TrainerRoad - Setting the Record Straight

A popular Youtuber recently put out a video with some pretty negative things to say about TrainerRoad. I have no affiliation with them (other than being a long-time customer). This video is in no way sponsored. I just thought it was important to correct some of the claims made in that video.
I'll go in to these topics in depth in future videos, but I wanted to get this video out as soon as possible.

0:07 - Intro
0:35 - Defining the word "intensity"; 3 zone vs 5 zone plan
1:41 - overtraining vs overreaching (functional and nonfunctional) vs burnout
2:32 - pls2halp
2:43 - sweet spot training vs polarized training (and why it's not a fair comparison)
3:16 - Base, Build, and Specialty Phases explained
4:02 - Sweet Spot Base plan explanations (low, mid, and high volume)
5:00 - adding low intensity rides
5:34 - high volume sweet spot, clarifying the intensity issue, and who high volume is for
7:20 - valid criticisms of trainerroad - and how trainerroad is addressing them
8:04 - Ramp test...good? bad? Doesn't matter. It's not the only choice.
8:33 - Bring your own entertainment, and how I get through the rides of different intensities
9:37 - a plug for group workouts
9:50 - takeaways
10:30 - Why TrainerRoad's data on training is good for you
11:22 - wrapup. There was so much more to say.

[rockinrun]

In a 3 zone model both the traditional zone 1 and zone 2 are considered to be zone 1. If I did 5 days of sweet spot in a week I would be wrecked. I’m happy that Dylan Johnson brought this up. It’s definitely a problem in the TR model.

[charlesknapper]

Dylan kills this video with citations and other specific examples. This guy just rambles on with zero examples, probably because his own examples would prove Dylan right.

[Formula]

Something else I haven’t seen brought up here in the comments is that Dylan said both training philosophies will get you results, but which gets better results and is the TR route too much work for too little gain? The only way to know is to try both a sweet spot plan and a polarized plan and see which jives more with your body. TR is popular because it gives someone with no direction, direction, and in that scenario, everyone will see results. But yes, there are multiple roads to get to the same point, it’s just some of them do meander a bit more along the way.
Just the phrase “sweet spot” sells training plans, which probably plays a huge role in why TR does what they do. If TR was known for their “traditional base” plans, they wouldn’t sell. I think discussions like this are healthy for the sport, and I hope TR takes this as a learning opportunity and grows from it.

[StevenBrandesWI]

To be clear, Sweet Spot versus Threshold are not THAT different in intensity. You use the word "very" and in reality, they aren't that much different. Now I know there can be a 10% difference in power, but the argument that Dylan is making is repeated weekly workouts above LT1 (75% of FTP *Not perfect) puts a large stress on your system. Repeat this stress weekly and this is where the problems occur. Even though sweet spot can be recovered from quickly, does not mean that it should be repeated frequently for this reason. Even if TR is separated in Base, Build, Specialty, there is a large amount of work above LT1 in every phase. Also, I'm not here because I'm on Team Dylan and Polarized. Like Chad has said, there is many ways to skin a cat and TR does a great job. I do think that TR can be more open to different models of training as well as changing how they place load and volume in a weekly schedule. I don't believe TR is a bad product, if it was no one would use it. I don't like how Dylan said, "Countless people have talked to me about burnout on TR" which is not a fair statement to make as you mentioned, "burnout" could have been achieved for a variety of reasons. Plus, I would take a guess that many people start with too high of a volume for them. This may or not be TRs fault, but this is a flaw with the product they provide. Overall good video, the first video I've watched of yours.

[bingpitty]

I’m a long TR user, but Dylan is 100% spot on. Your explanation is really weak regarding the zones. Dylan has a very similar training philosophy of that of the elite teams.

[rk]

I've used TrainerRoad for years and I'm here to say that Dylan raises some great points. Back when I first started TR up until recently (about 3 months ago) I've always done high or mid volume plans as this is what is close to what I rode before I started doing trainer rides (I used to do interval training etc outside).

When I did mid to high volume plans on TR, I would frequently not be able to finish workouts and would burn out in 2-3 months and never be able to complete the full plans.

Then 6 months ago I started doing low volume and would add my own rides on top.
With this, I'm able to finish all the workouts (minus maybe one per block if I'm feeling off that day or didn't have enough nutrition / sleep etc), add my own rides on top to ride 8-10 hours a week consistently and still get a lot of benefits of structured training.

So all in all I'd say Dylan makes a good point about mid, high volume plans while low volume plans aren't as bad.
Obviously this is all anecdotal but I do what works for me!

[DavidVanEveren]

I’m a TrainerRoad user (high volume rolling road race plan) and I completely agree with the points you’ve raised here, particularly the difference between sweet spot and threshold intensity and recovery needs. Another issue I had with the video you’re talking about is that it cites research that used a relatively short period for comparing a Polarized training block to other training blocks. However, most training plans run for much longer timeframes, and need to incorporate variations in order to continue stimulating adaptation. I doubt that any training block would be “the best” training plan for an athlete if it was repeated for 6 months or more. That’s why TR plans have a progression from base to build to specialty, ramping the intensity and specificity so that you are optimally prepared for your goal event.

[jefflangford]

In order to have a fact based debate on the topic, you'd need to have counter points that are backed by studies and data. Instead you're just defending the TrainerRoad training plan and leaning on arguing semantics. If you read the numerous studies that have been done on this topic: Neal (2012), Munoz (2014), Stöggl and Sperlich (2014) and Rosenblat and colleagues (J Strength Cond Res 33(12): 3491–3500, 2019) they all show, with data, that using a polarized TID produces better results than using a sweet spot TID. If TrainerRoad has data that suggests otherwise then writing a paper, submitting it to a scientific journal and having it peer reviewed is the best way to further the debate.

[sullybiker]

I'm just getting started on Trainerroad. I like the structure and direction of it. Even doing lv base I would not remotely say it's easy, I am having to push myself and for someone returning to riding after many, many years away it's kind of _a lot_, but nothing worthwhile is easy and I do feel I'm making steady progress.

[ericlehman]

Completely disagree that threshold and sweet spot are very different. They aren't. The adaptations from both are similar as are the energy systems they target. Sweet spot training is low threshold training, especially as TR defines it at 88%-94% of FTP. Threshold as a training zone is usually defined as 91%-105% of FTP and often undergoes day to day fluctuations based on fatigue/stress.

Frank Overton, the dude who popularized sweet spot, says 2-3 sweet spot workouts a week is typical of their plans, and his lower end range of sweet spot at 84% of FTP is significantly lower than TR's. I challenge you to find another plan or coach prescribing nearly 5 days of sweet spot a week for 5 consecutive weeks (week one is 4 not 5 due to a ramp test) like TR does in the SSBHV plan.

[waynesmith]

Dylan is probably sitting back laughing his nuts off, the Cat is right in amongst the Pigeons 🤗

[danmc]

I have used TR for a few years. And, much of Dylan's critique resonates, some doesn't. If do a 6 week base phase, sure I get bump in power and FTP. The second 6 weeks is much harder on my body and mind. And, it is lots of Sweet Spot intervals, with other levels mixed in. Part of this I like. My riding style is one that does not usually involves me easily worling for extended periods in these zones. And they are a weakness. But, I have also had issues because of the workload.

[ProfessorSteez]

What’s your basis for saying Sweet Spot is a very physiologically different? I don’t think there’s any evidence that suggests this. Any intensity below threshold (maximal lactate steady state to be specific) uses the aerobic system. It’s the same mechanism with different levels of stress, but it’s all aerobic nonetheless!

It’s training near threshold, and while you can do it more often it doesn’t mean you can do it every day. As a Cat 1 roadie, I can’t help but facepalm when I look at the HV base plan. It’s way too much intensity for even somebody that is experienced. 2-3 Sweet Spot rides per week is awesome...more than that is absurd. Amateurs should be looking at lengthening their intervals for the 2-3 Sweet Spot sessions instead of doing more total of Sweet Spot sessions.

It’s great that TrainerRoad has people training, but they do miss the mark with some of their plans. The notion that Zone 2 rides are worthless, is worthless. You can’t be an endurance athlete without training your endurance at some point.

[madhatter]

This is good stuff. When I first watched the referenced video I was swayed, but the more I thought about it and looked at what plan builder made for me I've swung back. I'm in the Mid Volume Build right now and it has 3 interval days a week and 2 sweet spot days a week and in the week notes it mentions that you can feel free to swap out the long weekend sweet spot with zone 2 or (like you mention) I also feel free to do shorter recovery ride or take a day off.

[edsassler]

The issue isn’t which training plan is the best, that’s an individual question that hasn’t been addressed (a little hint: people respond to different training, but nobody seems to notice that). The issue is what sells. The sweet spot program exists because of simple logic - “I have limited trining time, I want to make the most of every minute”, so people go as hard as they can, never understanding the value of being rested or the adaptation of much higher intensity work. These are the same people who ask what the average speed of a ride is (back when we had group rides), and never understand when I said it’s not about average speed, it’s about knowing how to hang when it gets really fast.

The real problem is that people assume that what’s in their head is correct - it probably isn’t and you don’t question it enough. Yes, someone on the Internet is wrong, but it’s not everyone else... The other day I had an interesting experience on a ride. An older woman pulled up to me in her car and proceeded to tell me how, where and when to ride my bike. So there I am, dressed for winter riding, out doing my base mileage, asking myself why she would think that she knows enough about cycling to give me advice. There are two possible answers, the first is that I don’t know her, she could be the wisest fitness coach in the world - could happen... The smart money is on her being unaware.

[Inceptor]

U R DA MAN!! Excellent, Excellent granular distinctions!! Good Job!! Thank you.

[waynesmith]

I think the real problem with Trainerroad is the Ramp Test, I know people who are getting burnt out by Low Volume Build Sustained Power, less than 4hrs a week !! I genuinely believe this is due to having the wrong FTP, I reckon it’s quite often as much as 15watts too high, so now I always use .72 instead of .75 this works great for me . Perhaps TR should think about creating a less severe plan for older athletes who just can’t cope with the prescribed increases ?

[brentperez]

I’ve been on TrainerRoad for two years. Started at Mid-volume, burned out. Dropped down to low-volume with some outdoor rides sprinkled in, burned out. Scaled down to low-volume only, burned out. I just don’t think I can sustain three hard workouts in a week. I love TrainerRoad’s User Interface. I love the data collection. I like the workouts. I’m not ready to quit the program. I love the blue blox of pain. If I’m doing VO2 I don’t want no stinking avatar or video game. Just show me how much longer I gots to suffer. However, I’m just disappointed that I never got the gains that I hear others are reporting. I did get somewhat faster but nothing next level, but I’m happy striving to be the tallest Pygmy in my circle of friends. Great video. I think you make a clear case for the TrainerRoad philosophy. I think there is room for discussion. Dylan makes some great points, but I looked at his sample program, and it is has more intensity than my current low volume plan. So, if I’m blowing up on low volume. There really isn’t a good alternative for an old man like me.

[alexlove]

I appreciate the debate and discussion. I would be interested in a closer look at the studies cited in Dylan’s video. You alluded to that at the end but didn’t go there. P.S. I use and like Trainer Road. I tend to use it as a supplement to other things vs. as a complete training plan.

[eltribun]

Gotta be a magician to stay below threshold in 6 days sst in a row when sst + threshold zones are crossing 88-94 % 91-105%, so there IS no big difference, but there IS between Z1 a Z3 and that is why I am able to pull through with POL instead of burning off