In the past, Jonathan has said that he thinks documenting it over complicates it and he prefers we just answer based on how we feel. I donāt agree, because my perception of āhardā can be different than yours, and it has implications on future workouts the AI assigns, but thatās the answer Jonathan has shared multiple times.
3 Likes
when will we see this on the app?
1 Like
Been there, done that.
- TR had a very slim version of this in their survey shortly after release.
- They stripped that not much later and said it was due to confusion.
I doubt we will ever see it return despite this coming up repeatedly since introduction. I have no data (like they probably do), but it seems that at least a decent sized minority can and does benefit from a guideline. I understand it may be an issue for others, but I do NOT see why this has to be an all or nothing proposition.
Information like this isnāt inherently good/bad, as it will depend on numerous factors. Based on the repeat sharing and admissions from many that they like it, I still believe this info can serve a useful purpose for quite a few people.
6 Likes
Donāt hold your breath.
1 Like
Based on the mention of the newer rating within Zwift, I agree with the methods stated above, so I added them to the sheet:
17 Likes
I still refer to this regularly. I often find myself in between ratings. I try not to overthink it but probably do.
Could I repeat the ENTIRE workout? No, but it was easy enough it doesnāt deserve a Moderate rating.
Or if I rate a workout as Hard (I could do one more interval), and a part of me says āYou wanna bet?ā
Overall, I have had pretty good luck getting workouts that feel right from TR AI. Interval days are feeling Hard or Very Hard, and endurance days are feeling easy or moderate (Low volume, Masters).
Isnāt it more likely that athletes will err on the side of doing too much rather than too littleāwith human or AI coaches? Thereās always that temptation to under report effort because we have in our heads this idea of constant up and to the right progression.
2 Likes
Is this a real answer? If so, seems a bit snarky.
Lor
MĆŖme problĆØme de volume pour moi, il y a un truc qui ne fonctionne pas correctement, et pas de solution apportĆ© alors que je payeā¦
It is as real as my guess, based on many years of dealing with TR on this topic (since introduction) and hearing their answer repeated countless time since then. They are not inclined to change from what I know.
No snark intended. Just as about as brief as I can answer the question.
9 Likes
If I have one quibble, itās that āall outā seems like a superlative. You canāt go higher. Rating an effort all out and selecting 9 seems weird. Maybe it should be 7-8-9. I might even argue a zwift 1 doesnāt exist. Haha, I think Iām now overthinking the chart. Lol.
I will leave that to TR to handle, since it was their wording (not mine).
Perhaps. I plan to leave it as is since I think the consequences of slight differences from what I added are likely marginal at best. Besides, itās an unofficial guide that people are free to ignore and/or morph to their own preferences 
5 Likes
okayā¦didnāt realize this has some history. thanks for the update.
Lori
Over 4 years and running. I spent more than my fair share of time & effort in the discussions, making the list above (along with underlying support info available in my shared TR doc) and lobbying TR to do more than they have chosen along the way. Dead horse & brick wall + head sort of process at this point. So despite the short comment above, this goes rather deep.
6 Likes
It wasnāt a critique of your work Chad, hope it didnāt come across that way, Itās more that I think TR should standardize to a 1-10 system personally. Then itāll match with Zwift and Intervals.icu. Just my opinion. Thanks for the effort!
4 Likes
100% , you can add Garmin and Training Peaks to that list as well. Even on a medical scale, youāre asked āHow is the pain on a 1 to 10 scale?ā , Having two different scoring systems (with the Zwift connection) is just plain confusing.
3 Likes
Deleted post
1 Like
Thank you @mcneese.chad for updating this and reposting it. I happen to like it as a baseline. I think I answer consistently but not accurately. I likely underrate my ride difficulty slightly more than this. I think I will re-calibrate. Hope you are well. Cheers.
2 Likes
I think Iāve stayed fairly on top of the discussion, but forgive me if this got answered somewhere and I missed it.
Thereās one aspect of the teaser that confuses me: I think of Progression Levels as being how TR adapts to my strengths and weaknesses relative to my FTP, and does so based on analyzing my workouts.
The summary sort of sounds like itās going to leave zone-specific stuff to user adjustment based on feeling too hard or too easy. I feel like TR does a decent job of this, though itās hard to say given that while an Endurance ride can feel a bit hard by the end, itās never going to be hanging on by your fingernails the way Threshold or VO2 mightā¦
Can I rest easy knowing that if I donāt want to twiddle knobs, itās still going to be an improvement to overall analysis and workout prescription? The overall slider makes sense to me given that you can accept the default, or adjust based on external constraints on recovery; but itās hard to imagine that short of failing one particular type of workout consistently that Iād have a stronger opinion about my zone-specific needs than TR ought to. Or to put it another way, I hope that TR has the data and tools to make better decisions about individual zones than my gut would.
When???
Sorry this is just poor product management
2 Likes