Adaptive Training Closed Beta Update

I think that’s kind of what is being described as the expected classification. “All Out” is those sessions where you get the success survey, but your interval outputs were declining/you struggle to get them to the target.

i.e. success, but only just.

It sounds like it’s just a recalibration of terminology, which is what a lot of the discussion has been about recently.

Just my tuppence.

Sorry, I was trying to address how you could show progression with PL given changes in FTP (150w-300w). My thought is if you created an index of FTP at the time x PL, then you can show progressions as FTP changes.

Sure, but in my experience “very hard” usually results in the next sessions of that type being reduced in intensity, so at that point they might as well be all out anyway.

I think there’s an “off by one” error in the survey - the middle option should be the centre of the bell curve but it isn’t, “Moderate” is. Also if you go through the thread linked to by Chad then it’s apparent that the easy workouts like Pettit won’t normally get any response other than 1 or 2. Similarly the hard workouts like Leconte will normally get responses 2, 3 & 4. I.e. there’s (at least) two separate scales embedded in the 1-5 scale of the survey.

AT knows how a workout “should” feel and has the power & HR data to make that assessment but what it needs is how your current state of fitness found it, basically an automated version of a coach going: “You should be able to do this” and your response being: “That buried me.” so the coach eases things off a bit. In theory AT should learn that you rate hard workouts as “very hard” and adjust its suggestions accordingly.

If you do any VO2max workout properly it’s going to feel very hard on whatever assessment scale you use but it seems that the correct response to completing such a workout is “Moderate”! :man_shrugging:

Somewhere on one of the podcasts (possibly the one introducing AT) it was mentioned that the internal testers struggled with the system backing off on the intensity and then slowly building back up. They continually felt as if they were being given workouts that were too easy.


That chimes with my thinking: roughly speaking, select a response that’s one level lower than how you actually felt, and perhaps AT will adjust your plan more appropriately.

This wouldn’t be required so much if AT was, as others have discussed already, adjusting its interpretation of your responses on a personalised basis (ie. learning that you often responded “Very Hard” but still were able to complete the w/o OK and thus your present plan progression was maintainable), but anecdotally at least it doesn’t seem as if it’s doing that, and is instead taking a standard/fixed approach for everyone, hence the workaround tactic.

Hmmm, here is the updated info on rating a workout:

My coach prescribes vo2max workouts that are either controlled or max repeatable. He is expecting me to say it was hard or very hard, which maps to:

From where I sit - the ratings are NOT supposed to have the middle option (3) be the center of the bell curve. If AT is thinking like a coach, most of the vo2max workout responses should be 4 with some responding 3 (could have done another interval) or 5 (couldn’t finish the intervals as prescribed). :man_shrugging:


Yup, a ‘middle’ only makes sense of they were aiming to include ‘expectations’ in the mix (like a 3 for expecting a VO2 to be painful and anything on either side of the middle to be easier or harder than expected), which they have clearly stated is NOT the goal.

So, I agree that a properly set FTP, and a VO2 workout aligned with the rider’s current Progression Level should feel like a 4 in most cases, maybe a 3 if you are ripping and a 5 if you are off pace for any reason.

lol, did a Sweet Spot with a stretch rating, marked it as hard (keep in mind, all my levels were reset post FTP test)… so A.T. has made my session next Sunday notably easier than what I just did.

…aaaaaaand I’m out again. I’ll pick my sessions by hand.


I think this might be more a feature of the new plans than of AT itself. All of the new MV plans I’ve looked at have much easier Sunday SS workouts than previously, so they are not “meant” to be hard. That said, if you want harder, the alternates function is always there.

1 Like

The whole plan seems comically easy to be honest. I was hoping it would evolve to be something a little more challenging from the adaptive training, but apparently not.

Not going to lose sleep over it, as you say, will just adapt manually.


I just don’t get it. 2 day block, rest day to follow. TR used to sell itself on ‘time crunched’ during the week but then you’ve time at the weekend to get something decent in. Then they revert to this

1 Like

I feel like when it comes to VO2, I could almost always do 1 more interval if you had a gun to my head. I think my average VO2 session will be a 3. I couldn’t do another full set, but I could almost always do another 30-60 second interval if I put my mind to it.

Sweet Spot, on the other hand, where one interval is 8 or 12 minutes long, and I’m going to question whether I could have pulled off another full interval. I think my average SS will likely be a 4.

1 Like

I have been putting moderate for every workout. None have really been that taxing. I am worried it has something to do with power match between my 4iiii’s left arm and my saris h3. The h3 is 15-20 watts lower than my 4iiii’s lefty.

If you are always using the power meter with PowerMatch, there should be no issue with difference to the trainer.

However, if you mix and match, that may lead to issues.

I’ve switched and stayed there. Had a 20 point increase on the ftp but that is most likely just the switch to the crank. Although once both devices are warmed up there is a little variance. I used to track the trainer with my garmin and the crank with trainer road. After checking the difference I decided to just ignore the trainer and use the crank. This has actually turned out great as I have a lot of the summer off and have been traveling a fair bit on holidays. I’ve brought my rollers with me and theft the trainer at home. Much easier to setup and get a workout done. This week I may try outdoor workouts with the garmin edge 130 plus that just arrived yesterday.

1 Like

Not sure if this has been covered here or elsewhere, so apologies, but:

I just took a week off from training, which I gather is something that AT should account for. However! That week included four days of backpacking, with a cumulative TSS of around 1400 (according to TrainingPeaks). What I’m wondering is whether or not I should just get back into my regularly scheduled TR plan (with the adaptations it made for a week off), or if further re-jiggering is required since my off week wasn’t really “off” at all.

OR: is the point of AT that I just get back in the saddle, go for the scheduled work-outs, and if I fail, I fail, and AT will make adjustments?

While that is true, it may not be what you need/be the best long-term strategy if you just need a couple days to recover. AT may ultimately tell you something you already know: you’re tired, and doing a workout that you arent recovered for may dig a bigger hole for you than necessary.

If you’re not clear on how fresh or fatigued you’re feeling and you want to give that workout a shot, you definitely can, but maybe use Workout Alternates to shift to a shorter workout that hits the same systems (if possible, not all workouts have shorter alternates).


Gotcha – thanks!

1 Like

When should I expect to see adaptations? Been using AT for a few weeks, following a plan but “unstructured” outside rides @ weekend and so far only seen the no adaptations required although have failed on the threshold workout at the end of the week

Did you add your current training plan using Plan Builder?
That is a current requirement.

1 Like