I would like to see more incremental improvement. TR doesn’t seem to make releases, even to beta, until they have a full package. There’s a lot to be said for that, but I think it sometimes leads to missed opportunities. For example, if their AI is pretty solid, maybe they could try evaluating PLs for outside endurance rides (with power data) and then incorporate other zones later.
Honestly, it just irks me that I can do long, steady rides weekend after weekend, and my endurance PL sits at 1.0 because I don’t want to search the catalog to find something that aligns well with what I did.
endurance progression levels really don’t matter, it’s not something you have to always be progressing if you’re regularly training. just ride whatever volume you can, I do 2-4. Sometimes I’ll build weekend volume if I want to build from 14 to 16hrs over a block but usually I’ll just do 3-3.5 on weekends
Coming to think of it, this is the other aspect of PLs that I really struggle to see working.
Say you get a PL of 10 after a long outdoor endurance ride, what kind of workout suggestions are you going to get from the TR library going forward?
Should all z2 rides be at the highest end of the zone if less than 2 hours?
Or if you manage a long outdoor ride with lots of climbing and your PL shoots up, is the alogrithm going to suggest that every tempo/ sweet spot workout should be at 85 or 94% for at least 90mins - 120 mins for each coming session?
This is perhaps the other reason they got stuck with PL. I see it hard to implement a smooth transition between outdoor and indoor sessions while also maintaining a very static calendar.
This has definitely been my experience. What I’ve slowly figured out…is that even being spoon fed requires you to essentially make your own plan, between knowing when to take extra days off, etc. I’m now just focused on riding as much as I can, working in maybe 2 days of intensity on top of as much easy riding as I can squeeze in.
I think the thing that got me with trainerroad was starting with a base of 3-4 days of intensity, then adding in zone 2, rather than STARTING with a higher volume, then adding in intensity as fatigue allows.
Forgive my ignorance if this has been addressed or touched upon elsewhere.
Currently I run a mid volume plan and add volume(30-60min) to get my hours around 9-10. Also at times if I add an extra workout or an alternative I may end up using an achievable workout but then bump the intensity to the point of a productive workout depending on how I’m feeling. Does AT recognize this currently and adapt or solely based on my planned workout?
As a long time LV user, current TrainNow user (as I have no set goal as yet) and soon to go back to LV user (once I’ve decided what I’m aiming for next year), I can safely say that TR has done and continues to do exactly what I want/need it to do. I’m fitter and faster than I was before and continue to be so.
What I would like is the better integration of the AIFTP/AT/TrainNow functionality (as has already been mentioned above) where the plan can see if you’ve had impromptu hard weekends or weekdays and can adapt the plan accordingly/as necessary.
I am looking forward to WLV2 and outside/unstructured ride PLs etc. But I’m happy with the platform as it is, being what I feel is its core original demographic: A Time Crunched Cyclist.
Sadly, as far as I know it’s still the case that AT works for that which has been planned by either training plan and/or plan builder. Anything added doesn’t register and thus get adapted. This goes back to my post where I would like for AT to read the output of the workout and adjust PLs rather than just read the workout. As it is now you could plug in lazy mountain and jack the intensity till it’s threshold and still get it treated as a recovery workout by PLs/AT.
Interesting topic for me as it reminds me how wildly different we all look at various training platforms and what they should be delivering to us
When I was new to structured training I followed the TR plans (long before AT) to a T and they were great for me. I increased my FTP and repeatability significantly. I never did a plan below MV and spent most of my time following HV plans. I am, somewhat, genetically lucky and could sustain the intensity without burnout
As I learned more about training and maybe more importantly myself I began modifying the plans - particularly by removing intense days when I was including outdoor rides.
The more I’ve learned the less I have any desire for a ‘plan’ per se - and more something that can provide an outline of general increases and progressions leading to a peak that may be months away. I’m more than capable of managing my week to week training by adjusting that outline up or down based on my life (poor sleep, emotional stress, extra fatigue from other sources, etc.)
Thus - all of the requests/complaints about plan updates or even properly accounting for outside rides don’t really apply to me, as I don’t follow their plans either way. Would I prefer if it reduced intensity automatically when I go do a 6 hour endurance ride? Sure, but I do that myself already so I don’t need a computer to tell me I’m tired.
For the last year or so I’ve been using the MV polarized plan as a skeleton upon which I hang everything else I need to do. In some sense I do use their plans, but only as a very basic outline
All that to say - I think this is a fairly standard progression that broadly fits into three buckets
New trainers (maybe the majority of their userbase that isn’t on the forums?) want a plan they can follow and never think about.
More experienced trainers want a plan that adapts to their life and their various life stresses automatically for them. Essentially, the above, but with reasons provided and accounting for as many variables as possible
Veteran trainers want to make those adaptations themselves
Not sure how universally that applies - but it definitely holds true within the (admittedly small) sample size of competitive racers/cyclists I talk to about training. Regardless of if they are TR users or not
Not sure which of these is most important for TR to chase from a functionality standpoint - certainly the middle group is the one that seems to be the loudest on this forum - but I have no clue what that looks like across their user base
And whether or not some of that is realistic. Ultimately, it’s not going to be a mind reader so some user input is required. I want a plan I don’t want to think about, but know when I’m tired enough to skip a workout or pull the plug (like this morning actually).
I echo a lot of what @batwood14 said in the other thread about what is wanted. I believe in the periodized model but would want the following, at least I would want the following in a way that I think it would work best.
Annual Hours
Customisable Training Blocks (Base, Build, Specialty, Peak) I may want to axe the specialty phase and just go from build to peak or taper.
Hours per Block
Hours per Week
Number or Workouts per Week
Hours per Workout
Combining Interval Types in a Workout
What I expect to come down the pipeline is outdoor PLs, new plans specifically for gravel, more integration into other head units, further refined AI too.
Personal Plans using a combination of TrainNow backend + Adaptive Training
My dream world for how Personal Plan creation would work
I give my plan a name
I select how long the plan would run for
I select the active / recovery ratio
For the active weeks, I select how many riding days I want to be on my calendar, and which days of the week
For each day of the week, I can select either a specific workout (and if I do if Adaptive Training can modify it or not) or select what type of workout it should be done on the day, how long, and difficulty level - e.g., on Tuesday I select Sweet Spot 1:30 productive. Adaptive Training / TrainNow on the day would select the appropriate workout that fits this criteria
I can also set a day as “Outside Group Ride” 4 hours
Same as above for the recovery / non-active weeks
I can save these plans and add them to my calendar, just like I can add a TR plan. V2 of this would be that I (or anyone) could make their plan public for other people to use / adapt
I expect that most people over estimate the value of their “unstructured rides” and therefore will be disappointed when TR adds this feature (PL’s for unstructured rides) since they won’t always get PL credit for what they “think” they are doing. Note to TR: Please provide a “general guild” of what TR is looking at when “assigning” or “not assigning” PL’s to a unstructured ride. I think it will help reduce the number of complaints we have to hear on the forum.
As a dedicated TR user, NO additional features are required for me. I only want TR updates that allow me to get “faster” with the 4.5 - 6 hr per week I have. I believe TR is committed to that with adaptive training and their other current features.
My results with TR and what I want (goal):
2021 (FIRST SEASON): about +30 FTP with 0% TR rides (FTP 255)
2022: +47 FTP with 70% TR rides (low volume indoor rides only)(FTP 302)
2023: +46 FTP with 100% TR rides (low/mid volume indoor and outdoor)(FTP 333)
2024: Goal FTP 360 with 100% TR rides (mid volume indoor and outdoor))
Exactly. If you adjust the intensity (or even just run it in slope mode) or extend cooldown with an extra interval the workout level should reflect that.
Ohhhh just remembered some easy win type stuff. With all the data I’d like to see some better analysis of it.
There’s good sites already (striveai app and intervals.icu) and many of us data geeks have also made interesting charts, TR just need to copy them (and if they wanted to copy mine I’d suggest that a designer made them look professional!).
Things like power pr at various times and how it improves each month, w/kg changes over time, the pr charts we already have, and many more.
Same, I was 8 years younger and came off more, much more lower intensity volume (and VO2max intervals on hills), I know it is the fashion to go more low or mid volume, with over the top intensity, but the people that say that without context are not considering the bigger picture. It worked for a while… even HV but high Intensity burns after a few blocks. However TRs high volume is mid volume for most other peoples plan but with high intensity
I would think one of the biggest issues with this next phase of reading outdoor/unstructured workouts and implementing the appropriate plan adaptations is the lack of user compliance.
Threading the needle between Adaptive training burns me into the ground by telling me to do weekday workouts after I went deep on the weekend group ride/race and Adaptive training hasn’t given me anything but recovery after I ignore the plan and go deep every weekend must be difficult.
You’ve touched on the elephant in the room: question of whether or not the basic structure of TR plans / building blocks for Plan Builder need to be revised to increase volume while decreasing the number of intensity days. This is where TR really needs outside perspective / SME input
Definitely where I think AI is going… but it always amazes me how people don’t simply change the workout themselves. Like you know you are gassed but have a workout on the calendar… so you do it anyways? You can’t hit the trash can button and put in an endurance ride?
