Sure it was an exaggerated statement. But it was meant to make the point that your statement was ridiculous. There are many training principles that are known, and don’t need well established models to be able to build into the logic of TR. My point was that coaches use their judgement and experience to do it all the time without , and software can be developed to do the same.
And this is not advanced state of the art coaching. This is training 101. TR claims that they look at all your history to pick the best plan for you, so I think it is fair that people question how they are using/interpreting that history for best outcomes.
look, no need to get angry or even aggressive here. everyone knows by now how experienced you are.
1.) TR uses the last few months to determine your fitness (its just how it works) you can upload 20 years, it will still base its recommendation on the last few months with a rolling average.
2.) you have no powerdata with any of the rides in the period on which TR is basing its recommendaitons on. this means, you could have ridden 20h per week with 20watts and HR of 100 (both would not do anything for your fitness).
3.) TR is learning with you when you complete workouts. you can use the workouts do only 9.0 workouts or higher to show TR how experienced you are and on top of that you can add the missing 15h a week to the 4 you already got from TR and after 1 month TR will give you recommendations based on those 4 weeks. you will not get 4h after this month but more. and the longer you sustain your volume/intensity with POWER (this is crucial here because TR bases its stuff on power) (and yeah there is an alternative metric but lets just face it power is the way to go and with your experience you should know that training with power is superior) the better the RED light Green Light stuff will work for you.
TR is just Machine learning, its no personal coach but thats why it can be offered for 20 bucks instead of 700 a month.
Ha, I’m certainly not angry or even remotely aggressive feeling. My point in all this from a new user stand-point, is the sales pitch from TR makes it sound like they are going to analyze all your training history and give you this tailored made, optimized plan for you. The limitations of that aren’t really well communicated IMO. You mention all the things that TR doesn’t do - great to know from a random forum user, but this really isn’t apparent from a new user position.
I do appreciate you pointing out the limitations as this does help me going forward. The product obviously isn’t for everyone.
The output is only as good as the input, whether that be an algorithm or a coach drawing you up a plan.
It’s been established (by forum users, not officially) that some would like to see progression of volume throughout a plan. Maybe one day plan builder will have a “goal volume now” and “max volume” inputs a user can input that will progress through a plan. Right now TR seems to use TSS and use intensity as the main lever to increase training stress. And rightfully so, as the majority of users are restricted by time. I mean realistically to be great/elite/pro at these half day events you really need to put in massive time on the bike. For age groupers we all try to do what’s “good enough” (“minimum effective dose) to do OUR best with the time we have.
One thing about TR is they are always trying to get better!
Maybe one day plan builder will have a “goal volume now” and “max volume” inputs a user can input that will progress through a plan. Right now TR seems to use TSS and use intensity as the main lever to increase training stress
My training app will always first build up volume, then intensity for a while, then volume for a while then intensity until it reaches max availability then it will build intensity but it will also nudge you to increase availability every week whhich I tend to begrudgingly do too (but it worked)
A bit of an update: So I deleted my plan, and went through all the activities in the recent months without power/hr and did the estimate tss function for all of them. I tried to be pretty realistic, so I believe it’s in the ballpark of the efforts.
Doing this gave me a plan that is way more in-line with what I expected. It’s giving me 6 days per week and recommends 3 intense days for around 9-10 hours per week. Since I’m over 50, I know from experience that 2 intense days is better, so I made that change.
I still believe this should be communicated to folks in similar situations. I’m sure I’m not the only one that has been confused.
As Jolyzara says above, the output is only as good as the input. I wrongfully assumed TR’s algorithm had the inputs and could estimate tss based on hours per week where HR/power data was absent.
Anyway, I hope this helps anyone who begins a plan in a similar situation.
the thing is plan builder replaced the old volume based approach because according to TR people constantly overestimated themselves in terms of the volume they can take, burned out and complained how TR failed them.
i think the issue of “bones” will resolve itself after 4 weeks of using the program and be gone after 8 weeks entirely.
i see TR more as a useful tool for self coached people more than a foolproof Coach substitute for total beginners.
if you have absolutely no clue about training, TR helps you and if you are experienced it can be a good tool. what it will never be able to do is to sub a real coach, that tailors everything to you but i think that is ok given the price point.
Imo the bigger issue with the old high volume plans was less so the hours and more so the number of hard days. Those old plans all had 4-5 harder workouts per week rather than ~2 with longer endurance to add volume.
I’m a pretty average guy, so if I was confused as to why TR didn’t take into account my recent training, then I’m sure others may also be confused. This is why I posted my update for the solution I had. Im sure others may benefit from this thread in the future.