I’ve been a long time user of WKO 2.2 and then WKO 3.0 (not Trainingpeaks online) until my computer crashed recently. I can now install WKO 3.0 back or look into more advanced programs like WKO 4 or Golden Cheetah.
I’ve installed Golden Cheetah a few weeks ago, it appears to have many features but there’s a steep learning curve to understand the terminology, create correct inputs for parameters I’m not used to, create custom charts, etc. I assume WKO 4.0 might be a little easier since it’s the next generation of a program I’m much more familiar with.
If you have both or have looked into both, what do you recommend? I consider myself a ‘numbers guy’ - I like to evaluate my data from biking, running (hoping to start including run dynamics soon), swimming etc.
I’ve been a long time user of WKO 2.2 and then WKO 3.0 (not Trainingpeaks online) until my computer crashed recently. I can now install WKO 3.0 back or look into more advanced programs like WKO 4 or Golden Cheetah.
I’ve installed Golden Cheetah a few weeks ago, it appears to have many features but there’s a steep learning curve to understand the terminology, create correct inputs for parameters I’m not used to, create custom charts, etc. I assume WKO 4.0 might be a little easier since it’s the next generation of a program I’m much more familiar with.
If you have both or have looked into both, what do you recommend? I consider myself a ‘numbers guy’ - I like to evaluate my data from biking, running (hoping to start including run dynamics soon), swimming etc.
Obviously I’m biased since I have contributed many ideas (to all three programs, actually), but:
coming from WKO+ 3.0, you’ll be familiar with some of the ideas in WKO4 (e.g., the PMC, the need to set your FTP, the classic training levels), but there are a lot of new things in it as well (see my .sig) with which you’d have to get up to speed (although the FB WKO4 Power Users group is turning into a great resources for that). Navigation around the program is a lot different as well.
if you’re interested in analyzing your running, WKO4 contains some unique charts and metrics that I have created as a result of my consulting gig with Stryd (http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/wko4-new-metrics-for-running-with-power). These are starting to spill over to other places (e.g., Stryd’s own Powercenter), but WKO4 will always be the “pointy tip of the sword.”
the one thing that GoldenCheetahR has going for it is that it is free.
WKO is much more refined, has easy to access graphs and direct integration with TP Online. It feels like a mature product and behaves like one.
GC has a little more under the hood, but it requires a steep learning curve, knowledge of programming, and feels like what it is - a free program that is constantly evolving as the user base develops the software. It has now lost it’s ability to interface with TP Online, if that is important to you.
The old adage of “Cheap, Easy, and Powerful - pick two” applies.
GC has a little more under the hood, but it requires a steep learning curve, knowledge of programming, and feels like what it is - a free program that is constantly evolving as the user base develops the software.
No, GC does not require a knowledge of programming, that’s inaccurate. There are some advanced features that require knowledge of programming, but most of the functionality doesn’t. I’ve used GC almost daily for the last three years and I don’t know diddly squat about programming.
If you can afford both then its not necessarily an either/or decision.
I can say with some authority how GC differs from WKO4, in no particular order:
GC is much more powerful, but much harder to get started.GC code is mature, more stable and crucially, much faster in almost all respectsGC has a more active user community that help newbies get startedGC has over 300 prebuilt metrics, users can also build their ownGC implements proven science like CP, W’, W’bal GC has very powerful analytics e.g. R is embeddedGC will do multi-comparisons of athletes, seasons, activities and intervals in almost all chartsGC has advanced interval discovery (TTE, sustained efforts, bests, hills matches etc)GC chart sharing community via the cloud is a simpler process (upload or download)GC is open, with your data, with algorithms and with codeGC does Aerolab for Virtual Elevation GC plays nice with others, its not in a walled gardenGC gets major functional updates every yearGC supports considerably more devices and file formats, crucially including FIT 2.0 developer fieldsGC runs on Linux, Mac and WindowsGC supports indoor training and an advanced workout editor (which is easy to use) GC is free as in freedom, and free as in beerGC is really used by many well known (and successful) olympic and elite teams and sports scientistsGC development is a collaboration with practitioners and researchers around the world The current priorities for development of the next version are:
Make the UX modern, compelling, engaging and easy, whilst retaining powerful functionalityProvide tools for training planning and tracking incl. Banister/PMC what if modellingIntegration with more cloud applications; e.g. Today’s Plan, SixCycle etc
Mark
GC has a little more under the hood, but it requires a steep learning curve, knowledge of programming, and feels like what it is - a free program that is constantly evolving as the user base develops the software.
No, GC does not require a knowledge of programming, that’s inaccurate. There are some advanced features that require knowledge of programming, but most of the functionality doesn’t. I’ve used GC almost daily for the last three years and I don’t know diddly squat about programming.
If you’re content with what’s in the program, then go ahead and use it as is. If there’s anything specific you want, you need to know how to program in the metrics you want to display - example, the latest release finally has some swim metrics such as stroke cadence, sTSS, etc that were never available in earlier versions unless you programmed them in yourself. The Usergroup is invaluable for helping if you want to go down that route, but it still applies. You don’t need to worry about that with WKO - but you also don’t have the power to do what you want to do either - and that’s where GC shines.
WKO is much more refined, has easy to access graphs and direct integration with TP Online. It feels like a mature product and behaves like one.
GC has a little more under the hood, but it requires a steep learning curve, knowledge of programming, and feels like what it is - a free program that is constantly evolving as the user base develops the software. It has now lost it’s ability to interface with TP Online, if that is important to you.
Please… it’s ok to render an opinion, but not to lie. GoldenCheetah requires knowledge of using a mouse. Not knowledge of programming.
the one thing that GoldenCheetahR has going for it is that it is free.
Does WKO4 do aerodynamics? By saying that the one thing “GoldenCheetahR”, whatever that is, has going for it, you’re implying that there’s nothing else going for it and doing the public a great disservice, Andy.
Your many wonderful contributions to our community do not entitle you to gratuitous insults. You prefer WKO4 and that’s, of course, perfectly fine.
GC has a little more under the hood, but it requires a steep learning curve, knowledge of programming, and feels like what it is - a free program that is constantly evolving as the user base develops the software.
No, GC does not require a knowledge of programming, that’s inaccurate. There are some advanced features that require knowledge of programming, but most of the functionality doesn’t. I’ve used GC almost daily for the last three years and I don’t know diddly squat about programming.
If you’re content with what’s in the program, then go ahead and use it as is. If there’s anything specific you want, you need to know how to program in the metrics you want to display - example, the latest release finally has some swim metrics such as stroke cadence, sTSS, etc that were never available in earlier versions unless you programmed them in yourself. The Usergroup is invaluable for helping if you want to go down that route, but it still applies. You don’t need to worry about that with WKO - but you also don’t have the power to do what you want to do either - and that’s where GC shines.
FWIW, I use GC.
I have absolutely no ill will towards any other program, but you’re still putting out misleading information. GC has something like 300 built in metrics you can use without programming, you need to dig pretty deep with cycling to ever need more and it’s now pretty capable for multisport as well. You’re criticizing a free program that started in the cycling world for not having multisport features in older versions that have now been added? Since when do we judge the current version of software based on past versions?
Thanks everyone for all the thoughts and information - very much appreciated.
I am not computer savvy person and I definitely prefer something that is stable, works and is user friendly. I’ve used WKO for 7 years and am very much used to it (plus, it’s really easy to use) so that is a big benefit. Based on the feedback here it seems WKO4 is the obvious way to go; with all respect for the knowledge and features in Golden Cheetah it feels to me there is value to be closer connected to Andrew Coggan’s work and knowledge through WKO 4, using the tools developed by a leading expert. Not saying that’s maybe not the case with GC but I am just not familiar enough with the origin of many parameters.
I must also say that I cringe from reading the discussion that it requires some computer programming knowledge or even minimal computer insight in order to create custom charts in Golden Cheetah. I’ve played around with the software for a few weeks and found it very non-intuitive. While for some having a user community is a good thing, it sounds like it might just be a recipe to piss me off in record time when I have the wrestle through computer lingo and abbreviations… For me, this is a big factor against GC and despite having used GC for a few weeks I never really got far because just couldn’t find the tools how to get started or even a glossary of all the different parameters to set when creating an account. W’, tau, CP vs FTP… they are new terms and it’s not obvious to figure out what they mean. Point being - I am convinced the program is VERY powerful (which is why I remain interested in it) but some of the discussion here confirms my fears that it might require a lot of effort and learning (and I want something I can use right away, the same way I could use WKO 3.0 as a minimum).
I’ve reinstalled WKO 3.0 for now, I think I will run GC in parallel for a bit and see over the holidays if I found myself interested to figure some features out. But most likely I’ll upgrade to WKO 4.
If you’ve ever dabbled in image editing, WKO is like Photoshop and GC is like Gimp. One is far easier to use than the other.Ha, my experience with image editing is limited to Paint and whatever’s on my iphone.
Just out of curiosity - why the specific limiter to purely desktop apps?
Meaning, have you looked at Training Peaks online? Or even Today’s Plan, Xert, Sport Tracks, and others?I do not like subscription models. They essentially end up being very expensive in the long run without adding anything and I don’t need access to my files from all my devices. Since I’m a garmin user I can see files through Garmin Connect if I have to, but normally all detailed analysis I do at home on my pc…
the one thing that GoldenCheetahR has going for it is that it is free.
Does WKO4 do aerodynamics? By saying that the one thing “GoldenCheetahR”, whatever that is, has going for it, you’re implying that there’s nothing else going for it and doing the public a great disservice, Andy.
Your many wonderful contributions to our community do not entitle you to gratuitous insults. You prefer WKO4 and that’s, of course, perfectly fine.
with all respect for the knowledge and features in Golden Cheetah it feels to me there is value to be closer connected to Andrew Coggan’s work and knowledge through WKO 4, using the tools developed by a leading expert. Not saying that’s maybe not the case with GC but I am just not familiar enough with the origin of many parameters.
I’m sorry but I have to respond to this.
We implement from the scientific literature, concepts that have been around and used by sports scientists for decades. These are the real experts.
I get that a lot of folks don’t understand it, internet forums are full of debates about what FTP is or why CTL of 100 means anything special. The real experts are doing research and publishing papers, not posting on Slowtwtich. Most learn from the TARPM book not from the Journal of Applied Physiology.
And of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, its just such a shame that so many think that’s the beginning and end of it, because there are so many interesting ideas to embrace if you only look over the fence. That will ultimately help you become a better athlete, or coach.
We publish tutorials on the GC website, and there is a primer on the science we use too, to explain concepts like CP and W’. We could do more to educate folks, but it is an uphill battle. I think making GC easier to use will really help users embrace real science.
