I think an even better version would be dynamically generated workouts that are slightly harder/easier and/or are shorter/longer. IMHO that’s where TR should move next. It is currently a mess to look for similar workouts if you want to have a progression from, say, 7x3 to 4x5 minutes at VO2max (at various percentages and different rest interval durations).
I reckon TR could launch analogs of AI FTP to detect the various power levels (e. g. for traditional, long VO2max intervals) and create a workout just for you.
Would be super useful for fine-tuning a progression. I could see the most benefit in Specialty phase when you’re training the sort of efforts you’ll need to do in the target event.
In the absense of that, here’s the sort of nonsense I’ve got up to, trying to make sense of it all…
On one hand, pretty cool. On the other hand, if you are going to the trouble of all this, I am assuming you are choosing your own training, why use trainerroad? Why not just use something like Intervals.icu and fully embrace being your own coach?
It was a situation of having a foot in both camps. I was enamored by the idea of being able to bash out those long intervals, but wanted TR to take care of the rest of the workouts & the periodising. I compiled this list based upon what I thought should be manageable outside in the controlled environment of the asphalted track around the cricket field near my worksite… no hard starts, no sloping intervals (think Eclipse & Monitor series, etc.), no on-offs like the Garrowby series, just good solid blocks of work. I basically picked from this list, subbing for approximately the same workout level. Okay maybe a little higher sometimes because I tended to be a maximalist & a glutton for punishment.
At this point I have to assume they’ve given up. The radio silence every time it’s brought up has led me to that conclusion. Does someone from TR care to confirm or deny that?
Yeah he’s been a lot less publicly active with TR in general for quite a while, besides a brief stint of PR for the Zwift integration. Looking at his Strava he’s not been riding much either. Seems like he’s lost his passion for cycling.
I’d be careful to not jump to conclusions. I’d focus more on what TR-the-company does as opposed to how much we see of @Nate_Pearson in public. Feature updates have steadily come out over the last few years, including periods when @Nate_Pearson has been quiet. Two very recent features that come to mind are Red Light/Green Light and volume recommendation in Plan Builder. @Jonathan has been steadily hinting at additional features.
There might be plenty of reasons why Nate has been less public, and the reasons need not be (all) bad. I reckon the overly optimistic estimates when it comes to WLv2 might be one reason he has shut up about upcoming features until they are ready for at least alpha/beta testing.
That might be true but as pointed out it’s been two years since WLv2 has even been acknowledged as an active project. It would be nice to know if it’s still been worked on or not. The fact that this question keeps getting asked and TR doesn’t even give a vague reply concerns me.
Edit: I did find a more recent TR comment addressing assigning PLs for non-TR workouts/activities. Here, and then reaffirmed a few posts later in June.
Instead of event when building a plan I’d like to be able to say for the next X weeks build a plan that focuses on Y durations.
So I know at my current FTP my z2 stuff is good enough for me but 10 minute efforts are terrible so I’d like a plan to focus on that. Could break the durations in Short <5 mins, medium 5 to 20mins and long >20mins.
Could have a wider range of durations or just medium and short with longer ones included in normal plans.
Don’t get me wrong, I want to know what’s coming up and want new features yesterday. I also liked @Nate_Pearson ‘s way of being somewhat open about TR’s development. It’s not that I prefer the “new way” (if there is such a thing), I’m just saying that it doesn’t necessarily mean TR has stopped evolving.
However, the focus on WLv2 and features like it may lead TR to neglect resolving “boring” issues like
The mismatch in functionality between web and apps: some of the functionality is only available one way or the other. E. g. I cannot inspect my interval power and heart rate averages in the (mobile) app. Selecting alternate workouts works better in the (mobile) app. I cannot add comments to workouts within the app. I cannot customize the workout screen.
No customization of the Career screens.
Better analysis tools.
No recording of e. g. left/right power data and other data fields.
No Apple Health integration.
I could add more to this list, but I think you get my point.
Nate’s newfound interest in strength training gives me hope that strength training and other sports are added as first-class citizens. Think of how TrainingPeaks evolved from a tool for cyclists to a tool for coaches and athletes of all stripes, it’d be great if TR could add a few of the most popular (endurance) sports and strength training.
The thing is that feature development feels soooo slow with TR. There is no open roadmap or “uservoice” like suggestion ranking and all you get is endless “under the hood improvements” version updates.
Additionally features are becoming a bit inconsistent:
With TrainNow you kind of got some WLv2 stuff first
Now it seems they also use it for serving workouts in plans
Meanwhile progression levels and the whole UI presented to the user do not reflect that
(Think of the threads when users thought they were presented with “wrong” workouts not knowing that some outdoor performance was taken into account)
Secondary progressions unclear / still minimal (at least in the UI)
Progression decay is pretty much hidden and not intuitive
IIRC some hints that progression levels is not the way to go (and that direction could be the targeted energy systems (?))
Over the last years it’s become less and less fun keeping my subscription (been here like 7 years). Always stayed for the nostalgia and hoping that next year would bring some real WLv2 breakthrough with a consistent UI but that never happened for me.
I’m not on a plan any more…more like self coached and mainly use TR as a workout player. Seeing the fast development of intervals.icu (what a contrast to TR) I could see myself just using that in combination with a minimal workout player (my Garmin or TrainerDay) in the future…
I’m not sure if it’s pure strategic decision or more like personal / health related but I miss the old Nate on the forum (the time before the breakup with Chad).
There very much should be (and almost certainly are, due to the different required skill sets) separate teams working on front end software (apps, website) versus backend software (all the data processing, training plan generation, AT, AI, etc). So work on WLv2 and improving the apps aren’t competing for the same resources.
I agree with @Rizzi. The development has felt super slow for a while now. Not just WLv2, just general progress, especially on fixing obvious issues like various features that are app only or desktop website only. As a user at least being able to do everything on mobile (even if the app kicks me to the mobile website) feels like minimum required functionality
I get that a lot of work (front and backend) went into re-doing the calendar. And we did get some nice new little features there. But again that’s still not fully functional on mobile. And IMO calendar improvements alone aren’t enough progress for the subscription prices being charged.
Part of that may be perception. There’s lots of little tweaks but as Rizzi said they aren’t really graphically seen by the customer, not all that clearly communicated.
Hopefully, TR has been doing some major development and it’s all tied together and we’ll see a huge enhancement drop. Sometimes there’s a lot of tech debt or a new feature requires re-doing a lot of code due to a new approach.
And I can understand if that isn’t talked about until the launch of it. But that’s the risk of subscriptions. Users are paying every month or year. I expect to see consistent signs of improvement if the price of the subscription is higher than my perceived cost for TR to run the existing service profitably.
They are competing for the same resources: money and the time devoted to them by management. With the former I mean that it is very easy for shiny/sexy-new-feature to take attention and money away from the “boring stuff”. E. g. management hires someone to work on the sexy new features rather than look for an app dev.
If you add “development of the apps” to your paragraph, I completely agree. With the ML/AI stuff as well as training plans, I do have the feeling that they have been making the most consistent and best work on it. Here is my experience regarding the app and the web app:
Nothing has been done since the release of the rewritten (mobile) app to add back features the old app had nor to close the gap and add new features.
No Apple Health integration despite repeated asks on this forum.
No Apple Watch app providing an easy way to transmit heart rate and/or control the trainer.
The new calendar app might work better, but does not work on “narrow” screens (think an iPad in portrait mode or if the window isn’t full screen on my Mac).
Work on training plans most certainly includes lots of changes under the hood that were invisible to regular athletes:
I have done polarized blocks for several years. I have noticed changes each year/season, e. g. making the second workout easier.
Plan Builder has become lots more flexible with lots of new customization options, e. g. number of training days, maximum training times and volume recommendation.
Rest weeks have become easier with lower intensity.
AI FTP now works well, at least if I start from a baseline with a ramp test. It is within 1–2 W of a valid ramp test for me, and the ramp test’s FTP estimate has worked well for me throughout me training with TR. Initially, that wasn’t the case for me.
Update to database to allow for support of sports other than cycling.
New features:
RL/GL has worked very well for me.
Volume recommendation for training plans.
We can argue what constitutes slow/fast, but let me use a more neutral phrasing: I think app and web app development is TR’s weakest side, TR has become quite stale and there are IMHO quite a few gaps in functionality. Basically, you at least need to use two clients to have access to full functionality, and IMHO that’s a mistake.
What adds to the perception of staleness of the app and the website is that the app’s design hasn’t appreciably changed since I started using it. The Workout screen is nigh identical, unless you count extra options in the advanced menus. Fairly or not, this leaves an impression with the user. To be clear, I don’t clamor for a redesign of e. g. the Workout screen, just more functionality, though.
Iterations on training plans and training plan-related features are less visible, because athletes “don’t see versions” and we don’t know what the changes precisely are as our training plans are all different anyway. Still, in these areas, I do see evidence of improvements. And I see new ML-/AI-based features added, although probably we should stop caring that they are enabled by Machine Learning or “AI”. They simply are features.
I’m also eagerly waiting for WLv2 because my workout levels just deteriorate with the swapping to group/solo rides and it feels like I’m starting again from the beginning come autumn. That being said, the AIFTP taking the outdoor rides into account helps a fair bit.
This is true, but man the release of Zwift integration taught me a lesson about how great the TR workout player is. I instantly feared that Zwift was going to acquire TR and kill the app.
I agree with most of your post, but I don’t think many care about these two features. I’m an all Apple household and these are low priority for me. You can use HealthFIT to sync your data from many sources to/from Apple Health. And I don’t believe Apple even provides a good way to transmit heart rate data at a 1s data rate to other apps. What percentage of TR users really care about these? Maybe 10%. What percentage want non-TR rides to contribute to PLs? I’d wager something like 75%.
They did do one big update that I forgot about: Zwift integration. It’s not something I use, but loss of users do.
There are so many reasons why you’d want that, and basically everyone, and that’s the inclusion of sleep data in the Adaptive Training algorithms. Sleep is one of the biggest determining factors in how well your workout will go.
Also, I don’t think HealthFIT can sync e. g. body weight and total calories. Supporting the platforms’ standards just seems logical to me. Apple Health should not be treated differently than Garmin’s or Wahoo’s clouds.
I forgot about that, thanks for reminding me. I have never used Zwift and have no desire to, but this was an important feature update.
It’s great, but I can think of a few ways to improve it, e. g. allow for customization and more data fields on, say, iPads.
While they have been grabbing stuff from Garmin for years, why they had everyone’s old swims and runs and hikes when they update the calendar, there isn’t necessarily any evidence they are using the things you think are missing due to no apple health syncing. They aren’t using weight data, you have to manually adjust it (off to do that now). They have not said they are using sleep data in adaptive training in any discussion of it ever of adaptive training (that I have seen). Calories definitely are not displaying again also no sign they are using it.
I can see why its frustrating that it doesn’t sync, but I don’t think adding it will do what you think it does since they aren’t doing that with the Garmin and other data now.
