Open letter to Nate Pearson (CEO of TrainerRoad)
Dear Sir, I thank you for your thoughtful and considered reply to my original video here (Which Cycling Training App is Best? Should you chose Zwift vs Sufferfest vs TrainerRoad? - YouTube). I would like to clarify a few points. I made a ‘free speech fair criticism’ video of 3 apps and didn’t single any one out in particular purely praise and nor did I say TR was ‘no good’ or that people should not choose it nor did I tell people to buy a competitor product. Yet the amount of hate mail and name calling from your users is frankly appalling and I hope you don’t condone that; I had to delete some of the more abuse posts and some were self-censored by youtube for bad language. In the cold light of day did my fair opinion warrant such a severe reaction which is also (in part) mirrored on this forum? To repeat, I said all these apps are good in their own way and each has a place if they are working for the customer and helping them improve. Yet it is true, I did single TR out on price but cost is not the same as value. In this regard none of the apps are necessarily bad value (as opposed to expensive relative to others). If users are not using the app or not improving then none are worth the money even at a grandfathered reduced rate.
You have asked if I am paid by sufferfest (or another TR competitor). I am not, and already said so several times, but now sufferfest themselves has written to confirm this…so my opinion piece video is not a “paid product placement” as you have alleged. You keep repeating the ridiculous assertion I am paid by a competitor and refuse to accept the answer which is curious and I wonder if this is a method of deflecting my criticisms? No one at fastfitnesstips (including myself) have ever taken any money or goods from any company in return for any review and hence we remain able and willing to give our own opinion. This has got us into arguments with Peloton and Ceramicspeed when we called them out on what we saw as an outlier price. Is it better to live in a society where honest people cannot give their opinion with accusations flying left right and center? Most good companies will take any such comment on the chin, and ask how can we improve?
That said, let me acknowledge, you kindly mention various new features in the pipeline and these are probably excellent but better if people can try these out before committing upfront. I already asked (see the original video description and comments) for TR and Zwift to please forward us a no-money upfront code for our viewers to try these enhancements. But you say no one has contacted you. So I am hereby asking for the third time, publicly, please give our viewers a public 30day free code as you have been promising, without an upfront payment.
Next, you say several times that TR is exactly the same price as Zwift when paid annually. Without wanting to appear petty, please would you confirm you annual price is $180 not $190 to bring these in line. I know it’s might seem a small difference, but it is one that might mean a lot to some people as well as validating your pricing claim of exact equivalence. This is a simple request, not a demand, it is up to you to price the product exactly as you want, I am simply pointing out that the equivalence you claim, isn’t quite correct.
I want to acknowledge that you kindly removed the “13% improvement per hour” claim from your site, thank you, and in return I duly acknowledge that that was a claim about interval training and nothing to do with TR per se. You appear to say your 1%/99% rule is valid and you stand by it. Allow me to mention that you are sitting on a mountain of user data, a lot of it in a public domain but most of it not. Apparently some of your viewers want to sue me for looking at your public records and making these into spreadsheet table. If they are unhappy about TR broadcasting their workouts publicly, you might want to double check on their consent status. Having read your GDPR statement I see you reserve the right to analyse data on file. I would therefore please ask you to please analyse your own files to clarify that the 99% recommendation is on the basis of actual outcomes namely the percentage who did better on SSB was 99:1 vs TB.
Next you criticise our analysis of your 90% rule in the 8x2 test (aka 2x8 test) and the 95% rule in 20minFTP steady state test (Is 90% of 8min x 2 test power really your FTP? (8x2 vs 20min FTP tests) - YouTube). I am open to feedback on this. To quickly summarize quite an in depth piece of work, we analyzed at PRs from 5s thru 2hrs inclusively and also all FTP tests on file. We initially used 60min PR as the gold standard but to improve validity we extended that to actual 60mins FTP tests which were notated as such by the rider and in close proximity to their other tests. You are of course correct this is a rarefied group. Result show that not only is the 60minPR highly correlated with 60mFTP but the standard calculations of 90% (+/-3%) and 95% (+/-3%) are correct only in about 10-20% of your user base. What this means in practice is you are at risk of miscalculating FTP for around 90% of users doing a shorter steady-state protocol if you are relying only on this method. Again, I want to acknowledge you have since launched the Ramp test and our early analysis appear to show that the Ramp test is more accurate measure of FTP60 than other methods in most people. However, it also means people will find they probably get two different FTP predictions (and zone thresholds) from the steady-state FTP tests and the RAMP test (……yes a minority will line up of course). Now some maybe most will argue about our protocol or whether FTP even exists, or whether an outsider is even allowed to look at the public data; in which case I simply urge you to check your own data very carefully and I believe you will see we are correct. What you do with this information, assuming you don’t already know this, is entirely up to you. As an aside, Zwift uses an even more crude model of 95% of any 20min PR, but their users are probably less sensitive to accuracy than yours.
To repeat, I bear neither you nor your product any ill will or malice. I am a hospital doctor and cycling coach and cycling enthusiast who has raised valid points. Even if you don’t agree with me, there is no need to keep accusing me of selling out, or worse. In all sincerity, I wish you well in trying to improve cycling and endurance sports. Bw alex mitchell MD lead coach from FFT (or “youtube guy” as you prefer to call me)
. That would get some shares 
.