Ability Level?
The other way to look at it is that TSS and IF are not actually that meaningful in isolation anyway - CTL, ATL and TSB are all TSS driven but they aren’t the be all and end all. Like I could make 2x 0.6 IF workouts where one was rather easy and the other was completely impossible just by changing the interval intensity and duration (ie an easy ride, but with one or two impossible intervals in the middle of it…). Extreme example of course.
But a lot of people get very hung up on TSS and so on which is possibly at the expense of good training.
If TR could come up with a more meaningful metric that might be a win. But this is already pretty much how I use PLs, I pick workouts to do based on where they sit compared to my current PLs (for off plan and alternates anyway) - I barely look at IF etc.
3 Likes
I personally likes to see the wattage progression rather than workout level progression. (so I like your idea providing the toggle switch to choose). Regardless, I think psychologically people likes to see progression. I would rather seeing progression even if the workout level is going down.
2 Likes
Think of the new user coming over to TR: they are presented with a ton (perception) of data, without clear and easy to digest explanation for how to turn this data into actionable information. This is where I think TR needs to spend more resources: building better “how to” guides for TR aimed at different knowledge levels:
- New to TR / new to indoor training - I think of my wife in this category, and TR would overwhelm her
- Been using TR for a while / understand the basics of training - 2nd level of detail on TR data and how to make it actionable, plus how to take general training concepts and utilize those within the TR model
- Advanced - this is the only group I would show “absolute” progression levels to, if this comes to pass (I’m still not for “absolute” PLs
)
And ideally TR would link the articles throughout the website and app. E.g., I could click on TSS anywhere this shows up, and get an explanation which would be tailored to my “experience” level
1 Like
And surely they’d realize that when they “level up” their baseline, their workouts don’t get easier, but here we are anyway….
2 Likes
I tend to agree with the comments suggesting that this isn’t a great idea. It seems overly complex as a metric. I understand the need to show overall fitness as while PL relative to increased FTP seems intuitive to me, there’s been enough people querying their PL drops post AI-FTP or similar for it to be an issue.
I think MI-XC graph is what I would go for. Something I tried to describe (badly) in the other idea thread.
Just my 2c
1 Like
I love the concept, but it maybe needs some tweaking or a bit more thought based on the comments I’m reading here. Possibly put it in an ‘advanced analysis’ tab or something.
It would be very useful to understand my fitness over time without a doubt. For example, I can do a level 7 threshold workout with a 300 watt ftp, then I get a bump up to 330 ftp but I can only do a level 2 threshold workout. How much fitter did I really get???
I considered writing that up as part of my mockup, and what you show is should be considered as well.
However I’m still struggling with the why. Lets assume you are going to follow SSB > Short Power Build > Criterium path, here are the pre-AT TR goals for each block:
which we could map to Power Zones and therefore map to Workout Difficulty and PLs.
Sitting here in my ivy tower, any focus on PLs may encourage competitive human behavior and lose sight of the big picture - and lead some to increase all levels outside the goals of the plan.
There seems to be a strong interest in equating PLs to fitness, instead of using perfectly good metrics that already exist.
Ultimately PLs support picking the right workout, within the context of a plan (ignoring TrainNow). Workout Difficulty is a good new metric if you have a large library of workouts (or can auto-generate) and athletes that:
- want to pick an alternate due to less/more time
- seek better engagement (bored with a certain workout)
- want to pick an alternate due to personal preference, for example SS with bursts vs SS continuous vs SS rolling (or say endurance like Baxter’s rolling intervals vs a more continuous endurance)
And of course its primary role at level setting new athletes, and automatically picking appropriate workouts during a plan.
Keep it simple.
Whilst PL are a great addition, they are really only for eyeballing and not a performance measure. I really think there’s only a minority who get confused. about them going down after a test.
4 Likes
Agree with the first part. On the second part it’s only human nature to look at FTP increases and wonder why PLs are going down. It’s not intuitive.
1 Like
Agreed, I still think that the problem is in the name because of that word “Progression”. An analogy of how they work would be the relationship between the engine revs and the gearing in a manual transmission car: The engine revs (PLs) rise until they get to the rev limit, then the driver changes gear (FTP) and the revs drop only to rise again. All the while the car is travelling faster.
But (some) people are just looking at the values and thinking that they must always increase because, because, well more is better right?
Replace “Progression” with Ability/Functional/Relative/Achievable or some other adjective that doesn’t imply that the Level must always increase.
7 Likes
Spider diagrams, because they look like webs
I had this same thought. That is, if a diagram like this would be a better (better == easier and quicker to understand) way to present PL levels, as one concept baked into PL levels is that you can’t raise all levels concurrently. You need to focus on building one zone (or a couple that are tightly correlated - e.g., Sweet Spot & Tempo), and by definition this focus will have the affect of dropping other zones / not allowing you to raise other zones at all or as quickly.
2 Likes
Second that. It’s good functionality IMO but it it takes away from the simplicity of just doing the work. And also fully agree on the forum discussions - I always found it a motivational place (coming here since years) where lately it changed
I think (or hope) most people actually do get this. 
As mentioned in a different thread I (and maybe others) are a little insecure because of the structure of higher level workouts (read longer intervals) and this leads to the issue that AT doesn’t know (how should it?) if I want to increase tte or repetitiveness.
And this is connected to the „fear“ of having to train with lower levels.
Tldr please no absolute levels
4 Likes
You should have included the mouseover which shows the percentile and make the xert reference more clear
1 Like
Thanks @Nate_Pearson for being this up. I was one of those, one of many confused at this. But once it was explained and I took time to understand it. I think the current system is simpler.
I think adding absolute progression levels would be even more confusing. I feel the progression level 1-10 makes sense and the labelling of workout achievable, productive, stretch etc helps to give the context of the progression level.
Thank you to you and the team for bringing such innovation to my training.
3 Likes
Yes. Except with Endurance, Tempo, Sweet Spot, etc as the categories
It was a bit disappointing to build up the PL levels, only to have them drop with a new and higher FTP. But then I heard Jonathan explain on the podcast that FTP is not the goal in itself (which would be my ego). The goal is to get me into the appropriate level of workouts that slightly stress me without over-whelming me. The goal is to be in the right workouts program that allows consistency. Now I’m just going with the flow and enjoying the work. I’m trusting the process.
I do like the spider diagrams suggested. Or maybe there is a total fitness score that is a factor of FTP and PL, so with a higher FTP and lower PL is still a higher score.
I’m thinking something along these lines… More a normalised progression than an “absolute”.
I’d consider myself a passive user of progression levels. They currently work well for me and give me the limited amount of info I’m looking for.
For context, I’m following a defined training plan and just do whatever workout is on my calendar. On the occasion that I have more/less time available or miss a workout and want to plug a new workout in, I use TrainNow.
I really only look at progression levels to understand what training zones I’m working in for the given workout. I understand and am ok with them being relative measures; I don’t care that they go down when my FTP goes up.
In proposing new data to include (e.g. absolute progression levels), the bigger question may be how would people use this new data, and can it be presented in a way that’s not confusing the existing user experience.