Alternative to Trainer Road

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
Lina
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:09 pm

by Lina

cheapvega wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:43 pm
AJS914 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:51 pm
I really doubt there is some conspiracy at TR such that they will train you sub-optimally on purpose. TrainerRoad is a tool and unfortunately regulating training load tends to be nuanced. TR is trying to deliver this to the masses and the middle of the bell curve will do fine. The edge case people will fall off the cliff. Let's also remember that TR originally started off as an indoor training platform but has beening trying to expand into a comprehensive indoor/outdoor training service so they don't lose customers for the 8 months of summer riding.

The low volume TR plans are only 3-4 hours per week. Most people will do just fine on this. It's ok if it's sweet spot. TR's "problem" is people and their notions. Like, many people think more is better. 'If 3 hours of sweet spot are good, 5 or 6 must be better.' 'If sweet spot is good, then threshold is even better.' People will go on and on with their more is better, harder is better thinking.

TR has had a testing problem. Again the problem is people because they don't want to test. A 20 minute test is too hard and it's difficult to pace until you've done it many times. A 2x8min test properly executed is also hard. TR came up with the ramp test which works for the average but under-tests for very aerobic diesel types (probably just fine to have an under-estimated FTP). People with a good anaerobic contribution will over-test. These people will fall off the cliff. Their sweet spot plan is, in reality, a threshold plan and they will eventually burn out.

The flip side of the testing problem is the FTP number problem. People are loath to lower their FTP. If they test at 293, they'll round to 300 so they can tell their friends. Then, they train at 300 and get too much anerobic contribution.

This is all the nuance stuff that is hard to communicate to riders. TR has invented AI/ML 'adaptive training' to combat the edge cases so they don't fall off that cliff. It seems like a complicated way to combat the issue but maybe it sounds sexy and is easier to market?

I'd grant that it wouldn't serve TR to get real with customers. Like, 'if you only want to ride 4 hours per week, you just aren't going to get that good'. Or, 'if you really want to get fast go outside and ride 8 hours of Z2 on top of your 4 hour TR plan.'

Yes, indoor workouts are overly complicated for engagement reasons. That is not a bad thing though. It's not going to hurt. The only problem is people thinking that the complication is doing something extraordinary.

I think one can use a product like TR sucessfully if they self-coach themselves around the nuance. Get the endurance miles in. Don't do extra HIIT workouts on the platform. Don't fall into the FTP number trap - test more frequently and lower the FTP when a solid, longer, test shows it's lower. Insert extra easy weeks as needed and probably more frequently that TR suggests. It's a lot of work to making training science one's hobby and a lot of people just want to be told what to do.
Great post

I am no bike science expert... but TR seems like a great entry course into structured training, though I feel like in the long run people have to make their programs more individual and either know or have someone who knows how to do that

TR kind of follows the trend of selling people on complicated hacks over the simple, effective but boring and difficult strategy of just putting in a lot of hours
That's the problem with every coach that is trying to make a living outside of pro teams/olympic programs/etc. If you tell people to ride as much Z2 as you can and do 1 - 2 higher intensity rides per week no one is going to pay you for that. If you give them an extremely detailed program that will have you doing different length intervals every day at different intensities a lot of people are going to pay for that. Both because it looks complicated so it must be good and because there's lots of high intensity stuff and people want to go hard all the time.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



robertbb
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am

by robertbb

AJS914 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:51 pm
I really doubt there is some conspiracy at TR such that they will train you sub-optimally on purpose. TrainerRoad is a tool and unfortunately regulating training load tends to be nuanced. TR is trying to deliver this to the masses and the middle of the bell curve will do fine. The edge case people will fall off the cliff. Let's also remember that TR originally started off as an indoor training platform but has beening trying to expand into a comprehensive indoor/outdoor training service so they don't lose customers for the 8 months of summer riding.

The low volume TR plans are only 3-4 hours per week. Most people will do just fine on this. It's ok if it's sweet spot. TR's "problem" is people and their notions. Like, many people think more is better. 'If 3 hours of sweet spot are good, 5 or 6 must be better.' 'If sweet spot is good, then threshold is even better.' People will go on and on with their more is better, harder is better thinking.

TR has had a testing problem. Again the problem is people because they don't want to test. A 20 minute test is too hard and it's difficult to pace until you've done it many times. A 2x8min test properly executed is also hard. TR came up with the ramp test which works for the average but under-tests for very aerobic diesel types (probably just fine to have an under-estimated FTP). People with a good anaerobic contribution will over-test. These people will fall off the cliff. Their sweet spot plan is, in reality, a threshold plan and they will eventually burn out.

The flip side of the testing problem is the FTP number problem. People are loath to lower their FTP. If they test at 293, they'll round to 300 so they can tell their friends. Then, they train at 300 and get too much anerobic contribution.

This is all the nuance stuff that is hard to communicate to riders. TR has invented AI/ML 'adaptive training' to combat the edge cases so they don't fall off that cliff. It seems like a complicated way to combat the issue but maybe it sounds sexy and is easier to market?

I'd grant that it wouldn't serve TR to get real with customers. Like, 'if you only want to ride 4 hours per week, you just aren't going to get that good'. Or, 'if you really want to get fast go outside and ride 8 hours of Z2 on top of your 4 hour TR plan.'

Yes, indoor workouts are overly complicated for engagement reasons. That is not a bad thing though. It's not going to hurt. The only problem is people thinking that the complication is doing something extraordinary.

I think one can use a product like TR sucessfully if they self-coach themselves around the nuance. Get the endurance miles in. Don't do extra HIIT workouts on the platform. Don't fall into the FTP number trap - test more frequently and lower the FTP when a solid, longer, test shows it's lower. Insert extra easy weeks as needed and probably more frequently that TR suggests. It's a lot of work to making training science one's hobby and a lot of people just want to be told what to do.
Yep, brilliant post.

RE: the bolded bit, spot on!

TR and others makes all these weird and wacky "shaped" workouts with the target powers all over the place and it looks complicated but it really doesn't need to be. It really comes down to spending the right amount of time, per week, in four major zones (which themselves exist on a blurry sliding scale with varied aerobic and anaerobic contributions.

LanceLegstrong
Posts: 1145
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:35 pm

by LanceLegstrong

cheapvega wrote:
Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:10 am
I took the plunge on WKO5................ but I think I'm gonna stick with GC. Amazingly, GC's interface is more intuitive which is saying something
I tried both over the past two weeks and found the opposite to be true. I had tried WKO4 in the past but couldn't get the hang of it. But WKO5 for me has been so easy to use. Way more intuitive and gave me some awesome insights and analysis. Was hesitant with the pricing so I gave GC another chance as it was confusing the first time and it hasn't gotten any better. I watched tutorial videos and gave it a real effort, but it's so damn clunky IMO. I know it's free, but after using WKO5 I feel like I went back in time to DOS. Took me an hour just to sync workouts from the past month. Gave up in frustration after a week. WKO5 is miles ahead in terms of usability. Wish I could find a discount code but will still probably buy it as it's worth the price for me. That plus Trainerday during the winter is way cheaper the TR.
Specialized Tarmac SL7
Specialized Crux
Velobuild 168
Trek Checkpoint ALR

maxim809
Administrator
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:28 am

by maxim809

I use GC for 2 things only:
1. Splicing, correcting, and exporting specific datasets from .fit files. No interface is perfect but GC's is one of the better ones I've seen.
2. Aerolabs analysis.

Everything else is a mix of WKO5, intervals.icu or plain o'l vanilla Strava.

Also, ASJ's post is very well written. I think TR is run by wonderful people trying to do big things, and I love their interface. In the end, they still have to cater to what their audience wants, and build their features accordingly. Works magic for the healthy middle of the curve, but not always perfect for those on the fringe.

cheapvega
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:12 pm

by cheapvega

Part of my continued use of GC is sunken cost.... I travelled across the galaxy to get rides to automatically go from my Wahoo to GC (via Dropbox. What a nightmare)

I think once I'm able to ride again I will try WKO5 again. The other issue is neither of those programs can run intervals. GC has the functionality but it doesn't work. So I have PerfPro too......... that accepts outside rides but the analysis sucks. It sucks that nobody puts it all together... I'd pay hundreds of dollars to have a TR license. I don't need their fancy workouts or workout builders.

req110
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:23 am

by req110

Hey guys, i am still unclear about this all and i am looking for tool which will

- give me training plan for my desired activity (xc race, 60km/1300m)
- load it directly to my wahoo headunit by autosync
- i am ready to pay some acceptable subscription fee, but not like traningpeaks where you have to pay for TP and then for training plan

What is the best option for me?
SW SL8 RTP 56cm @ 9270 / CLX II / CS OSPW / CEMA BB
SW Epic 8 Satin Carbon L @ XX T-Type / Berg Ratheberg 30 / Quarq / Fox Transfer SL 100mm / 3p SID Ultimate / in the making

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 12443
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

req110 wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 9:04 am
Hey guys, i am still unclear about this all and i am looking for tool which will

- give me training plan for my desired activity (xc race, 60km/1300m)
- load it directly to my wahoo headunit by autosync
- i am ready to pay some acceptable subscription fee, but not like traningpeaks where you have to pay for TP and then for training plan

What is the best option for me?

Probably TrainerRoad.

DirtiousDirte
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:18 pm

by DirtiousDirte

I've been using the Join.cc app for the last few months with good results.

It uses AI etc to plan workouts. What I like the most about it is how you set your availability each week and it works within that constraint. As a busy father of 3 it works for me.

It does not do analysis. It is only for workouts.

Post Reply