Stumbled across this on instagram. Excuse the crude phone screenshots.
Any software that says it’s using AI - but then refers to rules in its description of how it works - isn’t using AI or machine learning (at least not anything that’s any good).
I spent 10 years building Ai/ML models, and now I advise companies on how to (and when not to) build them.
I’m skeptical of that ad.
@Nate_Pearson and team have been pretty transparent about their approach, and in general it uses real outcomes (perceptual survey results, workout success, and improvement in ramp assessment results) for training and applying their models.
Agree with wake, and add to it if they have no way to have a dataset of substantial size to teach a model, they dont have ML. Dont have something like millions+ or of rows of information, you either dont have ML or have poorly trained ML.
Well, technically a rule based system is AI. I’ve seen rule based AI beat complex neural nets at some tasks, it all depends on your training set.
I completely agree with you that rule-based systems can outperform AI and ML-based models.
Read anything like “Simple Heuristics that make us smart”
But a rule-based system is a simple decision tree.
It’s not machine learning or artificial intelligence.
Rule -based systems and AI/ML are two different ways of arriving at conceptually similar outputs/outcomes.
No. AI is AI. And it can be stupid too.
Rules or features? Maybe Zihi dumbed down the description.
Nate said the TR ML has over a hundred features to define training and how it should go. The mountain of TR data is based on TR plans vs actual.
Which comes back to the TR plans. My perception of TR’s overall philosophy - a time-crunched belief that progressing power zones is better over the modern-classic approach to aerobic engine building. And the TR approach didn’t work for me. Before AT, the TR plans appear to focus on quickly progressing difficulty of workouts in specific power zones. Adaptive training has personalized the ramp rates, but the basic philosophy remains. Which is great if that works for you.
Ultimately I improved ability to do VO2max work by doing mostly endurance work on a budget of 8 hours/week. Focusing on the metabolic fitness side of the aerobic engine, and not cardio fitness. Boring old endurance+intensity work (not long slow distance, but what I call the modern-classic approach to aerobic engine building on a ‘medium’ time budget). That is a very different approach versus having ML pick a lower difficulty vo2max workout starting point, and progressing from that lower level.
I’m curious about a system with over 900 coaching rules that purports to identify training opportunities and craft a custom plan. Because there is more than one way to get fast.
Expert systems count as AI
No where near the complexity of ML systems so can’t really see trends that aren’t already well known. They don’t really get trained so much as finding bugs in the decision tree of the system
Showed up in my facebook feed. Not too subtle.
Imagine Zihi and a lightly clothed female advertising “Adaptive Training Plans.”
Zihi was posted last week:
Thanks. Looks like the pictures are getting “worse.”
the one above looks like a slightly racier version of spin classes at our gym. I’ve seen plenty of cleavage, but whats up with those pink shorts? Reminds me of when my daughter was in club volleyball
Do you mind nuking that pic and just stick to the existing thread with proper discussion?
Mid SS workout and I’m not able to handle this at the time.
FWIW I believe the pic is not offensive or obscene and speaks to the marketing strategy. I get your point out and f moving it to the original thread.
Anyone know if TR has a trademark on the term “Adaptive Training”? Seems like the Zihi use of it is directly competitive.
Far from conclusive, but there are no signs of TM or R registration (which would usually follow the terms) on their main marketing landing page:
ETA: Here is all I could find:
hmm. wierd. I think if I were them I’d be looking to protect this terminology since it’s intended to be a differentiator for them.
Could you share how that 8 hours broke down into workouts?
I would be interested to see since I found TR plans very tiring. TBF, I haven’t tried adaptive training since, as you say, the fundamental approach hasn’t really changed.
Not weird IMO, I’ve come across the term before TR, although in running.