Did you read Coggan’s motivation to toss out vo2max and anaerobic zones/levels and replace with iLevels? Think it’s been 3-5 years since vo2max and anaerobic were replaced by the more accurate levels/zones.
Without looking at Sleeping Beauty that might help explain what TR is doing.
I know of the iLevels and have a loose familiarity with them and the more direct connection they have in things like WKO5.
No idea if TR is somehow blurring the lines based on that or any other concepts? But considering that TR still reports the typical (now old school?) level splits in the completed workout data, I think they are more likely sticking with the old definitions.
I just so happened to do Sleeping Beauty +2 per my AT Plan Builder last night so this is timely.
See above, where the work intervals for the first 2 in the warm up are listed as “VO2 Max 1 & 2”, since they were targeted at 115% & 120% respectively.
Then see how the 3rd one in the warm up (only 30 secs later) is listed as “Sprint 1” since it is at 125% (just stepping into the Anaerobic section per the old levels).
All other efforts in the workout are “Sprint” with effectively means “Anaerobic” to me, but you could simply call that “Over VO2 Max” if you want a broader definition more like the iLevel stuff.
Maybe this is taking the small data too far, but it sure seems to align much better with the older Coggan definitions which were the apparent foundation for TR and still seem to be in use from everything I see.
TR analytics need updating.
Sure, along with any number of other points of interest in TR that are worthy of changes.
All I am doing is analyzing the here and now, aiming to answer the above question, based upon what is currently in place.
It makes no sense to me to judge the experience & outcomes from TR app & workout use right now to potential changes that we have no way of knowing if or when they would ever happen.
As ever, people should create new or vote for existing Feature Requests that they see fit to support or suggest. There may be one related to new Zone/Level definitions, but I’d have to search because it doesn’t ring a bell with me.
Thank you for the reply and the debate.
In any case for me at least if I am working VO2 in a workout and the only thing I do is to go harder in the hard intervals than for me the energy system should in principle not change.
Actually with the ilevles if I remember correctly what I read a while a go the focus shifts from targeting a certain power based on % of FTP to targeting the power you can hold for the duration. So if naturally inclined to shorter efforts by all means it was encouraged by Coggan to go harder.
I think this is because you have done a custom workout. With stock workouts you get credit for different progression level types. For example, when I did Taylor +3, 135 % 30-30s, I got a bump in VO2max. And when I completed Lafayette +1, which is a VO2max workouts with 125 %/88 % over/unders, I got a bump in my Anaerobic PL. I did not get a bump in my VO2max PL, because the workout was achievable from the VO2max perspective.
So as far as I can tell, TR does what you would have expected, at least when you use stock workouts.
I think I understand why things did not work properly when you customized that workout: when AT debuted, @Nate_Pearson explained that custom workouts are not graded by the same algorithms than TR stock workouts. I seem to remember that the PLs of stock workouts are tweaked by hand if necessary. Although some of this information might be out of date by now.
VO2 max is maximum oxygen uptake which is a physiological response to the work being done. The power range we’re calling VO2 max is just a power level which will cause you to reach that oxygen uptake rate, so more accurately it’s “power at VO2 Max” (if the interval is long enough… some of the shorter VO2 max intervals in TR are at the bottom end of the range)
I don’t think this is a confusion specific to TR, but the point of short/shorts probably does need to be explained.
The point of short/shorts (30/30s etc - Billats basically) like this in any training system - not just TR - is to get you towards that maximum oxygen uptake level - and there’s no reason why the work efforts should be in the VO2 max power range (in fact, you’d expect them to be at least towards the top end or above).
A typical example in the TR catalogue is Ansel Adams (have done it a few times in different plans anyway!) - that is 50/50s with the work intervals at 135% which is of course above the VO2 max power range. Or San Joaquin which is similar but at 130%.
In reverse: most people would probably find 30/30s with the work interval at the bottom of the VO2 max power range quite easy. The VO2 max range in TR starts at 106% - 30s intervals at 106% with a 30s rest should be pretty unchallenging unless your FTP is way off, so it won’t cause you to reach max oxygen uptake (not for a long time anyway).
Yes, I totally understand all of thay and have followed all the discussions related to VO2 Max around here like that. I’m not looking to rehash any of that here.
It may well be super relevant from a big picture standpoint, bit is not at all what TR has in the core programming at this very moment.
Right or wrong, I am only responding in the purest sense of the programming TR has in place right NOW. As such, all signs indicate that the programming has a switch between these zones/levels at 120% FTP, pure and simple.
I’m all for them doing whatever makes sense in the long run from a training perspective, but recognize the results questioned above are a direct result of the basic programming TR uses now. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yeah, that’s how they label the work intervals, but I don’t think that’s super relevant is it?
But regular TR workouts seem to be a bit smarter than that, workouts with 135% or 140% intervals seem to be being classified as VO2 max workouts in terms of their primary progression, which seems completely right to me? But seems to be what was being queried above? Unless I misinterpreted, which is always likely 
The issue eduardo23 has seems to be that he’s manually bumped the work intervals from 135% to 140%, and in doing so its converted the overall workout classification from “VO2 max” to “anaerobic” - which given that other TR short-short workouts with 140% intervals are still considered VO2 seems like it is more likely to be an issue with the way TR classifies custom workouts at the moment (as already mentioned above). It looks like the catalogue workouts have been assessed by ML (or whatever) to see what they should be categorised as, whereas the workout creator just sees “intervals in anaerobic = anaerobic workout” - from this example anyway. Which I guess is what you’re saying.
Given that there are workouts in the existing catalogue with 140% intervals, I might suggest it would be a better option to select a harder workout using Alternates than create a custom workout - since the custom workouts don’t currently work that well in terms of categorisation.
TR used whatever magic they did and assigned labels to workouts. The default example is set for VO2 Max in their system, even though it has 135% efforts within.
When the modified workout is “reinterpreted”, I think TR is using the older, simple logic and following a label based on the original Coggan levels and sets it as Anaerobic as such.
I don’t have Workout Creator available right now, but I would bet that if you took the original SB+6, made a copy without making any changes, that it would be “reinterpreted” as Anaerobic instead of VO2 like the AT related labeling.
Hi all…… I thought this might be a good thread to ask a related question, apologies if not.
I’m coming back from injury and have set my ftp about 15% below where it was. It’s a long story but I can’t do workouts where I have to push a lot of power through the pedals - ie VO2 so am sticking to SS and some Threshold.
Using the progression levels, when might I know when to increase my ftp so my SS workouts get harder? I’ll know anyway as I’ve started to increase the intensity using the up/down buttons in the workout, but what should I look for in the progression numbers - or are they best not used for that scenario?
Curious to know….
Hey there! Progression Levels are mostly intended as a tool to make sure that all your workouts are appropriately matched to your abilities, as well as a helpful way of monitoring progress. That said, they absolutely can be helpful to identify when your FTP is a bit outdated. There’s no specific moment when a level indicates your FTP needs to be changed, but it’s a pretty good bet that if you attain very high Progression Levels across multiple zones (9s and 10s, for instance) it’s a good sign you could probably bump your FTP up a few watts.
Anyone know how to change the category of a workout?
I have created the custom workout below, and TR classifies it as a VO2max workout. But it’s really a sweet spot workout.
Is there any way to change the category from VO2max to Sweet Spot?
Classification of Custom Workouts is not fully supported yet within AT, that goes for both identification of Workout Level and zone, and editing. Thanks for your patience while the team works on developing this feature!
Thanks Ivy. Appreciate your response. Understood on the timeframe.
Speaking from experience, in Sweet Spot I typically go from the 4s to the high 5s, perhaps 6s in one block. And on VO2max from the high 4s to the 6s. This was the progression that AT suggested and it was mostly good.
My PLs for e. g. endurance have mostly been abysmally low, because very long Z2 rides aren’t part of the usual plans. In the polarized plan I am doing pre-season, I’ll probably go up to level 6.5. However, that is because I am quite time constrained and AT doesn’t take longer outdoor rides into account.
I’d just stick to the schedule suggested by the training plan: at the beginning of each block you do a ramp test and adjust the number if necessary according to your experience.
A quck question regarding levels and time.
Is a 5.2 progression level on a 1hr workout the same as a 5.2 on a 1hr 15 (for example)
I want to choose alternate workouts on Tues/Thurs to increase the time by 15mins and want to know if I need to choose the same level.
Thanks
Workout Level? Completely depends on the efforts assigned within the workout, duration between them, intensity between them, etc. Alternates will allow you to preview the workout level for each option before you switch them out. 
Thanks Ivy, maybe I wasnt clear enough.
Can the workout levels in workouts be compared between different durations.
I want to extend my Tues/Thurs workouts to 1hr15 using alternate workouts. Should I choose the same workout level as the plan 1hr workout? (Or is a 5.2 level for 1hr 15 harder than a 5.2 level for 1hr)
