I disagree. Whilst indoor training might tick the physiological training and benefit boxes, there is no way it can provide the same mental health benefits.
I love to explore, to see the wildlife, to feel the wind, to experience the smell of fresh rain on asphalt. Grinding out workouts in my garage just can’t replicate that.
That’s why my opinion is unpopular most, no, all of my cycling friends agree with your - the popular - opinion. It took years to learn to take the road less traveled, even if that road is zero miles long and in a cellar.
Having said that, train indoors, ride outdoors is the less unpopular nuance for me.
In addition, it would probably be in our best interest to choose an event where the most recent running was not under scrutiny over how much aerodynamic assistance the lead riders received from the lead vehicle(s).
If the rider that placed 2nd says it was quite a lot, that creates another variable to account for.
Although perhaps that’s the wrinkle, lack of technological gains in the gravel racing space partially disguised by clever use of camera vehicles and helicopters.
Here’s the 100 mile Barry-Roubaix course for every year it’s been held.
No, but there are basically only 2 courses (with minor adjustments) that they go back and forth on every 2 years. Weather can certainly have a big influence year to year, but the trend is still a dramatic increase in speed over time.
If you are going to buy into that, it still only affects the time of the elite winners. But just look at the finish times of all the others (including amateurs). The winning times for 40 and 50 year old amateurs the last couple years would have easily won the overall race not that long ago. It’s not a little faster, it’s been dramatically faster. And I’m not saying it’s a byproduct of bikes/equipment being faster. Much (most) of that can be attributed to the growth in gravel with much more talented/deeper fields at both the pro and amateur levels. But of course equipment is measurably faster, anyone who has been racing gravel for the last 10 years and has updated their setup knows that. People were primarily racing road/CX bikes with slow 33mm tires 10 years ago. Modern setups (particularly tires) are significantly faster. Anyone who has raced on both ends of the equipment spectrum know that. To suggest it’s some kind of bike industry conspiracy is misguided in my opinion. Do they overblow every little margin improvement? Are some of the “improvements” total BS and provide no advantage? Of course, that’s called marketing and not unique to the bike industry (although cyclists tend to be more prone to chasing the latest/greatest than many other markets).
I’m all for silly/fun takes, but that’s some next level black helicopter stuff right there. Do you really think that these organizers (who are just now figuring out how to provide basic video coverage) are clever/sophisticated enough to collaborate with the bike industry to conspire on some hidden agenda?
My unpopular opinion is that AI causes more harm than good to the majority of average users training by forcing a focus on numbers and reliance on a computer to make decisions rather than really listening to their body. In fact id go as far to say that, now, I am a believer that RPE and HR is as important as power at the time of training.
And a second…..many amateur athletes without good genetics and pro support are tougher than pro riders, whatever their level. Training hard around life demands (ie not getting to laze on the sofa inbetween training sessions) and still being back of the pack/still pushing up hill/still getting off on technical descents takes huge confidence, mental toughness and resilience. A couple of weeks ago I rode with someone who pushed themselves harder than I have ever seen anyone do just to finish a day out on the bike. It was so impressive. We do not value these riders enough. They should be celebrated in their efforts.
I mean the same basic concept applies to so many other things. Progression levels, Zwift badges, Strava (kudos, segments, ride distance or speed). A lot of people here like to bang on the ‘Increase your volume’ drum. But know a couple riders who will put in a few 20-25 hour weeks in a row and then post that they are sick or burnt out and take a few weeks. Then it’s rinse and repeat. One of them has admitted that they like doing a ton more volume than other people on strava and trying to show off with a bunch of centuries every year. But then they’ll post about how they are frustrated they are not doing better in races
I realise I need to tap the thread title but guessing you weren’t here for the SSBHV years? Many many people followed the plans and burnt out, fatigue was a bigger issue with the cookie cutter plans than with the ML assisting. The new solutions are much better at avoiding this, you are right but people don’t listen to their own bodies, many have been taken by ‘no pain no gain’ attitudes when it comes to exercise.
I don’t think that is fair. You listen to Nate talk about it he is legitimately excited about. I think it was more that they were blinded to how some people would react.
I think there are two attributes of the model that are in conflict but balance each other out.
Yes, you can game the system and change ratings and mark rides easier than they actually are, eventually either you will fail a workout or the system will learn your new scale and adjust accordingly Like the guy who has a 3 level system of easy, moderate, and fail
if you schedule a ride harder than the system likes it knocks down your predicted FTP.
I think at some point the gaming will no longer be effective and what will remain is that the system will lower your FTP if you try to do too much and that is beneficial.
That isn’t what happens if you rate a workout easy. If you rate it easier than the model expects then the next workout is harder.
The only example I saw of what you are talking about was someone trying to game the system and was doing back to back workouts. In that case they had a history of failing workouts. So the system trying to give them easier workouts made sense.
The workout picker for anyone who isn’t trying to mess with it has been solid. The AI FTP is noisy but that is different than what you are claiming.
Post your examples of you rating Threshold or similar workouts easy and getting lower workouts as a result.
It rewarded you with a 6.2 rating for that workout vs the 5.0 that the workout was initially rated. Then gave you a harder workout then that 5.0 next as it gave you a 5.5.
Could you share your training the weeks before and after the 5.5?
most, no, all of my cycling friends agree with your - the popular - opinion. It took years to learn to take the road less traveled, even if that road is zero miles long and in a cellar.
but guessing you weren’t here for the SSBHV years? Many many people followed the plans and burnt out, fatigue was a bigger issue with the cookie cutter plans than with the ML assisting. The new solutions are much better at avoiding this, you are right but people don’t listen to their own bodies, many have been taken by ‘no pain no gain’ attitudes when it comes to exercise.