Whilst we can theorise what drove the actions of strava recently it does ask the question of what developments are on the horizon and what that means to us, the consumer.
To me there seems to be a shift towards polarisation in the market place, brands broadening their commercial offering Training Peaks offering a virtual world along with an ever increasing number of other players. As are training plans.
Bespoke coaching to me seems to have a decreasing market with increasingly sophisticated analytics substituting missed workouts or lay offs from injury or illness.
AI will no doubt play an increasing influence of the direction and capability and It’s an interesting point but when, if ever, will data have a higher commercial value than the other combined assets of a business?
No doubt other companies in this space are discussing their potential next steps as a reaction to Strava and several aspects will have to play out before we understand if this accelerates development, drives acquisition/partnerships or companies batten down their hatches for a “interesting time”. Of course we aren’t binary and all three routes could be utilised but we the consumer will be the winner.
Just inviting some more informed opinions to chime in.
Can you expand on what you mean here? I think of Polarization as there being two very distinct extremes with no middle. Are you saying that polarization is 1. Apps and 2. Coaches? Or maybe you meant consolidation and mergers?
Strava is a data aggregator / social media platform. It’s great for seeing who is faster, which does help motivate me, but in general it hasn’t really helped me get faster.
Long term:
The future of training for me is mixing up more strength and non-cycling workouts (Ski Erg) with my cycling workouts. I envision a day when we have sensors that can tell us how hard to go and when to shut it down. And other sensors that tell us when to fuel. Then it will come down to dedication and mental fortitude, and trusting the system. Maybe a human will guide the program that is using these sensors to judge our physiological state, or maybe it’ll be AI-based.
Near term:
I used TR for 2 years and then got more serious and switched to a human coach. For my lifestyle and goals, human coach is well worth the money. He helps me adapt to injuries, surgeries, illnesses, race goals, angry wife, etc etc.
I don’t see Strava as having any real influence on training, it’s a social media app not a coaching/training one.
There are a couple apps doing interesting things with “ai” but others don’t seem to be using it to do anything other than minor adjustments and fluff.
I don’t see coaching ever going away, at least not in the near to mid future, sure most people can probably get 90% of the way there with pre canned plans and apps but a good coach will be much more valuable if you are willing to spend the $.
I have no idea what you are talking about… but I come from a generation where the coach handed a paper training calendar and you kept a training log in a notebook.
After I was done racing competitively I stopped tracking my activities completely as there was no point. We could go back to pen and paper and I’d be fine.
Like other veteran athletes I’m moving to including more strength and conditioning and balance work. All the missing elements to ensure I age as well as I can.
As for Strava, it no longer gets my feed from Garmin Connect. It’s early days as I get over my addiction to sharing my rides. But it’s starting to feel liberating. I haven’t deleted Strava yet, though I have downloaded all the data.
In 2025 I have some Alpine objectives, and Himalayan objectives in 2026. Thus my cycling will have to take a back seat at some point as I work on my mountaineering conditioning. Though the cycling will still be good for aerobic.
Including more and more data to make decision on how to adapt your training schedule (sleep data, HRV, other activities, etc.).
Big datasets will become ever more important to hone the underlying algorithms.
Many platforms will try to build these big datasets — and fail in the long run since they don’t know what to do with them. (Strava, I am looking at you.)
Even fewer platforms have people with actual expertise in ML/AI and exercise physiology.
Unfortunately, I see a lot of data being siloed. That means if you want to combine coaching (by a human coach) with elements from TrainerRoad, you are out of luck. Similarly, if you want to base your training off of a platform like Training Peaks, then you are missing the ML element on the platform level (at least for now).
A new generation of coaches will grow up with tools like AT and focus on the human elements of training rather than rote workout selection. But most people will not need a human coach.
Many platforms will try to combine training with entertainment, because that is what a lot of people want.
Yes and no: Some coaching apps have been built on top of Strava/plug into Strava. But you are right that Strava itself has nothing to offer here. (Another reason why closing itself off seems counterproductive.)
By the same token, we can go back to friction shifters. Making it easier to train better is just such a big get, otherwise you’d have to be really committed.
Interestingly, I am moving the other direction. After decades of self-coaching, I am considering getting a coach for the upcoming season. I have a pretty big goal and wonder if getting a coach may find me just that little bit extra.
The right coach can probably help a rider find a little bit extra.
But it might not necessarily be a coach who only tells you which workouts to do when.
It could be an aero coach that improves your position on the bike over time. It could be a psychological coach that improves your mental handling of your goals. It could be a nutrition coach that improves your fuelling. It could be a tactical coach that improves your bike handling / race tactics. etc.
These might all be the same person. Or not.
Knowing what will give you the biggest gain and where to find the people who can help you in that area is definitely a thing.
What I am hoping for is something that can make indoor training more engaging and less boring. It would be nice if Zwift would offer sim mode for workouts too (it is of course possible with an extra step)
just use headunit to run the workout, ez (and I personally prefer to have the headunit as the primary source of truth in case zwift craps out or whatever)
There is no such thing as “X speed friction shifters”. There are simply friction shifters. The gear stops in between are immaterial. As long as you have the range in the shifter, a friction shifter can cover as many gears as needed.
So for a Shimano freehub, one set of friction shifters can be set as 8, 9, 10, 11, or even 12 spd, depending on your cassette choice.
But there are distinct friction shifters out there now. Those that can deal with the larger pull ratios demanded by 10 speed and up rear derailleurs and those that can only deal with pull ratios of RD up to 9 speed.
Of course RD aren’t speed as such either.
I’m well aware my shifters will deal with any cassettes from 5 speed to 13 speed.
As the LeMond then Lance generations of amatuer racers and serious cycling enthusuasts age and “retire” or start to see the need to do more than just pedal a bike, I see an opening for a nitch of training/coaching that is more wholistic and broader based. Instead of cobbling together a cycling coach, a strength app, a yoga class etc on our own we’d have better more widespread (and afordable . . . ) access to one source (a high end personal trainer or an app) that combines multiple aspects of fitness, nutrition and lifestyle etc rather than a laser focus on one sport.
The foundation of getting faster and better at riding your bike is to ride your bike as much as possible. That’s it. If you rode your bike 20h a week starting as a teenager until your mid 20s, you would likely have an FTP of 5w/kg just like all the pros.
There will continue to be new fads and trends every few years, as there is a large segment of people who are into endurance sports who seek novelty/entertainment from their training as their primary goal, rather than “boring” but consistent training. This won’t change. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with riding for those goals either.
What these fads will be I have no idea, and personally don’t care.
You are referring to “AI coaching.” Yes, this will make structured training more accessible to many people, and will make many people have better plans.
It will not replace “bespoke” coaching. People hate AI tech support, and automated phone menus and answering services. They want a relationship with a human. AI coaching does not provide a human relationship. I don’t feel personally accountable to a text box the same way I feel personally responsible to a coach. The value of a coach is not in creating a training plan.
I suspect we are already pretty close to the final form of what AI to guide training will look like. We have already identified the tasks that this tool is best suited to help with.
Some people like retro, and if you are one of them, more power to you. It isn’t different from being a connoisseur of older cars, vintage hifi equipment and the like, if you find enjoyment in using friction shifters, more power to you!
In the way I use TR, this is definitely the biggest gap in its portfolio. Yes, I have added DialedHealth strength workouts to my calendar, but the two don’t talk to one another. Ditto for nutrition advice.
I don’t think so at all, and for very interesting reasons. Last week I had a discussion with the people from the sports science department at my uni. Part of their job is to take care of Olympic-level athletes in various specific disciplines, i. e. top level.
I was surprised to find out how little we know with scientific certainty, and something like TR’s database could be a gold mine for researchers. Basic questions like “How is super compensation quantitatively expressed in terms of performance?” (This means, I have a description in terms of a model that can make predictions.) I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more surprises in store for us.
Oh, and another surprising thing I was told: many top-level coaches are apparently completely unperturbed by facts and new insights, and instead want to stick with what they have learnt 20 years ago.
