I think I came to that conclusion just typing/reading through my own post. 
Its only for 5 weeks so will be interesting to see how I fare. Might be putting myself in a hole 
1 Like
That’s what I thought too:
I think it’s just a case of–like quantum physics–things getting strange at very large and very small ends of the spectrum.
Your example is the exact opposite end of the scale, and I see it as perfectly logical & expected. Breakthrough is the hardest “difficulty” if you ignore “Not Recommended”. So, even completing a Breakthrough with a Hard or Very Hard rating should lead to a decent Progression Level increase.
Potentially the more important aspect not covered here is what exactly AT might do with the next workouts on the plan. Presumably, if you had low PL as shown, and the initial workouts on the calendar were similarly low, AT would kick the pending workouts up a fair bit. The precise amount is likely black magic looking at the workout / progression level just complete, the ideal training plan progression and maybe other factors to set the changes for future workouts.
This all goes to the important recognition that the A + B = C stuff we try to summarize in simple terms frequently falls short. Until we include the Difficulty in consideration, claiming things like “Moderate ratings = X level of change” is likely flawed. The actual impact is conditional and dependent on relative conditions of the current Rider Progression Level and Workout Level, where Difficulty is a dumbed down summary of that comparison.
Right, the progression level increase was expected. What I found odd was that completing the survey with a “Hard” rating triggered the “follow up” survey asking why I failed. I mean, Breakthrough workouts should be hard?
2 Likes
Ahhh, OK.
1 Like
I had a post-ride ‘why was this so hard’ survey after rating a workout ‘hard’ instead of ‘moderate’.
Do you remember what the workout difficulty (e.g., Achievable, Productive, etc) was? If it was Achievable, that could explain what happened.
But if you see any oddities in AT, best to email TR support so they can look into the apparent oddity. The more people who point out oddities, the better the overall system will get.
1 Like
Did you struggle during the workout? It’s my understanding that AT will give you a struggle survey regardless of your rating if it senses that you had difficulties with the workout. I.e. backpedaled too much, reduced intensity too much or similar.
1 Like
Yeah I noticed this recently too. It didn’t happen previously on anything other than a fail as far as I remember.
I think I had to take a break mid-way through an interval, not because of intensity, but because I have a toddler and toddlers gonna toddle.
4 Likes
Apologies if this has already been covered.
How might speed sensor drop outs affect AT?
I’m 4 weeks in to SSB LV1, and AT is keeping my workouts at a pretty low level. 1hr workouts have hovered between .79 - .81 and 90 mins between .81 and .83.
I’ve been expecting a rise in IF through AT, having marked most/ all 1hr rides at moderate (90 mins usually hard) but I’m wondering if the speed sensor dropouts (few seconds here and there, some workouts none, some workouts more) is gaming the system?
I had one workout in particular where I was asked why I finished it early despite completing it although with multiple little dropouts.
Should note, that when my speed/ cadence sensor drop out the workout continues.
I’ve tried many times to sort the dropouts, having even contacted support, but have got nowhere.
So can dropouts game the system?
I think you should forward this to support@trainerroad.com for review and their best info.
I had one recently where I marked it hard, and AT, was “why so hard”?
I was getting power drops from my Assioma pedals due to interference with my ipad and iphone, so the competitive part of me couldn’t let my average power drop below the target power for each interval, so I was basically doing ‘bursts’ each time this happened to bring it back up. I knew why it triggered the follow-up survey response, but I felt like writing “I’m too daman stubborn to let an equipment issue affect my power, so I buried myself to stay on target!”. I just wrote equipment issue though.
This goes a fair bit off topic, but to state it for the consideration of all…
This is an example of attempting to “check the box” of the workout in light of the “power targets” and such, while possibly sacrificing the “training intent” of the workout. This may or may not have lead to training well outside of the intended training demand and benefit, but it shows what can happen if we focus to tightly on “nailing the workout” to the detriment of the actual training it seeks to provide.
Overperforming to fix a power data drop and get the “right average power” may be ok, but can also be a mistake if it pulls too far from the intended training effort. Taking a more steady state effort and converting to a sprint is not what I think TR hopes to see from riders, especially if it’s to overcome a separate tech issue.
1 Like
Thanks Chad - I was just inserting some humor from my own silly tendencies! I 100% agree nobody should do this! Sorry if my humor was missed.
1 Like
I got some of the humor, but this is far from the first time I have read a similar account (not to mention doing it myself in the past 
). So I figured this presented as good an opportunity as any to talk about it.
1 Like
I’ve done this quite a bit as well. I answer the survey question per the workout intensity I used, not what I was initially presented with. How can I answer what I didn’t perform?
If AT doesn’t account for the intensity I used, then that’s a shortcoming with AT.
1 Like
I had my ERG trainer connection get dropped in the middle of a workout. I continued the workout pretty much as planned as I was also on Zwift and could see my power there (not that that matters). I answered the question about what happened with equipment issue answer, figuring it wouldn’t count it then as a failure. Yet, right after than answer it wanted to adapt my training to lower level workouts. Good thing it allows you to say no!
There was a response from @SeanHurley in one of these AT threads that AT does account for increased intensity within the original zone that the workout defined. I.e. if the intervals were intended to be at threshold, say 99% ,and you increased the intensity to 105% then you’d get credit for that. If you increased the intensity to 107% (now into VO2max) you wouldn’t get credit for the VO2max work. There’s a band either side of the target power that AT uses to determine pass/fail/struggle/etc so if you are in that you get a pass, just below you get classed as struggling and so on.
Think how a real life coach would see this: they give you a workout, let’s say it’s an IF of 0.8. You push it to 0.9, the coach asks you how it went and your reply is “Pretty tough”, but you don’t tell them that you made it harder. So the coach adapts your plan according to your response to the original workout not what you actually did. Of course the coach should also be looking at your data files and seeing that you didn’t do what was prescribed in which case they might not do anything and just keep you at the same level to let you and the plan realign.
It seems that those who get most from AT aim to perform the workouts as presented. If you are consistently pushing intensity then the chances are that your FTP is incorrectly set. AT is somewhat conservative in pushing you, TR are aiming to get workout completions to a high percentage as well as increasing your abilities. If you have five months to get from A to B then AT will use all of those five months, it won’t get you to B after one month and hold you there for the remaining four.
1 Like
Thanks for the response.
Getting “credit” within the original zone is fine. Based on these few posts, it appeared that AT did not acknowledge at all that the actual training intensity was different than the AT-planned training intensity. Although your explanation makes it appear that these training zones are well-defined, I believe there are variations, gradations, and overlap of where the “threshold” limit is and where “VO2 max work” begins. For me, I’ve often felt I’ve needed to raise the level of the shorter duration VO2 max workouts to get a decent workout, while the longer duration over-unders are much harder.
Just like a real life coach, AT has access to the actual training intensity. For example, it appears from reading the posts that it knows when you had trouble with a workout. I would expect both the real life coach and AT to use that information in assessing the follow-on workouts in the program.
As for getting from A to B in x time, you have A and the time, but isn’t B adjusted for the progress (or lack of progress) in accomplishing the plan? I hope it isn’t static.