Exactly right. Spot on! They’ve been doing it since 1915. That’s over a century ago… and it’s antiquated. Newsflash, we don’t ride horses for transport anymore, Women have the vote and the US had a non-white President recently.
A training plan will make you faster (as will riding your bike) but it won’t be optimal. Get with the program.
You’re having a go at people wanting the 0.5% gains but your missing the point entirely, and in fact it’s the other way around. If you’re setting your anaerobic interval targets as a % of FTP, you are doing it wrong. If you only judge your progress by increases to an “FTP” number based on a ramp test, or a 20min test (or even a well executed 1 hour test) you are doing it wrong.
Let’s try to keep the conversation focused on the topic and avoid attacking each other personally here on the Forum. This ties into one of our four core guidelines of attacking the idea, not the person. You can learn more about this principle in the post I’ve linked below.
Well said Bryce. Personally I am a trainerroad fan but lately I have been experiementing making my own plans from the workouts. I am not an expert by far but always learning.
If people don’t like TR that is someones right as I cannot stand zwift after using it for a good clip but one of my best friends loves it. To argue over the internet always cracks me up.
As per Bryce’s message I won’t stoop to having a go at you personally.
In fact, in the ultimate about-face and as a measure of my shame at being wrong, my simple rebuff would be to encourage you to limit your cycling training to “proven” platforms… like TR. I suggest you never to look beyond this time-tested barometer of success - you’ll be wasting your time if you do. 20 minute (or ramp) testing to establish your FTP, then structuring your training with the sole focus on increasing that number marginally for the next test, is all you’ll ever need to be successful at cycling.
Seems as though TR has done just this - rapidly growing success without all the fluff and gimmicks common on other platforms. I obviously don’t have the data, but I am betting the majority market for this product is someone like myself. I’m looking to train hard, no distractions, no gimmicks, coach-driven workouts and plans, and continual innovation in doing all these things based on the steady flow of research publications and technological support.
At least for me, I would likely drop TR if it did all these “zwift game” things like challenges and multi-rider, social media, and so on. This is exactly why I’m here and not using other platforms regularly.
Thought exercise: what was the last innovation / new feature that Strava rolled out, and how fast is Strava growing / worth?
The above is a thought exercise to challenge the assumption behind this thread that adding features == growth. Sometimes that is true, but sometimes it isn’t.
Agreed. Most of us offered counter points and alternate considerations based on our preferences, as well as context towards the stated goals within TrainerRoad (make you faster). There was plenty of discussion within the bounds of the forum guidelines.
We are all free to share our opinions within those guidelines, but there is no guarantee that others will agree with our point of view. In fact, there’s good reasons to have our concepts challenged with different thoughts. Growth and understanding can be gained from them if we are open to them.
