I agree on that. I usually modify the runs and on the swim days I would just do the local masters workouts

---

Matt

TR is essentially two things; the platform and the plans. TR seems to think of themselves as a training plan company first, with the platform there to support those plans. And they have a lot of conviction in the underlying training philosophies of their plans. But a lot of customers and/or potential customers see TR the other way around; an amazing training platform, but one with a fairly narrow scope of training plans that may be partially or completely at odds with how they'd like to train.

If there's a never-ending stream of requests for "Poarized" (i.e. "80/20") plans, maybe they should, you know, consider giving the paying customers what they'd like to buy instead of getting salty about it. It gets contentious largely because TR appears to steadfastly refuse to even consider accommodate customer's wishes for this, despite a seemingly obvious demand. It's like they take the suggestion that their current training plans may not be the best as a personal insult. Instead, they should take it as a compliment that people like the outstanding training platform they've built so much that they'll keep paying ~$200/year for it even if they have to write their own workouts and/or plans to use it. Continuing to ignore those folks, however, only makes them more restless and begrudging users; ones who talk down the product despite using it and who will jump ship at the first sign of a viable alternative. Accommodating them could turn them into the enthusiastic evangelists who would bring more like-minded users to into the fold.


If TR had any balls, they'd hire an accomplished 80/20 coach to write a series of plans, install them, let that coach play the foil on the podcasts, and use the user data from their enormous customer base to analyze the relative effectiveness of the competing philosophies with a dataset that absolutely dwarfs that of any previous studies.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

Oof. You motivated me to check out those forums, and they're pretty bad. This place occasionally goes off the rails a bit, but is the Letters of the Royal Society compared to those forums.

Tried it. The TR model is not unscientific, it is counterscientific. There are many valid models out there, trainierroad ist not one of them. There is a certain relation between efforts and Trainerroad throws that all out of the window and lets you - on the high volume plan, ride 5 Zone 4 efforts (because their so called sweet spot is in fact Zone 4 - subthreshold in most models) out of six workouts per week. This is simple not sustainable training (except if you are a 20 hour per week rider who can only ride 10 for a while, than it might work ... for a while).

If you do a pyramid model, read the forum posts by Michelle Ferrari, 40% medio but medio being 85% not 90-95% of FTP. And limit Soglia work (90-100% FTP in Michele Ferraris world) to 40 minutes per week. Which leaves more than 50% for lento and L-Lento. 55% Lento and L-Lento - 40% Medio @85% and 5% Soglia. And Sweet Spot belongs mainly into the soglia category.

TR is a short term fix, the intensity is too high for long term development. Being tough for being tough sake is easy, just do 400 windsprints and 100 burpees, throw up and repeat. You get fit for a few weeks and then burn out. About the FTP estimation ... 75% of the max. 1 min power is not FTP. It overestimates FTP mostly which makes intensity in the upcoming training even higher.

I don't understand what is amazing about their training platform? It's super basic and non-engaging, the thing people like about TR is its training plan structures to follow, for those not confident/knowledgeable enough to write their own training. Its the exact opposite of Zwift which is super engaging but doesnt really have the greatest set up with pre-written structured plans; why they havent sorted this I dont know, but im happy doing my own sessions regardless.

I understand the TR sweetspot bias for the majority of people/users, it makes sense. But I dont know why they basically pigeon hole themselves with it, as developing other models of training plan would be an easy investment for them and give users more pre-written structured choices to pick what suits them. Granted with an "80/20" style of training its pretty hard to get wrong, so they probably figure people could put these together by themselves with workouts which already exist in their platform.

---

@the.lazy.triathlete

https://www.strava.com/athletes/18691068

As for why TR just doesn’t put up the plans and let users decide, polarized plans aren’t the only things people ask for. For a bit, some people were adamant that TR introduce something between mid and high volume and low and mid volume, so basically 2x whatever number of plans TR has just because folks want everything served on a silver platter as opposed to adding or subtracting rides from existing plans. I think the more variation they introduce, the more user confusion it creates, you certainly want variation, but at least prior to plan builder, and even with plan builder in place, there’s a lot of analysis paralysis. Having polarized added on, I think it would create a lot of that. Also, the thing that has never been super clear to me is where does polarized fit in the scheme of periodization, is it base or something else? I’m sure there are answers, I’ve just never sought them.

Full disclosure, I do SSb HV, I’ve done it 3 times in the past year and I really enjoy that phase and in my mind a well trained cyclist should be able to handle most of the progression without being overly fatigued. At least for me, I don’t really start to feel it until week 5 in SSB2, and by then one should feel some level of fatigue after 12 weeks of training. And I feel Dylan and those who are applauding his video are using some pretty weak research as some type of definitive proof of one thing being better than the other. Anyhow, that’s my TR fan rant.

Just listened to the Feb 25 TR "Ask a Cycling Coach" podcast. Doesn't sound like they're bringing in another coach, but they are installing a polarized plan option very soon.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

You need to get up to date and listen to the podcast that came out yesterday (March 11). They take a really close look at the science. What polarized means, (vs Polarized capital P) how TR plans compare on a polarization index, and a lot of other stuff
Worth watching

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I'll get to that soon enough, and I assume it will be interesting. What will be more interesting to me is to see what happens when the AI starts steering the plans. Will there be some sort of convergence?

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

well, I spoke too soon. There was a math error on a chart they used which calculated the polarization index of the TR plans, so it's been pulled from Youtube and they're revising it. Hopefully back up soon, I'll rewatch. I don't think that error significantly changes the discussion, since they aren't really claiming to have Polarized (capital P) training plans, just that their plans aren't just threshold, completely non-polarized.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Honestly, I think a huge part of their popularity has nothing to do with the quality of their plans nor whatever special sauce they claim is in their plans.

It's CONVENIENCE many folks.

Trainerroad runs on everything. Old 2000-windows XP computer? No problem. ANdroid $150 phone? No problem. And it runs without hiccup once it's booted on those phones - because it doesn't take much to show a graph.

Zwift on the other hand, really requires a hardware investment, which is a real barrier to quick adoption (even if it's not a big barrier.) Nearly 100% of the folks here who criticize Zwift and say 'meh' go radio-silent when they're asked about their Zwift setup - because it likely sucks. Running on on an old computer where it's jittery, or an old tablet where you get poor resolution,etc. And you can't run in on an Android phone or older iphones. (I still find it remarkable that I can run Zwift on my iphone, pretty well, and airstream it to my TV!)

I used TR for awhile, simply because there was nothing else out there. Even now, if you don't use Zwift, options are limited for erg-based training with good, recognized plans, although the competition is ramping up for sure with more options showing up.

I've mentioned before, but will reiterate again though - triathletes are a far afterthought for TR. Their tri plans will lead mostly to heavy burnout, especially in the Oly-sprint plans, and they haven't been updated for many years, nor even discussed meaningfully. Doing a pure cycling plan and adding swim+run can work for some, but I'll bet for most folks who try that and do it just like TR with a legit FTP test, with get burned out after several months, just like I did. And again, that wasn't a matter of me ignoring all the red flags and refusing to dial it back - the plan was simply broken. You'll know after you kill yourself to survive through the build and look at the next phase, and just say 'No f-in way', and call it quits.

But yeah, TR is super convenient. It wins the multiplatform battle handily, delivering the same quality platform to a Windows-xP computer or a $150 android phone compared to a full fledged desktop computer. Which often makes it the first choice for folks trying out indoor training options, or folks who aren't interested in spending more than $100 for indoor training. (Yeah, I was that guy for awhile.)

We all know how you found the TR tri plans too hard, and maybe they are, but that falls into anecdote.

Perhaps they are truly neglecting the triathlon plans, and really have never made any changes to them, etc. but, TR has the completion data, by workout and by plan, and from their comments on the podcast and their forum, they actively look at that completion data and failure rates. Assuming that they are doing that for the triathlon plans (bearing in mind that they could only see indoor rides until recently, and I think they still can only see cycling activities (indoor and outdoor workouts), then I'm not sure that you can extrapolate your experience to the entire athlete pool.

I fall more into the mindset that the plan cannot stand alone from the individual. i.e. there's no such thing as a bad plan, but there can be plans that are not suited for me, or for you. Much the same way that I wouldn't advise a brand-new, adult onset swimmer to do the same workouts that I would do, and vice versa.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Well, we'll have to disagree. I've just seen too much AND I have actually DONE the plans (more than several cycles) - I'm pretty experienced in tri and endurance sports now, so I know a loco plan now when I see and feel it.

There is absolutely a bad plan. If you're on a plan and you're significantly altering it week after week, and going backwards instead of forwards, that's a bad plan, at least bad for you. The entire point of the TR 'customized by your FTP' plan is that you have to mess with it LESS and place more trust in the plan. Otherwise, why are you paying them for a plan that you're not even going to trust enough to follow?

Again, I would place zero stock in them talking about completion rates for their tri plans. Even if they did, they've made zero effort in even making a single change to them. It's so freaking easy to do! Just one change! But no.

Again, it's different if you are a pure cyclist. They pay a LOT of attention to that. My comments don't apply for those approaching it as a pure cyclist or who arent' intending to train significant amounts for run/swim.

Hard pass.

right, it's a bad plan FOR YOU... but it's the right plan for someone.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I'll bet that someone is almost impossible to find. Seriously, if it worked so well for sprint-Oly tris, this forum and thread would be overrun with people saying how great it was and sharing their awesome results, as TR is one of the most popular platforms.


And you don't even want to know how man different plans I've used over the past 10 years of tri. It's definitely in the double digits. ALL of them 'worked' even the free ones on the internet, and yeah, I had to minorly manage them to make them work for me, but they did. My USAT score went up pretty much continuously over 7 years with all those plans.

The ONLY one that crushed me so bad I had no hope of even doing the race build entire block was TR. In retrospect, the reason is stunningly clear, and I more than suspected it would happen going in, but in the mellower base phase things were going well so I placed my trust in it. And then build, things start going south....and yeah, my race sucked too. Best bike split in my Olys by about 30 seconds, and gave back many multiples of that on the swim and run. Never again!

I really think this is key. Two years ago, pre Kona they had interviews with Kona athletes who used their TR plans. I can't remember how many interviews, but almost everyone of them used the low volume plan. At first glance it's like "man TR is awesome, the low volume plan can get you to Kona", but listening to them, they basically just used the low volume plans for the structured "hard" days and then put their own big volume Z2 stuff in on their own. So not really using the TR plans, but rather using the platform for their workouts. Or maybe that's a little harsh, but using the progression of the plans, which happens for sure. 3x12's, to 3x15's, to 3x20's, etc.

I just know that when I try and follow a TR plan (starting with base) I start to dislike the bike after a couple weeks. For me it is just too much moderate intensity too often. Knowing you need to go "kinda hard" for every workout just wears on you, and I think the talk about the autonomic nervous system and stuff is really the key to this "fatigue".

Here's what I want from TR (obviously I have no right to demand anything, but I'd love to see it): I'd like data on the number/percent of people who followed a full 24+ week plan (base/build/specialty) and hit 80%+ of the prescribed workouts vs. those who quit and where they quit. Then for those that completed them I want to know their performance gains and how much extra (beyond the plan) work they did.

---

USAT Level 1 Coach
Team Next Level
http://goteamnltri.com/

@gregkeller

100% agree.

I actually suspect strongly that the 'success' of the athletes using the IM plan is precisely because they are NOT using TR for their long days, which makes up quite a substantial amount of training, and in fact, I recall on that podcast as well, those Kona-qualified athletes loved TR on interval days, but did their own thing for the most part on everything else - run, swim, and almost all non-interval bike days.

Also agree that yes, all those hard intervals in TR get you quick results fast, which is quite appealing and may make people new to it rave about it, but ask them again 3 months in, and I'll bet they hate the bike like I (we) did. That's a bad place to be, not only physically, but mentally.

And maybe that's what they want you to do, but I don't think they market it as that. For example, I just looked at an olympic tri build plan (low volume), there are 7 workouts and 6 are threshold or above. There is a "base run", but everything else has Threshold or VO2max in the title. Now, if we forget about the swim (which I think there might be some merit to, I can certainly handle more swim intensity than the other disciplines), there are two hard bikes, one hard run, and a long run. Everything (minus swim) adds up to 3:38 minutes. If I was an athlete who can handle ~ 8-10 hours a week, then this week with 5-7 hours of extra zone 1 (below LT1) would probably be ok, and I bet the % of intensity would fall within pretty standard ranges. I think where TR gets in trouble, or more accurately athletes trying to follow TR plans get in trouble is they say, oh, 3:38 minutes can't be enough training, I better do the mid volume plan. Or they are new to structured training, and are like, cool, I'll get in shape on 3:38, and every day is a slog of threshold or VO2 work which takes a ton of mental energy. No one should completely slog themselves on every workout they do.

---

USAT Level 1 Coach
Team Next Level
http://goteamnltri.com/

It is all finding what works for you.

I switch back and forth from coached and TR plans depending on my mood, plans, desires and lack of logic at times.

I thrive on TR plans for cycling. I don't think they have enough swimming and easy running, but the bike is good.

When I use a 80/20 plan, my FTP is like 320/330.

When I use SS training in TR, I am more like 360 or so. I race much, much faster on TR plans for the bike than on 80/20 polarized style.

I think @lightheir's take is tough but fair.


This is exactly my plan for the later part of this season (if there is a season). As a veteran of several TR tri plans (completed to varying degrees and with varying results) I know I can handle two hard bikes a week, and the runs in the TR plans aren't that hard anyway. In fact, Mikael Eriksson's 70.3 plan I'm on right now has two hard bikes a week (e.g. a sweet spot session and a long bike with substantial sweet spot, threshold or tempo work embedded in it).

---

"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden

DJ must have a ton of real estate in the heads over at TR, they just released another video on polarized.

I’m not complaining I like the content

I only skipped through it, but correct me if Im wrong, they were looking at the results of a study with a duration of a whopping 6 weeks of polarized training vs SST?
Does anyone really expect to see the same magnitude of adaptation after 6 wks of polarized vs 6 wks of SST?

To be honest, I didnt even wait to hear the results of the study and their take on it (which I can already guess anyway)

With they would get back to reviewing other studies that may be applicable to endurance athletes rather than trying to justify their methodology

From memory they say that with one exception their plans are pyramidal as opposed to just being SST.

And this is where we get back to the business model. I'd reckon that most consumers are trying out TR for either a season or for a few weeks vs the competition. Most athletes are likely to be evaluating plans over these short 6 or 12 week durations - either the plan worked or not and will keep with TR or move on after that time. Either FTP increased or it didn't in the short term.

There is therefore the incentive to emphasize plans that work in the short term at the expense of long term athlete development. Note that this applies to all plans/platforms and is likely why, imo, most plans everywhere are probably full of way too much intensity.

(There's also the athlete expectation that a plan will work you hard in order to see improvements, but that's another matter)

This whole discussion may now be about history more than anything else.

Aside from testing its adaptive training on a handful of beta users (on which we have another thread here in ST), Trainerroad have changed up their training plans, including tri plans.

Hope posting a link to another forum here is fine:
https://www.trainerroad.com/...training-plans/55537

---

"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden