I take up so many issues with AI (destroying critical thinking skills, the environment, etc. etc.) but I use Runna because I find it's interface accessible and because I can't afford a human coach (yet!). I think there can be problems with AI training programs, but there are simultaneously problems with individuals listening to their own bodies, or not. We live in such a techno-focused world that I tend to focus on what I see as a bigger issue: that humans are losing the ability to listen to ourselves - we're inundated with fitness influencers saying we need collagen, and our cortisol is too high, and we suck at eating, and we should be on GLP-1s, we should drink tart cherry juice to sleep, etc. that most people aren't really listening to their bodies and what feels good...I realize the listening to self is an entirely different article topic, but when I hear about people getting injured via AI training programs, the root (at least in my circles) is following the plan without checking in with oneself. Not everyone, but most people have internal signals if things aren't going right!
The cost is huge. Having that adaptable framework at a low price is really beneficial. And if you add some common sense and restraint, you'll likely be fine.
I think the influencers constantly pushing their 20% off codes is another big reason people blame Runna for everything haha.
I'm a Runna user and I haven't been injured this year, but I also make adjustments to the plan as needed. I let it push me when it feels reasonable, but I forget about suggested paces and mileage if it doesn't. I'm mostly using Runna as a training plan framework so that I can remove the mental load of making a training plan and feel reasonably prepared for my races. But, my goals are slow and steady improvement and finishing well. If I had more aggressive pacing goals or something, I might hire an actual human.
I’m a Runna user, and I did get injured. But it wasn’t Runna’s fault — it was mine for not paying enough attention to my strength imbalances! Injuries just happen. I would be shocked if your hypothesis here isn’t proven true.
From what I see, Runna's issue isn't a distinct 'lack of nuance and care' - it's that their plans are too aggressive.
And I suspect this isn't an accident or due to some unsophisticated coding, but because Runna's data shows that their athletes prefer more aggressive plans because...hard workouts make you _feel_ like you've been productive in the immediate aftermath.
And athletes are less likely to listen to AI telling them to back off than a human explaining the same thing.
But one aspect of the algorithm Runna definitely needs to address; age-grading. Currently no age grading applied.
I’ve been using Runna for about 18 months, and I love the UI, it’s been great helping me train for three half marathons. I did get injured this year but that’s down to me - I changed my shoes without sufficient care and I went from nabbing a half pb straight into a 5k improvement plan. After my next half I’m going to just do parkrun for a few weeks while cross training.
I bought the shoes because they were on offer and looked about right - neutral gait, road shoes in my size. Not long after starting with them I got tib pain in my right leg followed by plantar in my left foot. I thought I’d overtrained since my spring Half but a mate advised me to get my gait analysed. I took them along and the running shop footage was kind of mad. They were Brooks Ghost 14s and they seemed to throw my stride off slightly so I was overcorrecting. I switched them up, got some physio on the plantar and fingers crossed I’m better. The tib pain went away with rest and hasn’t come back 🤷🏻♀️
Of course there are unskilled and/or untrained coaches out there, and we probably all know (or are) folks who downloaded a plan off the internet or from a magazine that resulted in injury. But that’s exactly the problem with AI (well, A problem with AI—it also destroys power and water resources, but that’s another Substack). It metabolizes all that poorly produced advice and regurgitates it. All the influencers, the uncertified trainers, the articles misinterpreting scientific research, the marketing, it all gets scraped and repurposed. Personally, I am never going to trust this organic body to a computer’s idea of a training plan.
Yeah, AI is being used for so many things it doesn't need to be used for. Matthew McConaughey went on Joe Rogan recently (where else would a dumb idea be exposed) and said he wanted an LLM to organize all his thoughts. I would just use my brain and a bit of work, personally. I can't tell which one of those he's more scared of.
I take up so many issues with AI (destroying critical thinking skills, the environment, etc. etc.) but I use Runna because I find it's interface accessible and because I can't afford a human coach (yet!). I think there can be problems with AI training programs, but there are simultaneously problems with individuals listening to their own bodies, or not. We live in such a techno-focused world that I tend to focus on what I see as a bigger issue: that humans are losing the ability to listen to ourselves - we're inundated with fitness influencers saying we need collagen, and our cortisol is too high, and we suck at eating, and we should be on GLP-1s, we should drink tart cherry juice to sleep, etc. that most people aren't really listening to their bodies and what feels good...I realize the listening to self is an entirely different article topic, but when I hear about people getting injured via AI training programs, the root (at least in my circles) is following the plan without checking in with oneself. Not everyone, but most people have internal signals if things aren't going right!
The cost is huge. Having that adaptable framework at a low price is really beneficial. And if you add some common sense and restraint, you'll likely be fine.
I think the influencers constantly pushing their 20% off codes is another big reason people blame Runna for everything haha.
I'm a Runna user and I haven't been injured this year, but I also make adjustments to the plan as needed. I let it push me when it feels reasonable, but I forget about suggested paces and mileage if it doesn't. I'm mostly using Runna as a training plan framework so that I can remove the mental load of making a training plan and feel reasonably prepared for my races. But, my goals are slow and steady improvement and finishing well. If I had more aggressive pacing goals or something, I might hire an actual human.
I think the extra thought of getting a coaching plan helps in the long run. I don't see Runna etc as bad per se. It's a very decent framework.
I’m a Runna user, and I did get injured. But it wasn’t Runna’s fault — it was mine for not paying enough attention to my strength imbalances! Injuries just happen. I would be shocked if your hypothesis here isn’t proven true.
So far, the polls are spot on.
From what I see, Runna's issue isn't a distinct 'lack of nuance and care' - it's that their plans are too aggressive.
And I suspect this isn't an accident or due to some unsophisticated coding, but because Runna's data shows that their athletes prefer more aggressive plans because...hard workouts make you _feel_ like you've been productive in the immediate aftermath.
And athletes are less likely to listen to AI telling them to back off than a human explaining the same thing.
But one aspect of the algorithm Runna definitely needs to address; age-grading. Currently no age grading applied.
I require two questions at the start of every training plan
1. Do you know what tendinitis is?
2. Do you want to experience it?
welcome to the masochistic run club.
I’ve been using Runna for about 18 months, and I love the UI, it’s been great helping me train for three half marathons. I did get injured this year but that’s down to me - I changed my shoes without sufficient care and I went from nabbing a half pb straight into a 5k improvement plan. After my next half I’m going to just do parkrun for a few weeks while cross training.
Interesting. What was it about the shoes that injured you?
I bought the shoes because they were on offer and looked about right - neutral gait, road shoes in my size. Not long after starting with them I got tib pain in my right leg followed by plantar in my left foot. I thought I’d overtrained since my spring Half but a mate advised me to get my gait analysed. I took them along and the running shop footage was kind of mad. They were Brooks Ghost 14s and they seemed to throw my stride off slightly so I was overcorrecting. I switched them up, got some physio on the plantar and fingers crossed I’m better. The tib pain went away with rest and hasn’t come back 🤷🏻♀️
Of course there are unskilled and/or untrained coaches out there, and we probably all know (or are) folks who downloaded a plan off the internet or from a magazine that resulted in injury. But that’s exactly the problem with AI (well, A problem with AI—it also destroys power and water resources, but that’s another Substack). It metabolizes all that poorly produced advice and regurgitates it. All the influencers, the uncertified trainers, the articles misinterpreting scientific research, the marketing, it all gets scraped and repurposed. Personally, I am never going to trust this organic body to a computer’s idea of a training plan.
Yeah, AI is being used for so many things it doesn't need to be used for. Matthew McConaughey went on Joe Rogan recently (where else would a dumb idea be exposed) and said he wanted an LLM to organize all his thoughts. I would just use my brain and a bit of work, personally. I can't tell which one of those he's more scared of.