TR Threshold level 3 (60 minute) workouts range from
62 TSS / 0.79 IF (10 min steps @ 60%, 70%, 80%, 90 and 100%) with 30 second recoveries between each step
to
85 TSS / 0.92 IF (3 sets of short efforts lasting between 1-4 minutes at 100-115% FTP with very short, 30-second recoveries between intervals. Recoveries between sets of intervals last 2 minutes each.)
Frissell -2 is in that list, 74 TSS / 0.86 IF (4x9 at 95% with 3 minute RBI)
When deciding if you could complete such workouts, keep in mind that unless you know what your TRAIFTP is, you are deciding blind.
FTP is quite the can of worms for training platforms. I have my opinions but people like high FTPs. Live and let live I guess.
Iâm a natural sand bagger if anything. Doing killer workouts due to inaccurate FTP is something I experienced and I hated it personally. It has been quite the rabbit hole of learning since then.
If I recall the pithy power proverb correctly we should train WITH power not BY power.
I think the TR crowd likes a certain feeling from their workouts. The workouts feel effective, logically makes sense to the audience. And my guess is thatâs how they base things. Thatâs not a terrible approach, especially if they are no longer burning people out. I would say starting at level 3 in December and progressing, you likely peak by March or something. So it depends on when you start and what your goals are. But again most people joining want to feel they are doing effective workouts.
This is all very experimental (to be truthful most training advice is). From my understanding, theyâre still fairly heavily sweet spot based. Thatâs kind of been scientifically âprovenâ less effective than some other methods. But I would say itâs also validated by many of their users that theyâre happy with the results.
I think most TR users feel that theyâre time crunched and they should be doing something different than elites, and higher TSS contributes to that solution.
So I believe TR has improved a lot over the last 4 years and I would recommend it a lot more now that I would have in the past. I donât like this AIFTP concept but if you are 100% bought into TR itâs likely fine. I am not so in love with strict FTP either, or such a heavy focus, maybe this lightens the rigidity which is good.
There has long been a lot of noise from users that their training plan did not include long enough rides to prepare them for the events they were training for.
Now users can set the upper time limit (5 hours is the maximum on the drop down list) for their endurance rides and TR AI will decide how long / hard a ride to prescribe. The intention being to gradually increase the duration throughout the plan towards the maximum.
People will always have ideas of what they want. We wonât fill all the gaps. In general, we just try to keep things low cost and do as much as we can within our constraints and that we feel makes sense.
Except where it falls down is to train AI on the subject you have to be a subject matter expert.
They sacked their only ârealâ coach with training knowledge, so it is trained on the CEO and his staffs beliefs, not on science related to performance outcomes, personal beleifs and what would sell to outcomes.
I was going the write a lot of examples, of beliefs, bias and outcome, but you just need to watch a few podcasts to get it, and make your own mind up.
Yes, I greatly appreciated what Coach Chad taught, he was a bit too Coggan focused but you could see him evolving even while TR was still stuck in high volume sweet spot. I believe if TR just evolved as Chad was they would have been even better.
It appears they are really suffering. It seems like much of their own forum traffic, Reddit, etc⌠is dissatisfied. I have the impression they have zero interest in moving away from AI, but the market has spoken and it doesnât want it. At least not the way theyâve implemented it⌠Even if they did want to leave AI they are so dug in at this point it doesnât give much room to manuever.
Endurance training IMHO is not that complicated unless youâre trying to be at the pointy end and optimizing yourself. And if you need that level of optimization you need a coach not an app.
I am a lurker over there at times just to read anything interesting about training, but the content has taken a dive.
Yes I am watching too, and your 50% survey results is interesting although the complainers are more likely to respond is my guess still itâs bad and they kind of painted themselves in a corner⌠it will be interesting if they can figure a clean way out.
I wonder if the proportion of users complaining about TR AI is larger / smaller than the proportion of users that complained about the intensity of the sweet spot plans back when they were the thing?
Coming to TD from TR, Iâll say I did not like their AI plans. Thatâs not a dig on the tech, but the execution. The expectation was not meet, that being the plan ought adapt to individual metrics with an objective. From my sample of 1, the AI plan did much worse adaption than merely selecting from one of the three AI Train Now options. Iâm not the target audience for TR, or most cycling apps I gather, fitness for fun and health.
With respect to AI, my preference is BYOAI or at least have that as an integrated and supported option. The tech is moving too fast to pin down a solution, better to allow for more experimentation. Iâd be surprised if devs of fitness apps are up to date here, running a Hermes, Pi, OpenClaw, or other agent 100%, knowledgeable of their architecture and capabilities.