I feel they should only allow alternates for shorter workouts. This way an athlete won’t make the mistake and pick a longer workout with way more TIZ than needed. Yes I’m replying to myself, I think it’s a valid concern and think there needs to be a better way to direct people. Not everyone listens to the podcast or comes on the forum.
Lots of data coming in and IMO we’re a long ways off from the ability of systems to usefully analyze this data into a true plan of action at anything other than a basic level. A fast talk episode discussed this.
I know the AI, ML, ChatGPT, etc. will/is having an impact but people get so hyped about things as if tomorrow it will all change and happen. We’re supposed to be using flying cars and living on mars and having full self driving cars by now. Tech is great but timelines of when things will happen are often way overstated
So then, assuming what you’re saying is true (I tend to agree), I’d want TR to focus on data inputs and corresponding recommendations that represent the greatest impact.
If we apply the 80/20 principle (probably more like 90/10 or 95/5 in this case), there’s a lot of insights to be extracted in that last 20 percent? But are they really accurate, impactful and relevant enough to matter?
if not then just eliminate them, because they may just be adding needless friction and confusion.
1 Like
How is this different than a standard “polarized plan” or 80/20 principle?
Also, what about people that go to church on Sunday and view Sunday as a family day? My max ride on Sunday can only be 1.5hr because of family schedules and I’m sure I’m not the only one. But 4 hours on Saturday? No problem.
Your example is replacing a 2.5 threshold workout with a 3.1 so the added 12 mins TIZ seems correct. The alternate should also be ~2.5PL. A .6 jump in PL is like a 2 week progression if workouts are completed successfully.
1 Like
That’s easy. Just swap the Saturday and Sunday rides when going through plan builder. Then they will all be on your calendar.
And Nate mentioned they have a feature coming where you can say #of hours available on specific days.
6 Likes
6x8= 48 mins
The other 3.1 workout is 5x20 intervals = 100 mins time in zone, that’s a 52 minute difference. it might be a “good” progression, I personally don’t think so, that’s a big difference in TIZ.
Yeah, I misread the durations. My point is alternates should be the same PL if you want the same level workout but longer (or shorter for that matter). If you are selecting a PL that is higher than your current level you will definitely get a harder workout. All assuming there is an workout in the library that meets your PL and duration needs.
I see that the alternate selection is TR provide so I agree that is flawed (due to no 3 hour sub 3PL threshold workouts in library. I thought was one you choose.
2 Likes
My only point is some of the longer workouts have a lot more intensity and for someone who doesn’t know better. They may have a bad time if they choose a 2 hour workout loaded with intensity because they had extra time as opposed to just adding zone 2 or whatever.
I’m afraid the option to pick hours available in plan builder won’t always add more zone 2, but more intensity. Which the athlete might not need.
2 Likes
Have you be in contact with TR support?
This seems worthy of their closer review.
I have not. I could reach out to the live chat now.
2 Likes
Additionally, if you’re new to the platform and confident in your ability to do a longer endurance ride then use alternates to pick something within your capabilities
That said…talking to support makes sense as a next step
2 Likes
Like the others said, talking to support will help, but also…you scheduled a 9 hour ride before. I’m sure that’s the answer.
3 Likes
I spoke with support and was told the 30 minute workout suggestions are to account for the upcoming taper for my A race next weekend and the taper for the 4 hr race next weekend should be the same as the 9hr race I had a few weeks ago. It is “based on your overall plan volume and the time between now and the event.” Additionally, I could choose to accept the adaptations or not.
When I asked about my AI detected ftp I was told ftp and training zones are not related to my HR “as heart rate can be influenced by so many factors.” and “you can always change your ftp manually if you feel that it is higher than the detection.” Also that the AI has properly accounted for all my previous rides.
I know my comments here seem to be a little bit of a tangent but the forum topic is “What do users expect / want int the future.” I am a new user and this is my new user experience. My experience is relevant because this is what a new user, who has previous training history, is bombarded with as they first begin Trainer Road.
I love the podcast and in the podcast Jonathan is constantly talking about how amazing AI FTP detection and the Adaptive Training is. A new user coming to this platform would then expect AI FTP and Adaptive Training to function as brilliantly as it is sold in the podcast. When it then doesn’t seem to add up the individual is at a loss. So then, one signs up for AI FTP detection and Adaptive Training but then is unable to use either until the TR algorithm eventually catches up.
2 Likes
This comment made me look at it closer. It looks like it’s actually a taper week for his A event. This would explain the sharp reduction in volume even before the adaptations are accepted
7 Likes
TR suffers from the same ‘sales pitch’ aspect seen everywhere in the industry.
Per AIFTPD, there is a known and stated requirement (in the TR support doc) that the tool needs 10 TR inside workouts completed before it works. This is to create a foundation and then possibly add in references of other workouts imported into the TR calendar from your recent past. And even with that, we have seen reports of cases where people still get some odd results. TR reviews those and handles them from what I have seen (which can be bug related or lead to tweaks to the way the features runs).
They rarely list that requirement in the podcast, so it leads to confusion when people sign up and aren’t immediately able to access the tool. Would be better if they clearly stated that up front so people had the proper expectation.
Per the calendar and workouts TR is applying, that is down to the scheduling and their approach to using tapers before A-events. It’s all working as generally intended from what I see. The potential confusion comes from signing up and launching into the TR world right before an A-level event, which may not be typical or ideal. Training Plans via Plan Builder with further out events are more likely to look “normal” when there is a larger window of time to apply at least a portion of their typical Base, Build & Specialty approach to a longer term training plan.
Snip from the doc above for reference:
What AI FTP Detection Needs to Detect Your FTP
In order for AI FTP Detection to have enough data to accurately detect your FTP, you need a minimum of 10 completed TrainerRoad indoor workouts. If you haven’t completed enough workouts, don’t stress—you’ll see how many more you need when you click the button to use the feature. Once you’ve completed these 10 workouts, AI FTP Detection will analyze and incorporate all indoor and outdoor rides with power data, whether or not they’re TrainerRoad workouts.
5 Likes
Wait, why are we getting distracted with all the other guff.
This is BIG NEWS 
.
2 Likes
I think without individualised training advice like a coach, app will have limits. From the user standpoint, next big thing after structured training is nutrition. I would integrate a nutrition app like saturday nutrition to TR, each workout comes up with individual fuel advice. I would pay 2-3 usd/month more.
Other big thing for a non pro working 50+ hours /week is finding a strength training plan that fits to my cycling plan. There are books, advices etc out there but it is not like opening one app and doing a prescribed wout. I subscribed to dialed health, which is crazy expensive, very bad UI however it is cycling focused and works. So an integrated strength plan based on my plan builder schedule would be amazing.
I disagree about the coach bit. Either a coach or an app are following a set of principles for laying out training. It’s less complicated that we like to think it is. You take Seiler’s training pyramid and more levels you can accommodate, the better you’ll go. I don’t think there are any levels that an app couldn’t equally well recommend.