Adaptive Training Closed Beta Update

And my concern is that the adaptations recommended are actually taking my training in the wrong direction compared to not using AT at all. Add to that the time/energy to try to sort this stuff out (heck, just read the posts on the AT-related threads!) my beta participation may be personally counterproductive. (And yes, it is a personal choice on which path to follow, particularly now that I feel more informed about AT limitations than I had inferred from TR messaging.)

Not sure about hiring or how to bring that perspective to the table, however, your observation is spot on.

And just edited my post after reading this:

Wow, hadn’t even thought of that but actually quite likely. Now I have to think really hard – and TR may have a big problem in that the way people are evolving to using AT surveys may send ML way off track and degrading what it’s doing vs improving what it’s doing… again, wow…


I’ve opted back out of AT for the same reason. I felt like it was actually pushing me backwards compared to just using a plan. I’m in a recovery week now but next week start a Short Power Build and CX specialty that I’ll be using the plans off AT. Less to think/worry about. I’ll let TR get the kinks out before I’m back.

1 Like

…that would be OK if we ever actually had any guidance on how to complete this in the first place?

I haven’t yet seen any single place with definitive answers to questions like this. AT FAQ anyone? Just another reason this whole ‘beta’ experience feels a million miles from being ready for customer use IMHO


I had no idea about the ratings… suddenly Adaptive Training giving stupid suggestions (IMHO) makes a ton of sense.

Unrelated, I assume that a cut short workout is useless from an adaptation point of view? I stopped a workout about two thirds in because, well, I couldn’t be arsed. Actually set some (post injury) power records, but obviously the system still thinks I’m a filthy failure and makes no changes right?

Personally I’m starting to wonder if PLs are causing athletes to focus in the wrong direction. The forum threads make me think AT/PL is training gamification and for some its all about leveling up.


The “first place” was covered in a many posts by TR reps in the AT debut thread, as well as the following blog post that hits these specific points:

The issue here isn’t that we didn’t get initial guidance. The issue is that the initial guidance has been contradicted by multiple TR reps via the support channels with individual beta testers when they asked for clarity on the issue.


What do you see if you open that workout on the web?

Did you receive any adjustments to your PL’s, or is it something like the “+0.0” solution?

That page may give you an indirect answer to your question.

very good point…

I like the idea of PL’s as they have made searching for appropriate workouts much easier when not using a plan. BUT your point is very valid as I already look at numbers and start to think “I want a 4.x or 5.x because 3.x doesnt sound that good…”

I also think you’re right in potentially taking people in the worng direction. It would be easy to look at your PLs and do training to get 7’s across the board or 8’s by next month etc, without thinking about why and when you might want to work particular focus areas to achieve your goals. “Oh, my tempo is only 2.3 so I ought to bring that up…” even though spending time working on tempo might be completely counter productive to your goals and performance.



Another captain obvious post… AT is in a long beta, clearly the thinking at TR on post-workout surveys is evolving and not static.

I get your point here, but in the beginning, getting the levels correct (or at least close) is essential. Otherwise every workout you do is overly easy. If you start with a bunch of Level 1.0 or even 3.0 ratings, but the last training block you did with the exact same ftp had a bunch of rides that were more like a 5.0, then it literally takes months to get back to those correct levels when you mark a ride as “Moderate” and that only moves you up .2 per ride.

1 Like

Maybe, in the sense that we now have 8 metrics to worry about (FTP + 7 PL’s) :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s possible some will game to kick them up. But from what I see, many of us just want the function that TR promised, where we do a workout & answer a simple survey, and let AT guide the way.

That of course takes good data (lacking from the stuff AT ignores at the moment), good rider feedback (clouded with all the uncertainty of current surveys), and our trust in the system to do the right thing (see points 1 & 2).


Yep - that table of descriptions is also completely useless. All it says is rate it “how it actually felt” and then we’re back to all the comments made in hundreds of posts above and elsewhere…

Nowhere does it say ‘Hard = these feelings’, ‘Very hard = these different feelings’ etc

1 Like

Sure, and I am all for them listening, learning & responding. We just need to know how we need to adapt compared to the original guidance (and knowing what they are changing would be icing, but not necessary).

1 Like

I thought the “faces of nate” idea that @mcneese.chad came up with was brilliant. I think we’re all saying we wish it was that simple. And it should be.


I’ve got a slightly different take. My gut feeling is that post-workout you can send one of two signals:

  1. Easy/medium/hard if levels are generally correct, and you are giving a normal signal to AT regarding how training is coming along.
  2. The red alert button to tell TR we have a serious problem with levels. In other words, my level is completely wrong, either too hard or too easy.

Right, it may have been ambiguous, but we DID get something in the first place was my point.

The confusion from that system is clear and obvious to anyone that followed this for more than a week.


So, to a larger point, how might this confusion affect the beta progress. If people are actively working outside the designed approach because of lack of confidence in the system or not getting the results they anticipated and responding in ways differently than TR anticipated (‘gaming’ ratings based on what they think they should be seeing, etc) what risk does that introduce that rather than being refined the system is being degregaded when “false” data is interpreted in the ML environment? I’m not a ML/tech guy. However, if I was a TR senior exec I’d be all over this internally to understand implication and aggressively communicating with the AT beta user base. I think the implications could go beyond the AT beta with ML also being part of the production TrainNow capability.

Or I may be totally wrong and it’s all part of the larger plan. But I guess I’d want to explicitly say that to my tester cohort and anyone who is paying attention to what TR is doing.

1 Like

I have not read it yet, but we have an update on the survey:


Yeah, it’s a +0.0. I just wondered if maybe given I was starting from 1.0 it might be at least worth a point something given it was a breakthrough rated session. Oh well, no big deal… it’s given me a good idea where I am anyway.

1 Like

Did you get the “struggle” survey? Or the “looks like you cut it short” thing?