It’s quite more than that. TR system is at the moment heavily based on the workout library, it’s a dumb way to keep growing the system. Being able to process an unstructured ride and evaluate the energy systems at work, in the context of your training plan is big. And I imagine it’s not easy without a model.
4 Likes
AFAIK they also apply to outdoor rides if you associate them with a workout. I do this frequently with endurance rides, I pick one that is closest in terms of TSS, duration and IF.
There is a good share of athletes who do most or all of their riding outdoors when it is warm enough. Or who ride offroad once a week to train their skills, and they wish that the fitness gained or lost during unstructured rides is taken into account when selecting the next workouts.
Now it might be that many (most?) unstructured do not lead to any measurable fitness gains, so most athletes wouldn’t benefit from having their outdoor rides scored.
1 Like
N=1 and all that, but I see my biggest fitness gains once I can get back outside and join the usual group rides. Can reach my highest FTP gains, repeatability goes up signficantly as well as TTE. All stuff I have not been able to achieve inside.
5 Likes
I totally get that. I’m just not certain I think it matters that much to your indoor PLs. Or maybe better said…I’m not sure it matters as much to your indoor PLs as simply knowing how many hours your rode, the IF/TSS, etc., and applying that to the length, intensity, and timing of your next indoor workout.
Same. I do a ton of indoor work through the winter only because I’m forced to. I don’t mind it but much prefer outside and get better outside.
I credit a lot of that just to volume. 90 minutes of Z2 or Z3 on the trainer is insanely boring but 4 hours outside is no problem.
I don’t do any real structure outside. I’ll do some long tempo blocks, and 30/30s, but that’s about it. I get my real gains once the roads are rideable again.
That’s more of a me issue than a TR thing. I don’t think TR could do much for me in that regard.
I honestly don’t care much about outdoor credit. I just do a ramp test every few weeks inside to track myself but that’s about it. The only reason I’m looking forward to V2 is just to avoid doing summer FTP tests.
5 Likes
I fall back to my statement - here’s my reasoning in more detail:
0). Neither Plan Builder nor Adaptive Training actually knows what your performance goal(s) is. Plan Builder is just told what type of events you are doing, and when they happen. It isn’t told what performance (e.g., for a “rolling road race” are you trying to win? If so, what will it take? Is it like La Flèche Wallone and it all comes down to 1 / 5 minute power at the end?) is needed to achieve your goal. Nor does it have the ability to be told “I’m a weekend warrior, all I care about is hanging with my friends on group rides, so just raise my FTP, and I’m willing to plan to raise my FTP over the next 2 years, so build a plan accordingly”. Etc. This is what I mean by no concept of performance. Neither Plan Builder nor Adaptive Training is optimizing for your performance goal(s). Plan Builder puts together a static plan (static in the sense that once the plan blocks are laid out they don’t change) and Adaptive Training only modifies workouts within the confines of these static plan blocks.
1). Adaptive Training ONLY optimizes workouts, and doesn’t change your plan type / plan volume, so it cannot by design be optimizing your performance for your goal. Unless workout compliance is correlated with “performance”. Since Adaptive Training is constrained in what type of adaptations it currently can do within the confines of a plan structure, any “optimizations” it does are local optima
2). You are conflating the capabilities of Adaptive Training (the system that changes workouts in a plan) with Plan Builder (system that lays out the order of plan blocks).
3). Neither system looks at training and can: a). Change the plan volume from Low to Mid or vice versa for example. b). Neither system can look at your training progression and say “well, that base phase didn’t go as planned because you were sick half the time, so instead of moving on from Base to Build, we should redo the plan and do Base again”.
1 Like
Idk what the progressions are based on, but in theory you don’t need more than your baseline current fitness and your time availability, then any plan can optimize for best improvement rate.
0). I get what you are saying, but there is a HUGE gap between “no concept of performance” and the extreme level of “specific performance target” you lay out in your example.
- With your example, I am not aware of ANY app that heads to that finite level of specificity. What you describe seemingly is only possible with a coach from all that I have seen (happy to be shown examples that demonstrate otherwise).
- TR is doing pretty much the same as most other apps and even basic canned plan offerings with a focus on a basic event “profile” and/or focus on particular training training objectives. This sure doesn’t get to people aiming for target time level precision or even “I want to beat my bud”, but they are not “nothing” either.
- To that end, I’d argue how practical it is to even hit the level of specificity you mention for average athletes vs pros and such. It’s just a precision that is not needed in order to point in a proper direction and make gains. I don’t see our fitness as such a discrete level of control or precision that requires what you cover.
1). It WILL cover volume to a degree, as we’ve already covered. But you are correct that it won’t refine beyond the plan phase definition as created via PB or manual addition. Again, I’m not aware of apps that do more than what TR does at a basic level. Shifting you mention falls into a live coach area from what I see.
2). I’m not conflating them. They are both pieces of the overall puzzle and each plays a part at different times. PB and/or manual plan selection relies on the user making some initial selections via target events or training emphasis… yet again like other apps and coaches. AT tweaking along the way still uses the plan foundation, and won’t magically shift focus. But it is easily adjustable by the user at any step along the plan, so it’s not entirely locked either. Just takes effort like other “assisted” training apps.
3). Correct, the volume I mentioned above relates more to setting individual workout duration when appropriate. It does not alter core “volume” in the total number of days/workouts in a plan. That is up to the user to select and adjust as needed (which is quite easy when to do desired, per the TR controls). that is of course, up to the user and not automatic (not that TR ever made that claim).
Pretty much, what I see is that you are talking about stuff that falls much more in line with a live coach. I do think some apps are aiming towards that and offer some elements, but nothing has all that wrapped into a single offering from anything I have seen. And I don’t see anything in TR that has made those claims about what TR offers at this time either.
2 Likes
Cool, thanks for that detail. It goes towards to what I expect a live coach would do. Take the “goal” that is more likely an objective measure of time or even less quantitive aspects like “do better than last time or beat a bud…” and convert it to more of a power/duration aspect that makes perfect sense to me.
That is more specific than TR for sure, but I think that TR is pointing towards that in a more general way with the association to “event types”. They have created unique training plans with particular power and duration “goals” that aren’t clear on our end, but at least focus on training zones and durations in some fashion. Different approaches between these and I can see someone preferring one approach over the other.
1 Like
This all would be good if:
- Platform wasn’t so clunky.
- LTP wasn’t a garbage estimation.
- Changing signature decay wasn’t a nightmare
Old
Believe me I do. Please don’t repeat the party line!….Armando will be proud of you.
I tried extensively last season….How about the silly recommendations to do a 4h ride after you just finished a 5h ride, for the same day!
I’m platform agnostic. They all suck in different ways. There’s a reason Xert is 10 bucks and they can’t pay a mid level developer.
1 Like
This functionality breaks down when you do a hard polarized approach. It has you tired forever. The freshness slider is a hack on top of the original system that is hit or miss.
I think it is clear that TrainerRoad much more polished and with a better user experience than Xert. I love the TR calendar where the workouts are lied out, where you can easily move to fit other commitments. And the fact that I can run the workouts on my Mac and iPhone.
However, there are some nice features that could be integrated into TrainerRoad. Personally I’m a paying customer of TrainerRoad, Xert and TrainingPeaks so I am just trying to use the best features of all.
A nice thing with Xert is that it will assess the training effect of all activities and will suggest previous outdoor rides based on the recommended focus and strain for the day. Also, the concept of smart intervals and mixed mode workouts is really interesting, where the duration of an interval will be adjusted in real time to match the training goal and the effort so far in the interval.
4 Likes
Maybe I’m asking too much, but I’d like some level of analysis of my past training built into Plan Builder so the plan components reflect what “should” work for me (not generically anyone who fills out the plan builder questions the same way) given my training history. E.g., do I do better for base with a traditional base approach vs. a sweet spot vs. a polarized? What active to rest ratio is appropriate for me? What ramp rate is “most” appropriate for me (and this could change by phase)?
5 Likes
I agree that all systems have strengths and weaknesses. One of Xert’s biggest weaknesses is that their end users are unhelpful and condescending. They almost wear it like a badge of pride.
I’ve tried them all (except systm). Stuck with Xert for 3 months, because it’s cheap. I try to learn new things they have to offer to incorporate to my own program. Can’t see myself paying for any of them long term, let alone multiple ones.
If you work with a coach once, you’ll learn a ton forever and you’ll never have to rely on these much less than optimal solutions.
2 Likes
At face value all this things are interesting, but I do question what the value added to performance is.
I do agree with you that a big advantage of Xert over TR is having a model so they can analyze any effort. I also like how the workout creator simulates MPA depletion. It’s really neat.
The conclusion I reached is that, while I liked a lot of the features, they are more in the “entertainment” side of the spectrum
Just had a look at xert, I like the option to have an type of rider goal as well as an event goal. That works a bit better for me in most years as I don’t really have any events planned out (2023 not withstanding).
Plus anything that includes Thomas de Gendt as the description automatically gets extra points from me.
Can’t say it’d move me from TR but in building my yearly plan I would really like this as I could then automatically skip the tapering for the non existent event!
Just downloaded GC. The migration of data from Garmin is cumbersome. But it really is a good practice to actually own your own data and have it in Dropbox.
2 Likes
To help with this I’m willing to be a guinea pig for TR, as I don’t at the moment have any event goals / events I’m signed up to do (my only goal is to get stronger to hang with the Coffee Before Climbs crew on group rides): run me through a bunch of plans / plan sequences / etc. and see how they affect me. I’m sure there are a lot of other TR users who would also agree to be test subjects.
Things for TR to figure out:
- What base is “better” for different cohorts?
- What is the “real” decay rate for PL by Zone - this goes along with my “hate” of the 42 day decay built into CTL and the 7 day built into ATL. Why is this the same for everyone? My gut says the CTL decay is higher the longer you’ve trained / the more total volume you’ve done (e.g., for a pro, the decay is probably a LOT longer than 42 days, while for a noob it is probably a lot shorter than 42 days); same with ATL but in reverse - the longer your training history (more total volume you’ve done) the faster the decay rate is, the shorter your training history the longer the decay rate is - that is, you are affected more by any big rides for a longer period of time.
- What is the “optimal” active to work ratio, and what drives this? For example, it seems strange that Traditional base is 3:1, while Sweet Spot is 5:1. Given that theoretically traditional base workouts should induce less fatigue than Sweet Spot, without any tribal knowledge you would think the active to rest would be flipped.
1 Like