AI Training - Will it work?

Agree. Sequencing of TID is also very important.

I’m using TID as shorthand for macro training zones and sequencing/timing.

Point being, when AT can also recommend the right training plan and phases based on athlete profile and goals, that’s the holy grail.

Using a example.

  • let’s say I’m struggling with a threshold workout.
  • one answer is reduce the intensity and do an easier version
  • another answer is don’t do a threshold workout and do a long endurance ride instead
  • and extending this logic, make recommendations that change macro training intensities and sequencing, not just tweak workouts up or down.

Agree that in a “full” implementation of the AT concept to its maximum extent, this should be the case.

But the way most plans work (including TR) is that the TID of the plan is forward facing. Here’s the workouts you’ll be doing, and here’s the zones they fall into.

Sorry, TID? Not an acronym I know.

Won’t it exactly do that? I mean by analyzing ones progress they should be able to balance intensity and volume. As a result we should see all TIDs possible spread across the user base.

1 Like

Training Intensity Distribution

Thanks, thought it must be something like that.

I’m not in the beta, and don’t have direct experience, so can only go based on my interpretation of the podcast and what I’ve read.

My understanding is that you pick a plan. And AT will adjust the intensity of the different workouts in that plan. But not make wholesale changes to the TID vs what’s already in the plan.

I’m open to being corrected if I’ve misinterpreted.

I don’t think you got it all wrong. Though I would assume that by either nailing or failing you should see some tweaks which move the TID. Obviously, that won’t make a THR TID a POL TID but it should allow for a shift to PYR. And vice versa for those on a POL plan. Hopefully, also the levels play a role in that shift in either direction.

Maybe we’ll get some official clarification from the TR crew on this :grin:

1 Like

The education would likely be hundreds of thousands if not millions.

I’m hoping that the people here in the forum can connect the ramp test + progression logic.

1 Like

Speak of the devil. :joy::point_up_2:t3:

Right. And the progression system will do a good job at first.

But we’ll have to look at the data. There might be people who fall so far out of that range that we’ll have to do custom % of ramp test result to get a better FTP.

1 Like

I haven’t looked at YoY plan compliance.

That’s a good question about “Do I have to stick to the plan for it to count”.

There are no ML features built that say “you’re on this plan”. And people barely ever do a plan exactly as prescribed over base, build, specialty.

So the ML system is designed to just look at what people do and then optimize for outcomes. It doesn’t take a plan into account.

Where do you get this data from?

Lola would be a good test for 30 min TT/FTP power. It’s a 5.8 and is a “stretch” workout for most people after their ramp test. So not impossible, but a tough workout.

But luckily people can build into it in the progression system and start with a 4.9.

Or a 4.3, and build into it.

And for the people that can already hold their FTP for a long time, they can start at a 7.0.

And go all the way up to a 10.0


See the post above. You can start at different points in your threshold progression and work from there.

Forgive me if this has been asked, but what specifically is ML optimizing for? Is it explicitly looking to improve the specific training zones being targeted?

All this data gets fed into the database from thousands of rides and riders and ML attempts to solve for the best and fastest way to improve those training zones? Or is it trying to maximize pass rate while sitting just below failure? Or something else

Both are important.

Tweaking the amount of intensity per week per individual will require more data, that we hope to get once AT is released to everyone.

Right now we don’t know why someone stops working out, or why they had trouble in a workout.

Having workouts that are the correct intensity (both up and down) is also an improvement.

I don’t know why this idea got into the minds of so many people.

  • We have 100 plan blocks. Only 2 of them are only sweet spot training.

  • We have 100+ million rides. Sweet spot is a tiny portion of those.

  • Once you get out of the first block of sweet spot training, you’re doing a lot more in your base/build/speciality block.

  • Less than 50% of athletes use our plans.

  • Athletes sync entire training histories that include rides before TR and during suspension periods.

Here’s one of our most popular speciality plan blocks (Rolling Road Race - Mid volume). I don’t understand how people get 90% of our rides are sweet spot from this. Sunday rides also have alternative long aerobic rides.

Sweet spot base high volume is the plan with lots of sweet spot in it. That plan is for about 7% of our athletes. These are people where they need further stimulus but can’t ride 20ish hours per week.


Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. TID has been talked about a lot due to Seiler so people are making false assumptions about a lot of these topics across the spectrum due to frequency illusion.

For the plan adjustment it’s optimizing our plans.

For the data scientists the levels/progressions will help them implement other plans.

But the ML FTP prediction will help us figure out what’s right for you. That’s the part that isn’t in the current beta but we’re working hard on it. That is where it will show different FTP improvements for different volumes; and it’s not always that extra volume is more improvement which I find really interesting.

I also suspect we’ll decouple it from FTP and be more with progression + FTP and normalize it.

Once we get that a little better, I suspect we’ll run different TID and training aspects through it to get a rough idea. Then after that, I suspect we’ll build another ML system to build plans/blocks and have it go through the other ML system.

Basically chaining ML systems together.

As DaveWh said, that is the holy grail. At least if we can do it at the individual level. We are definitely not there today, but it’s where we’re trying to go.


Thanks for clarifying Nate.

Exciting times ahead for sure!