I guess this is where I have perhaps misinterpreted what the survey rating does; if AT prescribes a threshold workout, it should stand to reason that the RPE would be expected to align with a threshold workout–it’s going to be 7-8 (out of 10), or hard. But if I’m having a good day, or my fitness has improved, maybe it “feels” like a 5-6 or a moderate…or maybe I’m missing something…
^ see Chad’s post above yours
This was helpful, thanks, although not sure why there’s another thread for AT 
The subjectivity is too much for me as it is. Easy, moderate and hard are all I use.
- But here is the problem. There are Threshold workouts in the TR catalog that range from 1.0 to 10.0 and above for Workout Level.
Why does that matter?
- If I have a current Progression level of 5.0 for Threshold, and perform a 5.0 Threshold workout, there are certain assumptions that I believe TR applies upon my completion of the workout.
- A rating of 1 means this was easy, and I likely need a big jump in Progression Level.
- A rating of 3 means this was work, but manageable and there may be no change in PL.
- A rating of 5 means this was extremely hard, and there may well have been a problem (hence the supplemental survey. It may even lead to a stall or drop of PL, depending on the supplemental survey info.
So again, I don’t think considering typical Coggan RPE scale as associated with Power Zones is appropriate. It is entirely possible to apply a 1-5 to each and every workout and ever training zone. There is no 1:1 pairing here.
Yeah… I would handle this all differently, but I am not driving the bus 
I am confused… maybe you mean “useless”?
OK, edited to be understood as:
Easy, moderate and hard are all [that I] use.
I’m not very knowledgeable on the machine language and AI and whatnot, but is there scope to remove the subjective aspect? Can the model use my heart rate and cadence and whatever other metrics might be available (breathing rate?) to determine how “hard” a workout or interval is? Or is that a bridge too far?
I mean there are 5 ratings. To me I only use 3. If I go all out I likely failed the workout and it wouldn’t of given me this survey. Hard and very hard…too close for me to distinguish so I just say hard. Again if it is just me and my response for AT I am fine. Other choices won’t change my response
Raise a ticket whenever you have a query or think something ain’t right.
It seems to be run more as a Pilot than a Beta, because there is no guidance, feedback route or testing elements.
- TR has been clear, that regardless of any data and devices, rider perception is an integral aspect to the function of AT. There is nothing that can replace the potential info shared via the head of a rider.
-
They won’t share details, but TR is using at least power for an element in the evaluation. They also seem to be using cadence and heart rate at this time.
-
I suspect as other devices prove consistent and effective, they will add those as factors. Things like smart scales, and recovery monitors (like Whoop) may also see use in the future, but nothing concrete planned or shared at this time.
Essentially, I suggest people come up with whatever internal system makes sense to them, because I don’t see these rider surveys going away anytime soon (if ever).
Disagree but not strongly. Coggan provided guidelines and suggested values to help someone calibrate their brain. What you feel is what you feel. Coggan provided a solid starting point to calibrating brain/body.
Sprintervals are an interesting case. I’ve done some where I limped home in zone1, completely depleted despite proper fueling. That, and/or feeling like I’m going to pass out or puke. On Monday I did 12 sprints and after 8 minute recovery did a zone2-to-FTP 17 minute effort and felt fine. So I gave that a 4 out of 5 (9 out of 10) rating as I didn’t leave it all on the road.
As you said, the key is picking a rating system and CONSISTENTLY using it.
-
I actually like his system, and applied it into my personal spreadsheet as a result. It makes perfect sense to me in that application.
-
However, I don’t think it has a practical application in the frame of completing the “Pass” survey for TR’s AT. Two different tools is all. There may be some crossover, but I also see that it could lead to confusion, not the least of which is that the Coggan scale is 1-10 and TR’s survey is 1-5.
Thats where we disagree then. If TR isn’t giving strong guidance or examples, easily accessed when you are rating, then its a miss by TR in my opinion. And the Coggan guidelines are as good as any, either divide by 2 or rewrite your own.
Hence the reason I suggested that TR step up and provide their own guidance.
+1 for this. I’d much much rather have my Wahoo head unit upload directly to TR and Strava both instead of just to Strava and then have TR download from Strava. Then TR could have the raw data instead of the stripped down version Strava provides. On my Wahoo I have much better power data available. (Left/Right balance etc).
Have done so now.
Just noticed: the workouts that haven’t received adaptations don’t have text like “VO2max 6.9” on their calendar icon. The indoor versions do so it seems that it’s on TR’s side in that these workouts aren’t being added to the system correctly. With no recommended PL to begin with there’s no way AT can modify it.
I get that, but it’s see it as flawed due to the implied/forced associations to training zones/levels:
-
If I end up with a Threshold workout on my calendar that is well below my ability, and proceed I smash it with ease, I am rating it as a 1, not a 3.
-
Conversely, If I end up doing a 4 hour Endurance ride on the trainer and end really worked over (prehaps I have maxed out at 2 hours previously), I think a 3-4 is very appropriate.
Point being that those numbers you suggest (yours or Coggan aligned) assume a “proper” workout on the schedule that aligns with the rider’s current ability. That is largely the goal of AT, but there are certainly times where there will be intentional or unintentional differences in the AT recorded PL of the rider, and whatever ends up on the calendar.
As such, I think your suggestion works when everything is “perfect”, but fails to handle the times when those differences exist, or days when we notably exceed or fall short (while not “failing” enough to trigger a Struggle survey) of the prescribed workout.
Subjective ratings are inherently flawed 
Didn’t take the time to fit in “what it feels like on a good day” so don’t take “what it feels like” so literally. People need a mental frame of reference for mapping an interval to a number from 1 to 5, and that mental frame of reference is when you are having a good day and doing appropriate level of work.
Don’t overthink it.
and if I had time and inclination I’d add another column with something that looks like your description