Another vote here to bring back push and pull week for adaptive training. Just blocking out training days with time off annotations makes sense only if the time off falls on a rest week, or if there’s an event date set for the end of plan or stage. In most cases, push week still would make sense (and of course AT could adjust the plan, and of course we can always pick alternate workouts).
Yes - I also find this really annoying in AT. In the summer I had a week off (holiday with some nice easy bike rides) going straight into a rest week, and back then you couldn’t even drag and drop workouts without breaking the AT link. In the end I just ignored the workouts that week.
I also had the reverse issue where I had an event that I’d marked “B” (that ended up as 480 TSS) which had another training week after it, which broke me. Wanted to have the rest week after that, but there was no way to force that in AT.
There needs to be an option in AT to force it to consider a week as a recovery week and restructure the plan around that. The current functionality with “time off” where it basically just deletes the week and adapts the workouts after the week off downwards doesn’t really work/isn’t sufficient.
Did some searching and didn’t find a more appropriate place to post this. Had a situation where I totally screwed a breakthrough VO2 max workout that I had pushed to my Garmin to ride outdoors. I had to bail halfway through each of the intervals as I just couldn’t keep on target. When the ride came back onto my calendar I marked it as failed for intensity. To my surprise, it bumped my PL for VO2 max to that of the workout – even though I marked it as fail.
I knew that TR assumed you passed planned outdoor workouts, but thought marking it as fail overrode that. Corresponded with support and they told me there is no way to avoid incorrect PL changes unless you disassociate the workout after it loads back to TR.
That is greatly disappointing. It parallels some other issues we have seen that there seem to be a bit of a one-way street here, and “fixing” something is:
Not possible in any way (via TR support or customer action)
Only possible via TR support
Possible via customer action (with easy steps)
Possible via customer action (with difficult steps, as it seems to me in this case)
I am probably missing some, but this all seems more difficult to handle when something doesn’t go to plan that I would hope it to be. I get planning for the typical case, but there should be more and easier accommodations to handle the imperfect that are not only a possibility, but even likely considering the nature of training.
Edit to add one easy and potentially annoying example. For a regular TR workout, when you select the initial survey response, the can and often does trigger Adaptations to your plan. However, if you realize you made a mistake or think a different rating is more appropriate, changing that even moments later does NOT trigger new or different adaptations.
MAYBE it does lead to changes at whatever point AT triggers another look (start of a new day, performing another workout, etc,)? But, to the user in the moment, it seems to have little to any impact in any way. Even if the answer is something like “We see you changed a workout rating, that change does not impact AT, yadda… yadda.” that would be better than the dead air we receive now.
At least some of this comes down to communication (or lack thereof) and what we as users are expecting. I don’t want or expect full details, but the total absence of info seem to be too far on the ‘minimal’ end of the spectrum IMO.
@mcneese.chad, always appreciate your perspectives here and looking at the bigger picture. Communications continues to be an issue for TR (IMHO); we keep hearing how things work so well, and there are some caveats such as outdoor unstructured rides not being worked on, but the full picture (such as the situation I found and that your recount) puts a whole bunch of “well, the workarounds really need additional workarounds for some situations…” and customers are having to find those situations on their own. I can’t believe these are limited to a very small number of people either.
When you also look at this thread asking for resources to be focused on something other than AT, and then see so many things in AT aren’t working almost makes you wonder what the team has as their focus – and wondering how much TR has gotten out over their skis…
Following up about Annotations and push/pull weeks:
We totally acknowledge that ‘Annotations’ aren’t a great user experience based upon the feedback we have received, and we’re adjusting this to be more descriptive of what Annotations actually do, and why to use them.
‘Clear week’ is back! And to achieve push week currently, using Annotations will achieve the same outcome, perhaps better within AT considering the way we’ll adapt workouts if necessary to maintain the proper training progression following days off/irregular training.
However, if you’re on a stock plan with no event date, a current workaround is to manually move everything down a week with the ‘move week’ function.
We know it isn’t perfect, but the alternative (keeping push week) had more potential for damage within Adaptive Training. Push week would break the plans in a way that led to a really poor experience for the majority of our athletes.
As a layperson, it leads me to think that this system functions more akin to an online translator than a simple back / undo button easily fixes. That is to say:
“We walked to the store to buy candy, milk, and fish” translated through Google to Chinese yields: 我们步行到商店买糖果、牛奶和鱼. Translated back into English, I get: “We walked to the shop to buy sweets, milk and fish.” Close, but not identical. It doesn’t do the human thing of, “Okay, let’s just undo what we just did,” it takes the current state and applies its logic to it.
I suspect their system isn’t tracking all changes that have been made, but rather looking at the current state and finding its preferred path to success, however that’s define. So all that’s to say, when you go back and change a survey response, for instance, it then just says, "Okay, is the [now newly adapted] plan worth changing? And apparently not.
Interestingly, on my calendar SusPBMV starts end of next week and is still the stock plan. Looking at it under the “Training Plans” menu gives me a look at what it’s potentially going to adapt to on the Monday morning (PL regression during rest week notwithstanding)
Have you previously moved things around? There used to be a “feature” that PB plans you’d already modified were then “locked”. Just checked my current plan (which I haven’t messed around with apart from inserting a week for illness) and I too just have those two options.
First time this has happened. I like AT and overall it’s a good thing for me, minor issues with the actual plan aside.
I’m in the recovery week at the end of SSB1 for the third time and have just completed Pettit this morning. My relevant levels by end of week 5 were SS 6.3 and Threshold 4.2. What has happened at this stage of the preceding 2 blocks is AT would wait until the next ramp test would be completed and then adjust the PL going forward into the next block. Feel good, getting stronger, workouts completed without issue and ‘hard’ given on surveys for workouts. No adaptations usually, mid block.
After Pettit today which I gave as ‘easy’, I got ‘Adaptations suggested’. The Adaptations were a decrease in the new block starting next week, SSB 2 LV. The weekly SS workout PL was dropped a whole level!! My understanding was, if I completed a block and FTP hadn’t changed then PL stayed the same? Anyone know why it would drop my PL for no obvious reason?
It seems to me that with AT, the frequent need for ftp tests is reduced. I mean, as long as your progress bars are moving to the right, you are improving, regardless of what your actual ftp may be at a given moment. Of course, once you approach 10, it’s time to retest. At least that’s the way I see it.
Now I’m sure the more knowledgeable folks out there can set me straight as to the error of my thinking lol…
I believe your thinking is off. You’re not actually improving a PL if your FTP is off. For example, if you’re doing SS base and your FTP is higher but you refuse to retest, you’re not actually working the correct zone. As progression levels increase, workouts have longer intervals, shorter rests and possibly a higher percentages of that zone. So you think your’re doing harder SS workouts with a PL 10, however because of your FTP increase you may actually just be doing Tempo. The PLs move up but it’s “fake news”. This is why PLs drop after a Ramp Test.
The same analogy if you were doing SustainedPB but don’t retest FTP. If your FTP has increased enough you’re no longer doing Threshold workouts but rather SS instead. Progression levels can’t move you into a new/correct zone, but rather extend your ability in that zone. This assumes you have an accurate FTP and are working the zone you think you are.
All that said, you are getting fitter in general, you’re just not progressing the way you think you are. Meaning your plan may not be optimal.
So I’ve kept my FTP static all of 2021 and, as some here may know, I did the full base-build-specialty cycle with adaptive training. I’m feeling good into week 3 of SSB1 HV and, after a few workouts where I’ve manually set the target to 102% to simulate a 5w increase, finally updated mine today from 290 to 295. Of course, current progression levels went down, endurance went from 5.8 to 5.2 and sweet spot from 6.7 to 6.1.
While I don’t really put a lot of stock in endurance level as a meaningful measure, I’m a bit dubious about the necessity of dropping progression levels so much for a 2% change in FTP, especially at lower levels where it’s just a 4w difference in target levels. The difference between a 5.8 and 5.2 endurance, for example, is a 3:15 z2 session I did Sunday and a 90min session I did yesterday. At least 5.8 is still considered ‘productive’ lol But I think this highlights that maybe endurance progression levels don’t really tell us a lot, I imagine any reasonably trained cyclist can pretty easily do 3-4hrs z2.
That said, I’m just not accepting downward adaptations and continuing on my merry way with a 6.9 sweet spot session today. But figured I’d chime in since this is the first time I experienced the PL change.
When using plan builder with AT now, does the level of experience I select (beginner, intermediate etc.) still make a difference to the plan? Like different TSS targets or something similar?
Or is it prettey much obsolete due to AT?
edit: Ok, I guess it just changes the amount of time spent in each phase. No different workout intensities.