Just how personalised are Trainerroad's plans?

cowboyjon

Just how personalised are these plans?

For example, I am currently doing a general build plan.Is the software analysing my performance and heart rate with each completed session and adjusting the power levels, interval lengths and recovery periods for the next session? Is it keeping track of accumulated stress from session to session and adjusting the next session to suit?

Or is the entire thing based solely on whatever ftp value entered in the software and things like heart rate and accumulated fatigue are not factored into anything?

joey54321

It's 100% based on FTP, they never advertise or claim to be doing anything else.

Bordersroadie

cowboyjon wrote:

Or is the entire thing based solely on whatever ftp value entered in the software and things like heart rate and accumulated fatigue are not factored into anything?

Despite your rather negative preconceptions, you would find that if you committed to a TR plan for a winter it is very likely to be extremely effective at making you a faster rider, if that is, indeed, what you want.

For around £10 a month it is astoundingly good value. The workout library is vast, the calendar and training menu system superb and it is supported by a great community (podcasts, forum, FB page) that gives direct access to those that run the company, at a level I have not seen for any other.

They are responsive to user feedback and develop and launch bug-free developments at a good pace but while staying true to their ethos of keeping it simple and effective for those of us that just want a proven, effective training tool but don't want any superfluous features like audio visual entertainment or arcade-game interactions.

If you want more bells and whistles, whatever they are to you, then there are other options available, not least The Sufferfest and Zwift. All three are excellent at what they do but some people want the efficient, effective simplicity that TrainerRoad offers.

cowboyjon

Bordersroadie wrote:

cowboyjon wrote:

Or is the entire thing based solely on whatever ftp value entered in the software and things like heart rate and accumulated fatigue are not factored into anything?

Despite your rather negative preconceptions, you would find that if you committed to a TR plan for a winter it is very likely to be extremely effective at making you a faster rider, if that is, indeed, what you want.

For around £10 a month it is astoundingly good value. The workout library is vast, the calendar and training menu system superb and it is supported by a great community (podcasts, forum, FB page) that gives direct access to those that run the company, at a level I have not seen for any other.

They are responsive to user feedback and develop and launch bug-free developments at a good pace but while staying true to their ethos of keeping it simple and effective for those of us that just want a proven, effective training tool but don't want any superfluous features like audio visual entertainment or arcade-game interactions.

If you want more bells and whistles, whatever they are to you, then there are other options available, not least The Sufferfest and Zwift. All three are excellent at what they do but some people want the efficient, effective simplicity that TrainerRoad offers.

Sheesh.

I mean, thanks for taking the time to write a somewhat passive aggressive sales blurb and all but it really wasn't needed or even relevant to the original question.

bsharp77

None of the big 3 (TR, Zwift, Sufferfest) offer adaptive training......yet.

One of the main ones mentioned if you want it now is Xert. I haven't used it, but apparently the technology is solid, however its not as user friendly or polished compared to the big training platforms.

It would make sense that this will eventually filter into the big 3, once the technology has evolved to a point where they can deploy it all in the background without the user having to worry about anything other than getting on with what the program is telling them to do.

Having used all 3 of the programs mentioned above, FTP based training has given me more than enough gains to make me very happy (TR would be my pick for pure results), however i'm all in favour of moving things forward to make training as productive as possible.

joe_totale-2

TR is effective and it's what I use, it works with my set up. I don't have any Apple devices and my Android phone doesn't support Zwift so I'm stuck with it. Also have no power source in the garage although my smart trainer is one of the few that doesn't need one.

I wish they could make it a bit more interesting/interactive, it is just watching a graph!

cougie

I didn't see any negative preconceptions in the ops message.

I really enjoyed my time on Traineroad and my FTP did increase using their plans.

Now I'm not really training fur anything I'm using Zwift and just doing what I fancy. It's not as effective as TR plans but it's easier to make myself do it.

wongataa

Joe Totale wrote:

I wish they could make it a bit more interesting/interactive, it is just watching a graph!

I like this about Trainerroad. I don't need fancy graphics, just a layout of the workout and what the metrics are.

joey54321

Me too, I like that there are few distractions, I can just focus on me and the effort.

cowboyjon

Thanks for the replies lads.

I understand now that it is solely ftp based. I'm not denying the validity of such training at all, I'm just a touch surprised that is the case.

You'd think that with all the information the software is receiving from the user - age, weight, power output, heart rate, all over a span of sessions, that it would be more than plausible of monitoring and adjusting for over-training or even just tailoring the next workout to suit your apparent recent physical algorithms.

Before I get jumped on I'm aware other factors like sleep and nutrition play a huge factor but these could be added into the software pretty easily.

Please understand I'm not attacking trainerroad as I am a happy user myself and have improved as a cyclist because of it.

joey54321

I think all that would be very difficult to do, and TR aren't a rich company that can invest a significant amount in that sort of AI without backing. It'll come, I'm sure, but that's all pretty new science and it's expensive to be at the pointy end of it.

StillGoing

bsharp77 wrote:

None of the big 3 (TR, Zwift, Sufferfest) offer adaptive training......yet.

One of the main ones mentioned if you want it now is Xert. I haven't used it, but apparently the technology is solid, however its not as user friendly or polished compared to the big training platforms.

It would make sense that this will eventually filter into the big 3, once the technology has evolved to a point where they can deploy it all in the background without the user having to worry about anything other than getting on with what the program is telling them to do.

Having used all 3 of the programs mentioned above, FTP based training has given me more than enough gains to make me very happy (TR would be my pick for pure results), however i'm all in favour of moving things forward to make training as productive as possible.

Sufferfest would argue with that. The whole idea of 4DP is to assess what type of rider you are based on the results of your test and then gear the training programs against your rider profile. A climber and a sprinter could do the same workout in name only, with the various peaks and intervals set completely different based on the results of their 5s, 5m 20m & 1m results. Whether people believe the hype or not, it would appear to offer a more individually programmed workout than one based solely on FTP. I like TrainerRoad for its simplicity and the fact that it actually works unlike some platforms. I also like Sufferfest for the sheer insanity of their video and music accompaniment. What neither have, is the ability to ride self created routes which I find useful. Thankfully TACX (now Garmin) and Rouvy cater for that.

bsharp77

philthy3 wrote:

bsharp77 wrote:

None of the big 3 (TR, Zwift, Sufferfest) offer adaptive training......yet.

One of the main ones mentioned if you want it now is Xert. I haven't used it, but apparently the technology is solid, however its not as user friendly or polished compared to the big training platforms.

It would make sense that this will eventually filter into the big 3, once the technology has evolved to a point where they can deploy it all in the background without the user having to worry about anything other than getting on with what the program is telling them to do.

Having used all 3 of the programs mentioned above, FTP based training has given me more than enough gains to make me very happy (TR would be my pick for pure results), however i'm all in favour of moving things forward to make training as productive as possible.

Sufferfest would argue with that. The whole idea of 4DP is to assess what type of rider you are based on the results of your test and then gear the training programs against your rider profile. A climber and a sprinter could do the same workout in name only, with the various peaks and intervals set completely different based on the results of their 5s, 5m 20m & 1m results. Whether people believe the hype or not, it would appear to offer a more individually programmed workout than one based solely on FTP. I like TrainerRoad for its simplicity and the fact that it actually works unlike some platforms. I also like Sufferfest for the sheer insanity of their video and music accompaniment. What neither have, is the ability to ride self created routes which I find useful. Thankfully TACX (now Garmin) and Rouvy cater for that.

I take your point that SF may technically be more "adapted" based on extra power criteria during the 4DP test, but the training is definitely not "adaptive" as asked by the OP (i.e: it doesn't adapt workouts based on your performance during previous workouts, or based on your current TSS load for the week etc.)

Theres been a huge amount of discussion about the merits of 4DP - I used it for a while, for me the biggest problem with SF is the lack of built in training plans - thats where TR have it absolutely nailed. Not only do they have the best range of plans, but of you are time crunched one day, you can choose a shorter variant of the same workout, or longer if you have more time.

What I really like about SF is how they have integrated strength training and yoga - these are really beneficial and having them as part of the one ecosystem is a very cool thing to have done. They seem to be progressing at a fast rate these days, what with all the new updates including no video mode....if they can nail the training plans then I would seriously consider switching back from TR.

All the new features can only be good for us the consumer as it pushes things forward, and true adaptive training, presented in an easy to use format is surely a goal for most of the big companies.

joey54321

Yeah, I wouldn't call SF adaptive. They just take more data points during an initial assessment.

pamplemoose

cowboyjon wrote:

Thanks for the replies lads.

I understand now that it is solely ftp based. I'm not denying the validity of such training at all, I'm just a touch surprised that is the case.

You'd think that with all the information the software is receiving from the user - age, weight, power output, heart rate, all over a span of sessions, that it would be more than plausible of monitoring and adjusting for over-training or even just tailoring the next workout to suit your apparent recent physical algorithms.

Before I get jumped on I'm aware other factors like sleep and nutrition play a huge factor but these could be added into the software pretty easily.

Please understand I'm not attacking trainerroad as I am a happy user myself and have improved as a cyclist because of it.

From reading the TR forums and following the podcast they do, it seems like they're actively working on plans that will adapt to the user without having to do regular FTP tests. They've said plenty of times that they're developing features based on all the data they collect anyway...

Tom Dean

If you’re following the plan there’s no measure of performance unless you fail a session, and TSS is predetermined.

The personalisation is in first choosing the right plan, then recognising when it’s either too hard or if you can handle more.

bsharp77

Tom Dean wrote:

If you’re following the plan there’s no measure of performance unless you fail a session, and TSS is predetermined.

The personalisation is in first choosing the right plan, then recognising when it’s either too hard or if you can handle more.

You complete the ramp test first (or other FTP test), then your plan's intensity is set to what you can handle based on your FTP. If you think its too hard, or could handle more on a regular basis, then you haven't tested properly in the first place.

Your measure of performance comes by completing a training plan, then doing the FTP test again.
All being well, you will have a higher figure which is then taken used to set the intensity for your next plan and hence the "cycle" of improvement continues....

Theres no rocket science in there at the minute, just good solid training plans that work. It will be interesting to see what they do to bring it to the next level in terms of AI for adaptation.

joey54321

bsharp77 wrote:

You complete the ramp test first (or other FTP test), then your plan's intensity is set to what you can handle based on your FTP. If you think its too hard, or could handle more on a regular basis, then you haven't tested properly in the first place.

Your measure of performance comes by completing a training plan, then doing the FTP test again.
All being well, you will have a higher figure which is then taken used to set the intensity for your next plan and hence the "cycle" of improvement continues....

Theres no rocket science in there at the minute, just good solid training plans that work. It will be interesting to see what they do to bring it to the next level in terms of AI for adaptation.

That is a lot of faith you put in a single test, as well as the assumption that everyone gets stronger/fatigues at the same right through 8-10 weeks of intense training. I know for a fact that, despite testing properly, I can't do some of the workouts at 100%, whereas others are right on. This goes back to sufferfests 4DP style test, a single test cant tell you how you produce that power/result.

Tom Dean

bsharp77 wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

If you’re following the plan there’s no measure of performance unless you fail a session, and TSS is predetermined.

The personalisation is in first choosing the right plan, then recognising when it’s either too hard or if you can handle more.

You complete the ramp test first (or other FTP test), then your plan's intensity is set to what you can handle based on your FTP. If you think its too hard, or could handle more on a regular basis, then you haven't tested properly in the first place.

The intensity is set, but you have to choose the volume. The test result tells you nothing about how much training load you can handle.

supermurph09

TR have purposely said they keep the visuals simple as they are a believer in that cognitive stress plays a part when training. I’m 100% behind them in this, for anything of SS and above I have nothing other than the graphs to look at.

I’m actually doing my own training right now and look at nothing but my Wahoo. We are all different of course but for me, any other visuals just put me off.

joey54321

Supermurph09 wrote:

TR have purposely said they keep the visuals simple as they are a believer in that cognitive stress plays a part when training. I’m 100% behind them in this, for anything of SS and above I have nothing other than the graphs to look at.

I’m actually doing my own training right now and look at nothing but my Wahoo. We are all different of course but for me, any other visuals just put me off.

That's fine, all the fancy stuff being talked about in this thread is the analysis/planning of workouts in a training plan as a whole, it wouldn't need to change the interface used while doing an actual workout

StillGoing

bsharp77 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

bsharp77 wrote:

None of the big 3 (TR, Zwift, Sufferfest) offer adaptive training......yet.

One of the main ones mentioned if you want it now is Xert. I haven't used it, but apparently the technology is solid, however its not as user friendly or polished compared to the big training platforms.

It would make sense that this will eventually filter into the big 3, once the technology has evolved to a point where they can deploy it all in the background without the user having to worry about anything other than getting on with what the program is telling them to do.

Having used all 3 of the programs mentioned above, FTP based training has given me more than enough gains to make me very happy (TR would be my pick for pure results), however i'm all in favour of moving things forward to make training as productive as possible.

Sufferfest would argue with that. The whole idea of 4DP is to assess what type of rider you are based on the results of your test and then gear the training programs against your rider profile. A climber and a sprinter could do the same workout in name only, with the various peaks and intervals set completely different based on the results of their 5s, 5m 20m & 1m results. Whether people believe the hype or not, it would appear to offer a more individually programmed workout than one based solely on FTP. I like TrainerRoad for its simplicity and the fact that it actually works unlike some platforms. I also like Sufferfest for the sheer insanity of their video and music accompaniment. What neither have, is the ability to ride self created routes which I find useful. Thankfully TACX (now Garmin) and Rouvy cater for that.

I take your point that SF may technically be more "adapted" based on extra power criteria during the 4DP test, but the training is definitely not "adaptive" as asked by the OP (i.e: it doesn't adapt workouts based on your performance during previous workouts, or based on your current TSS load for the week etc.)

Theres been a huge amount of discussion about the merits of 4DP - I used it for a while, for me the biggest problem with SF is the lack of built in training plans - thats where TR have it absolutely nailed. Not only do they have the best range of plans, but of you are time crunched one day, you can choose a shorter variant of the same workout, or longer if you have more time.

What I really like about SF is how they have integrated strength training and yoga - these are really beneficial and having them as part of the one ecosystem is a very cool thing to have done. They seem to be progressing at a fast rate these days, what with all the new updates including no video mode....if they can nail the training plans then I would seriously consider switching back from TR.

All the new features can only be good for us the consumer as it pushes things forward, and true adaptive training, presented in an easy to use format is surely a goal for most of the big companies.

Sufferfest does have training plans of a sort, based on your rider profile allowing you to choose either to train to your strengths, or on your weaknesses. The problem with 4DP for me, is that it doesn't correctly identify a profile for a new rider or one returning from a long lay off.

bvduck

philthy3 wrote:

Sufferfest would argue with that. The whole idea of 4DP is to assess what type of rider you are based on the results of your test and then gear the training programs against your rider profile. A climber and a sprinter could do the same workout in name only, with the various peaks and intervals set completely different based on the results of their 5s, 5m 20m & 1m results. Whether people believe the hype or not, it would appear to offer a more individually programmed workout than one based solely on FTP.

Hi guys. David from The Sufferfest here. Actually, I wouldn't argue with that answer to the OP. Artificial Intelligence (which is what is required for this kind of automatically adaptive training) for training plans is a hugely interesting topic for us, and all other players in the training space (not just indoor training apps, either). It requires incredibly sophisticated AI (which we all want), tons of data (which we all have) and -- not to be forgotten -- a robust and well-tested sports science methodology (which some of us have) to drive all the variations in a plan. It's pretty exciting stuff and the end benefits for users will, eventually, be huge. Until then, then, and in the absence of a personal coach, you need to look for plans that best match your goals, your personal profile and which have the best underlying sports science. Then you want workouts that are most tailored to your particular power profile. When you have a 4DP profile in our app, we can set workout targets across Neuromuscular, Anaerobic, Maximal Aerobic and Functional Threshold powers that are accurate for 100% of you. With an an FTP-based app that is trying to set targets for maximal aerobic efforts, for example, there's only a 20% chance that the targets will be right for you (it's even less for Anaerobic and Neuromuscular efforts).

ps. To answer a point raised by another poster: we will have integrated training plans in our app this year. Stay tuned.