the years, it hasn’t really worked out for me. I’ve definitely had better success coaching myself.

[Jonathan]

@jz91 this post makes me sad . You misrepresented TR and the context being discussed here in this thread in a few key ways.

@jz91

However I still have some reservations specifically on the use of TR’s plans by more experienced users.

To make a concrete example (but others could be made): sustained build high volume.

Weekly average volume is 10 hour max so hard really to consider high volume especially if one can also ride outdoor.

Important to separate “experienced” from a “High Volume athlete”. They are not necessarily, and even not frequently the same thing.

You’re selecting our High Volume Plans as a representation of TR in general, yet it is a plan that is meant for low single digit percentage of our athletes.

That would be like me selecting 1-3 of 100 rides that you’ve done and saying that it comprehensively represents the way you train. That would be an uninformed and unfair assumption for me to make.

The High Volume plans are designed for people who:

1. Don’t have what you are inferring as true high volume time (above 10hrs per week)
2. Are able to accomplish favorable adaptations to a high workload and want to push their limits

Again, this is for a low single digit percentage of our athletes.

Separate from TR entirely, the amount of athletes that (1) consistently carry +10hrs per week of training time (2) need that sort of volume represents an even smaller fraction of cyclists. However, that is regularly and erroneously referenced as the common context for cyclists, when in reality, most cyclists couldn’t tolerate that training load and could see more benefits from lower training load.

As TrainerRoad stands today, it isn’t designed for that very small percentage of athletes that want to do +10hrs per week. Can it work for them? Sure! They’ll have to use the tools we have like workout alternates, extending workouts, and using TrainNow or selecting from the workout library to best fit their situation.

And with all of that said, it is extremely important to return to the first point in this message about “experienced” not meaning “high volume”. There are many +4.5w/kg athletes who use TR, and they accomplish a wide range of goals with our Low and Mid-Volume plans. They are experienced, yet they don’t need high volume to accomplish their goals.

@jz91

The key issue I would have however is with the overall structure of the plan consisting of 2x Vo2 workouts + a threshold workout and to round off a sweet spot workout each week.

That’s okay to take issue with that. Again, the high volume plan you are referencing is designed for a very small percentage of our athletes. Important to keep in mind our plans are informed on data from over 150 million workouts, paying close attention to success rates, improvement, and when those things are not happening. They aren’t designed on mere hunches, or what’s worked best for ourselves as coaches or a handful of athletes.

@jz91

I’m not sure how train now would play a role in this as it should provide training suggestions on a particular day so not really a tool to use for a training calendar which is taken care of by AT and the baseline plans.

Athletes on Low Volume plans commonly use TrainNow to make sure they get endurance workouts that progress in an appropriate fashion.

[Jonathan]

@hubcyclist

Yes, if things get intense, adaptive training can help scale back, but rather than progressive overload, which is how a lot of plans are designed, is it possible there’s actually regressive overload?

Definitely no “regressive overload” .

Like I mentioned to jz91, the plan you’re referencing is meant for low single digit percentage of our athletes, and isn’t a fair representation of our plans.

Additionally, these plans aren’t just tossed together on assumptions or hunches and left as is. They’re designed based on success rate and improvement data from a massive set of data, and their performance is monitored so changes can be made.

[Jonathan]

@Pbase

I would be surprised if we see this. So many of us modify the plans, miss workouts, go on vacation, add in a long weekend ride, do a race or fondo, etc. It seems like the predicted FTP would be negated almost as soon as you start the plan.

It’s definitely possible and something we want to provide for y’all.
You’re right in that it is really hard though. We’ve got smart, skilled, and good folks on our team for this.