Remove distance from indoor trainer workout

I skimmed through the forums here but couldn’t find a request similar to this one.

Is there way to set the distance of a workout performed via TrainerDay to 0km but keep the rest (power, hr, time, etc.)? When exporting the workout to Strava, it does contain a distance which I would not like to have in a yearly summary.

If you export from our app (not the website) there is no distance in it. Yes this is the first request I have heard from this.

Does the activity contains speed in that case? Cause Strava has to calculate the distance from something then.

No speed either.

What format are you exporting? If it is FIT, you can check what’s in the FIT with
If you want to strip something out, use


Actually, this is related to the automatic upload to Strava after finishing a workout in the TrainerDay app. Strava shows distance and speed for that entry.

Then check what is specified in your Strava connection settings. There is an option to set you up on a ‘virtual’ path and you probably have that checked. It adds a virtual route to your ride that deduces speed from the profile of that route.
Can’t send you a screenshot of that because I’m not connected to Strava.

Yeah we always add speed and distance even if there are no maps. So the only want to do it would be to turn off the strava connection and manually load from our app to strava. We can leave this feature request open to see if more people want this. So far you are the first that has asked.

Sorry, don’t want this… I was a Zwift user, it does a pretty good estimation of how many KM you covered. Trainerday can rather easily be tweaked to get to the same number. You can in Strava see them as “Virtual” vs “real world” KM… I’m tracking my yearly number, so I like to track all cycling :slight_smile:

1 Like

An estimation of what???
The only thing Zwift does is reverse calculate what speed/distance would approximately result from the power you pushed combined with the elevation profile of the virtual route. If you ride up the Alp, your speed/distance is a lot lower.
You can’t estimate speed/distance for a ERG ride indoors if you don’t couple a virtual route to it.
You can ride 100W at 10kph but just a well at 50kph in ERG mode, it only depends on the gearing you’re using.
The reality is that speed/distance doesn’t make any sense for an indoor workout. You’re not going anywhere. Use duration as a marker for indoor rides, it’s much more important.

Oh don’t worry, if we did this I would make it an option, not remove it completely. Way, way too many people want speed and distance. I saw the TR forums “everyone” complained when they had no speed and distance even when Nate called it a “vanity metric.” The eventually caved and added it :slight_smile:

You can just assume in ERG mode, you are riding around the velodrome. :slight_smile: and like he said if he used to average 80% of FTP in Zwift for an hour and it gave him 30km, now he can tweak TD to give him the same. So while it does not exactly correlate to outdoors or flats and hills it can still add up to a reasonable similarity if you rode outdoors all year. I assume in Strava your total distance looks better when you compare to your Zwift and outdoor only friends :slight_smile:

That’s basically what I’m saying. It’s all based on assumptions and thus not reality…
Why would anyone base a performance training plan on unreal numbers?

I am guessing he is not basing his training as much as just an approximation for comparison sake. The main thing is different things motivate different people. You could set a goal to do 10,000km this year and this might inspire someone for example and indoor ERG contributes to that goal.

I see motivation (or more directly consistency) as the most important factor in training and the one that many people including myself need to master. So I have a friend that has been weight training consistently for 25 years rarely a missed week. He does very minimal but seriously strong. I met him as TD customer. He says the #1 rule is do absolutely anything you can to stay consistent, even tiny little things that help. He has his girlfriend tell him he looks sexy when he is working out. And if that means eating ice cream, eat ice cream. He is 37, does not eat perfectly but very low body fat, and has been his whole life and very metabolically healthy.

I mentioned this but I read the New York time article on Elaine LaLaine and she is 97 and works out ever day (her husband the forefather of fitness) She basically says the same thing.

Since I have been semi-inconsistent (missing a month or two here or there each year and sometimes longer gaps) for much of my life. This way of thinking has completely changed my view on training. If you are not 100% consistent then the only thing that matters is motivation/consistency.

I am putting words in his mouth as I have no idea why he wants speed and distance :slight_smile: But you can see that for some people it might be extremely important if it helps drive consistency, even just a small nudge towards consistency. Most or many of us need every possible small nudge we can get. I have started applying this to my life and training and so far it feels like it could be an amazing long term solution.

Even though I liked weight training since I started in my mid-20s, I have never given it the priority it deserved so even more inconsistent than aerobic training. From a longevity point of view I am thinking that is a serious mistake but luckily still fixable :slight_smile:

I would even say look at it this way. I would say for example setting a miles or hours goal is significantly better than setting a CTL (or TSS) goal yet many serious athletes did and many still do set CTL as their target. This has been clearly proven ineffective yet people do it. Now if CTL goals keep someone consistent and help the achieve what they want then great. It’s all about what motivates you. I try to push people away from CTL goals but I in this context I probably shouldn’t :slight_smile:

Must be coincidence but here’s a copy of one of my recent posts on the Intervals forum regarding another discussion of ‘Polarized’

Polarized training principles have been discussed over and over again. Mostly by people who don’t believe in the underlying message that you need to do a lot less intensity and a lot more low intensity volume. All kinds of interpretations were made, one more correct then the other, to the point that Seiler himself apologizes for the fuss that was created.

One important thing, in my opinion, is that Seiler‘s work is the result of statistical research on several decades of data from mostly pro-athletes. Some of that data dates from a time period where Power meters were not yet used regularly and thus only contains HR data. More recent data has both Power and HR in it.

The conclusion from that statistical analysis was that pro’s, do way less high intensity then what was generally thought. This was very different from what was on the menu for amateurs and recreational athletes, who in general had less training time filled with higher intensity.

I’m not gone go through all the details on how things turned out but I will give my interpretation of how I see it. I may be wrong on some details but am pretty sure that the main message is correct.

The very short version:

Consistency is key! Anything comprising consistency must be avoided as much as possible. Meaning that the workout you do today, must be tailored in intensity and duration in such a way that you will be able to do your next planned workout with the highest quality possible. If you train 5 or more times a week, you must, for every single session, be sufficiently recovered to do that session with high quality. If you are to fatigued to do that session as intended, you loose the benefit of it. We all know that lower intensity sessions can build quite a bit of load/fitness while they are relatively easy to recover from. Higher intensity sessions require much more recovery time.

Working out while not sufficiently recovered on regular bases, will dig a hole and performance will plateau or even diminish. A nice way of explaining this, is with the ‘supercompensation’ theory.


Look at this chart and you will see three basic situations:

  • If no training follows before the end of the supercompensation phase, you return to base level. No progress is made, there’s no consistency
  • If you train too soon, before the recovery made it back to at least base level, your base level diminishes. You are digging a hole, overreaching, overtraining…
  • The ideal situation is to have your next session as close to the top of the supercompensation period as possible. The person who finds a way to pinpoint that timing, will be rich in no time :wink:. The result is an ever increasing base-level.

All timings on the x axis and all amplitudes on the y axis are dependent on the intensity and the duration (time) of the former workout. The purpose of planning to get better is to maximize the outcome of this chain by also finding the right frequency of sessions. And then you have the three letters of FIT (Frequency-Intensity-Time/duration), unfortunately not in the best order, because building fitness is best done by first increasing Frequency, then Time (duration) and last Intensity.

I could go on for a couple more hours on this subject, but I lack the time to get in to detail. I just hope that the above gives some more insight into the subject of planning for performance improvements. It’s a very difficult subject because the number of variables is huge and every individual responds differently. So please, give your coach huge respect if his plan is making you perform better year after year.

Yes, exactly!!! You and I think very much the same. We each go on our own tangents but in the end the big picture is the same. So one of the big reasons Z2 helps consistency is that you don’t lower your immune system so much and you are less likely to get sick or injured.

But for my highly consistent friend if he had to do Z2 all the time he would just stay home and sit on the coach all the time instead :slight_smile: So if you have consistency absolutely nailed or a specific method of training seems to be more effective for one reason or the other than sure pick the better plan. I was inspiring my other friend to get off the couch and do Z2 but Z2 is hard for him and not motivational so I said, do what ever it takes to get out there. Just have fun, enjoy it. Slowly try to work towards some Z2 if you can.

I like having distance. I evaluate my year by the miles traveled both outside and inside,



That’s exactly my point :slight_smile: I’m not a pro athlete and how no such ambitions. I do a couple of gran fondos each year, for which I’m training. I do most Zone2 (like 80%) in the winter, with some SST and HIIT for the rest. Once the summer comes, I’m getting much less structured and just enjoy riding outside. I will still analyses the rides and if needed (e.g. too much high aerobic), I will adjust (or at least try…). Having a total target of KM, even if I fully understand it’s an estimation is a motivation factor. I agree I could do hours as well, but how do hours on a turbo trainer compare to outside hours?? I saw a podcast recently on Cade Media where a claim was indoor hours at 25% more efficient… Olli from GCN prepared his 1000k+ ride mostly on an indoor trainer, because he was not having the time to put in the hours outside… Who am I to judge :slight_smile: Indoor and outdoor training or riding is different, but I’m not that worried about the “exact numbers”. When I reach the top of a mountain, I’m happy :slight_smile: