Yes, the TR experimental polarized plans look uninspired. Before launching Nate posted something on the forum about making them consistent with Seiler, which I find odd because Seiler isn’t a coach.
3 Likes
narrow focus = positioned as experimental = simple response to customers asking for polarized plan (something is better than nothing)
3 Likes
Well, there’s two sides to your argument:
Yes, youre right, if you only care about quick gains that show on a ramp test, and general gains that you accumulate quickly (but also lose quickly), then you get most of that on TrainerRoad.
If we look at a more holistic approach, then it would be more nuanced if we discuss what it actually takes to build an aerobic base. What consistency is needed, how to get there, different profiles of cyclists etc.
For example, two years ago I had been riding with TR for about a year, not perfect consistency, but consistent enough. Rode Haute Route and whatnot, so wasn’t rubbish. My HR for 220w back then was 183bpm.
Fast forward to today, 1,5 years of consistent training (hey, who knew that too much intensity makes you sick all the time…) and I can ride 235w at around 165bpm, still technically z2. My watts at 183bpm is around 290w.
So yes and no. It depends on how you see it. I see cycling as an endurance sport, and that it should be treated as such.
Yes, a higher FTP will solve a lot of issues. But a high FTP without a good base is like a house with no roof. Looks good from the outside but…
And if it starts to rain, well, then your walls don’t do you so good.
2 Likes
Hendrix said it best, “and so castles made of sand, fall in the sea, eventually”
Hey if you only have 3+ hours/week you gotta do what you gotta do. But 7-8 hours/week? You can lay down a solid foundation in my experience.
6 Likes
Don’t disagree with either of your posts, maybe I was misunderstood or didn’t explain correctly.
I know what you are saying is true, but I also look at tangible results for whichever event I am trying to do. Its all fine and dandy to say you’re stronger and can hold Z2 at a lower heart rate, burn less sugar, etc.
Is it translating into results? That doesn’t have to be a race, although it could be. It could mean your goal was to finish group rides or centuries without being destroyed. Or it could be to place well in your local races. I think this is really the metric of the training plans that we need to look at: are we accomplishing our intended goal with the training?
3 Likes
Yes. And I’m not sure why you are even questioning it.
1 Like
Woah, I’m not questioning you, I am just speaking in general to get your views about it as I enjoy discussion and learning…
2 Likes
Chad refers to something called “brittle fitness” or what I call “surface fitness”…you can build it up somehwat quickly by focusing on internvals, etc. but you lack the depth of fitness for sustained performance.
I like to use Jan Ullrich as an example of this…every year he had to rush his fitness but would always have one “jour sans” in the Tour because he lacked a proper base. Sure, he “got fit” bu July, but it was sustainable for 3 weeks.
1 Like
To be fair, TR has advertised doing this again and again and again. It is just that (1) you’d have to have been in the TR universe for a while and (2) have the experience to know better. It is not illogical if people merely choose training plans based on how much they want to ride each week.
This is a difficult problem to solve in software. If you have a coach, then this is solved by you trusting the coach: they recommend and/or change the training volume and composition based on their impression of you (and depending on your goals, etc.).
But TrainNow doesn’t have a progression over a long period built in. I can see a lot of use in allowing users to create a training schedule for an entire season with the right amount and number of days with intensity and endurance work. Yes, I could start with a LV plan and painstakingly add endurance workouts or schedule outdoor rides on the other days. But that’s what computers are for, to automate dumb, boring tasks.
Yes, but I can easily look at the square above, see that last week I did VO2 workout with 62 TSS on Tuesday, and choose a similar workout with 75 TSS this Tuesday.
1 Like
Just one word of caution: I would not call TR’s approach “not wholistic”, it is all about how you use TR. TR does have three approaches to base training built in, traditional base, sweet spot base and polarized, all at different volumes. And you can adapt and customize training plans — which is something that most advanced users do and is intended by design.
With coaches you outsource part of the decision-making process to someone with expertise and experience, something you have to do yourself with TR. To me that is the essential difference.
I’d be careful with drawing too many conclusions from anecdata: in the same period I improved substantially with TR’s plans. Your problem was that you couldn’t recover from the amount of intensity that you chose. You rectified that and were more consistent, which led to larger gains.
That’s assuming everyone needs to work as much on the foundation as others. I don’t think a one-size-fits-all approach works for all of us (yes, I realize that this applies to TR as well, see my posts above 
).
But there is still no periodization and progression built into. It doesn’t take races and events into account, training periods, etc. IMHO that makes a big, big difference.
2 Likes
But for me I think this is where goals come in. What is the intent? I won’t say there is no need for periodization without a specific goal, but I will say your specific goal will drive your periodization.
If one is simply looking for fitness gains across the board, I think using train now is valid, as long as you account for recovery weeks and you balance your systems yourself.
What does train now take into account? Does it account for your current systems? Or do you select the workout based on which system you want to bring up? I know you CAN select, but it also gives a recommendation. Is that recommendation based on your past history?
1 Like
Agreed.
I think TrainNow is great for people who either don’t yet know what periodized training is or for people who decide against following a plan (at least at that point in time).
I think there is just a need for lower intensity plans. @Nate_Pearson has mentioned that they are thinking about relabeling training plans and creating a new sub-low-volume tier. That makes a lot of sense. Although perhaps they are just waiting until they can revamp Plan Builder in a more comprehensive fashion.
I think so. However, keep in mind that with TrainNow the athlete has the choice of what kind of workout they want to do, so even if it were to follow some training plan internally, the user can easily override them and throw all sorts of monkey wrenches into the works.
1 Like
That is definitely fair. I’m brand new to TR and structured training since February this year, but I’ve had time to listen to lots of podcats, read lots of blogs and read lots of topics in this forum to try to fast track myself some experience. No complaints from me, but not everyone will have that time.
And, of course, there’s still the possibility that I’m actually messing it up and I just haven’t found out yet. 
1 Like
Good idea. Same here, I would love to just pay for it as the tool to do my TrainingPeaks workouts in, don’t need anything else really.
I do prefer the UI of TR compared to Zwift when it comes to intervals and whatnot.
3 Likes
That’d be so great. One of the biggest points of Trainerroad for me is simply the Windows/iOS app to control my trainer and execute workouts from Trainingpeaks.
Without using the plans it would be too expensive vs. other options out there (eg Trainerday or simply Garmin head unit) but for a reduced price, I’d happily keep on using Trainerroad just for this.
4 Likes
I’ve also (for years) heard them highlight the importance of base. Actually normally saying following the full cycle of base-build-speciality
1 Like
True, but with age, recovery tends to become harder. I can handle 3 hard sessions per week, and I am 41, but I don’t think everybody is the same. I’m just arguing that TR should be a bit more flexible here.
Weirdly enough, I need two days off the bike. I can add endurance workouts after hard workouts (if I have the time and it doesn’t compromise sleep), but I cannot handle 6 workouts a week, even if the additional (Friday) workout is an easy endurance ride 
1 Like
Yes, but TR base is very very different from proper aerobic base. They do have the traditional base plans, but very few seems to use them.
Hence why the best this is to spread out the riding intensity a bit more.
Even if you only have 5 hour a week, doing 1 hard ride (V02 Max), one mid intensity ride (tempo or such), and then for the rest of the hours, try getting in one 3hr z2 ride, or two 90min z2 rides. To build that “proper” base.
1 Like
I agree about flexibility. I hope AT becomes clever enough to replace the Low/Mid/High volumes choice but I doubt it, people will still have to choose.
I’m 52 and have found the biggest gains when training 6 days / week with a recovery ride on the 7th day. I use Mid Vol and on Friday add a 1hr endurance and then on Monday a 30min recovery ride. Only on the recovery weeks do I take the Fridays / Monday’s off.
Everybody’s different, if using online training there is a need to experiement a little to see what works, rather than blindly following what the plan says.
3 Likes