AI in Cycling: Could It Replace Human Coaches?

Published Date : 1/10/2025 

As training apps incorporate more artificial intelligence, the question arises: Will AI replace human coaches in the cycling world? Discover the benefits and limitations of AI in training. 

For the past 17 years, my friend Dave Marchick has organized the Tour de Dave, a long weekend of riding in late April or early May in scenic locations throughout the East Coast. We’ve ridden past the homes of US presidents and through Civil War battlefields, over the Shenandoah Mountains, and around the Finger Lakes in Upstate New York.

It is an enjoyable weekend with friends on a bike – what could be better? But this year, I wanted to make sure I was fit enough to enjoy both the riding and the socializing. I wanted energy to spare so that I was not a zombie at the dinner table.

So I put my max heart rate and Zone 2 wattage into ChatGPT and asked it for a six-week training plan for a Master’s 50+ cyclist to prepare for a three-day, 180-mile ride, as well as a plan for strength and mobility work. ChatGPT produced an entirely reasonable program.

But I’m an experienced-enough cyclist and fitness nerd to worry that it was missing something, and I did not have 100 percent confidence in the plan. I wanted – no, I needed – an experienced coach’s stamp of approval. Moreover, the chatbot was not going to hold me accountable, and the idea of taking the time to enter the training sessions into Zwift was discouraging all on its own.

So I reached out to Zach Nehr, a coach, freelance writer, and elite rider who put together a six-week riding and strength training plan, which proved to be incredibly effective. I texted with Zach from time to time with questions and updates – fortunately, his plan did not need to be tweaked because I responded so well to it – and the $300 fee was enough to keep me on track.

ChatGPT delivered a reasonable training program (I think). While Nehr’s plan was almost certainly better, it was more expensive, and a higher tiered plan – a structure most coaches offer – would have allowed for even more communication.

As artificial intelligence percolates through cycling and the platforms and services athletes use for coaching, training, recovery, and nutrition, I began to wonder whether we’ll still need human coaches in an AI world?

The rise of AI in cycling training apps is undeniable. These apps use machine learning algorithms to analyze data from sensors, heart rate monitors, and GPS to create personalized training plans. They can adapt to your performance, adjust your training load, and even provide real-time feedback during your rides. However, the human touch remains crucial for several reasons.

First, human coaches can provide a level of empathy and understanding that AI cannot. They can motivate you, offer emotional support, and help you stay accountable. This is especially important for athletes who are dealing with setbacks or injuries. A human coach can tailor their approach to your mental and emotional state, something that an AI, no matter how advanced, cannot fully replicate.

Second, human coaches have the experience and expertise to make nuanced decisions. They can adjust your training plan based on factors that AI might not consider, such as your work schedule, family commitments, and personal goals. They can also provide context and insights that AI might miss, such as the impact of environmental factors on your performance.

Third, human coaches can build a long-term relationship with you. They can help you set and achieve long-term goals, and they can adapt your training plan as your needs and abilities change over time. This is particularly important for athletes who are committed to continuous improvement and who want to reach their full potential.

While AI can provide a lot of value, it is not yet a replacement for human coaches. AI is a tool that can augment the work of human coaches, making them more effective and efficient. For example, AI can handle the data analysis and provide initial training plans, freeing up coaches to focus on the more human aspects of coaching, such as motivation and support.

In conclusion, AI is becoming an increasingly important part of the cycling world, and it is changing the way we train. However, it is not a replacement for human coaches. The best approach is to use AI as a tool to complement the expertise and experience of human coaches. This way, you can get the best of both worlds: the precision and adaptability of AI and the empathy and expertise of a human coach. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS): 

Q: What is the main benefit of using AI in cycling training?

A: The main benefit of using AI in cycling training is the ability to create personalized and adaptive training plans based on real-time data analysis.

Q: Can AI completely replace human coaches in cycling?

A: AI can provide valuable insights and personalized training plans, but it cannot fully replace the empathy, nuanced decision-making, and long-term relationship building that human coaches offer.

Q: How does AI improve the training experience?

A: AI improves the training experience by analyzing data from sensors and providing real-time feedback, allowing for more precise and adaptive training plans.

Q: What are the limitations of AI in cycling training?

A: The limitations of AI in cycling training include the lack of empathy and emotional support, the inability to consider personal and contextual factors, and the difficulty in building long-term relationships with athletes.

Q: How can human coaches and AI work together in cycling training?

A: Human coaches and AI can work together by using AI to handle data analysis and initial training plans, while coaches focus on motivation, support, and making nuanced decisions based on personal and contextual factors. 

More Related Topics :