WKO4 was a bit unwieldy, but the WKO5 UI is vastly improved and, providing you’re willing to learn the system, is an extremely useful bit of kit.
Having had some lab tests done, the modeled WKO5 VO2 Max lines up quite nicely with the lab-recorded values. How this relationship changes as fitness progresses, I can’t really comment.
However, my recent increase in modeled VO2 Max appears to be pretty well correlated with performance (i.e., 5 min power) and to be frank, I think it’s good enough to use as a guide of Fractional Utilization and to influence overall training strategy.
I’m not saying it’s accurate (could be though!), but it appears to work for me and is one more insight that can be used to help navigate the choppy waters of being a self-coached athlete.
I picked up WKO5 on a black Friday sale for $125 with the intent to learn its secrets. I really need to spend 10+ hours watching videos and learning how to interpret the charts but I haven’t done it yet. I’ll get to it some day…
Glad to hear… There has also been talk of plans being automatically updated or new suggestions made based on skipped days and failed work outs. From my perspective this is TR’s real value proposition over other indoor platforms and tracking apps. So as much as they can play the role of a private coach the better.
I remember seeing @Bryce mention that something like this was in the works… so that should be very exciting.
I’d be astounded if AI was’t the next big thing we see within TR - taking the best parts of TR, Xert, WKO5’s Optimized Levels would be amazing…but a lot of work.
At Moderate-1, your ramp rate is 2. This means that if your TL is 70, the system will help you get to 72 after 1 week. If your TL is currently 70, you need to 70 per day just to stay at 70. You need to do more on average per day to get to 72. If you miss a day, that means at least 140 (Xert calculates this as your XSS Deficit). So yeah, you need to do more work that you currently do to improve. That’s how things improve and all Xert helps you do.
Testing in the formal sense. 20 minute test. Ramp test. 8 minute test. etc. None of these are ever needed. Xert works out what your 20 minute best power is from your data and how you fatigue. You will need to push yourself to your limit during a ride. Xert detects these moments automatically and uses them to determine your FTP and 2 other fitness markers (the three are called a Fitness Signature). With enough data, it can predict what your fitness is and will be even without testing or even pushing yourself to your limit.
You should listen to our podcasts, particularly the first one. There is no fallacy because we only use your data. It’s all right before your own eyes.
That wasnt the perception that I got out of my use of Xert. It felt like if you didnt do very had efforts you were not improving. The progress was only acknowledged by going to your limit as you say. In essence you needed to test. Maybe a difference in wording but still feels like improvement comes from testing.
That’s what I don’t understand. Going in, my TrainerRoad history says my 6 week daily average was 48TSS. If we multiply that by 7 days a week we get 350 TSS per week…so why would Xert say I need 70XSS a day? That comes to 500XSS a week.
It wouldn’t. You’re likely not keeping an eye on the pacer. This is fairly common. You should do workouts when you want/can do them and keep the the pacer centred. If you’re finding it’s always to the right of center, you’re either training too much or your improvement rate is set too low. If it’s always in the red on the left, improvement rate is set too high for your available hours. This is relative to your average daily volume.
(edit for clarity). If you’re at 48, the pacer will help you get to 50 in 7 days, 52 in 14 days, etc. 70 above was just an example. You’ll need more than 50 per day to get there in one week.
Most athletes just ride and often will see breakthroughs on their rides and will then say “yeah, that’s where I was dropped” or “that was a tough climb”. They don’t think of these moments of maximal effort as a test. Previously, we would need to see these occur in your data in order for you to see improvements. We asked our users and they preferred it this way over having Xert increase/decrease your numbers (FTP, etc.) via prediction. We’ve since added the ability to choose to have Xert predict your numbers. This is what is called the No Decay Method. We’ve had users on it for weeks, months and some approaching a year with validated predictions. With good, robust data, the system can do some decent predictions that you can validate yourself.
Well I used Xert over four years ago so things may be better then previously but its concept as predictive is not what I was after. I am not after avoiding an FTP test. I really dont focus on the actual number that much. I am after knowing what types of riding and intensity will lead to an improved FTP or whatever time duration I am working on.
I would like a model that can advise how the type of training you do will impact the outcomes. Something that lets you forecast the impact of your plan. Take TR Planbuilder and add a predictive element to it for outcome from following the plan.
For example if I use TR programs Predictive would be…If you do SSB1 low volume performing all workouts at 100% your FTP will change from -2% to +10% at some confidence level. Being able to modify some parameters ie volume, age, etc… would all impact the outcome range. For those that do too much would need your chance of getting hurt from this volume/intensity is xx%
This would be awesome, but there are so many individual physiological properties, which make it very challenging. For example, muscle fiber type (how you respond to long steady distance vs HIIT for example), FTP as a % of VO2 Max, recovery ability, other life stressors, diet and nutrition etc.
Having used Xert and followed the suggested workouts, my FTP progression wasn’t even close to the predictions the model punted out. I know why, my FTP was too close to my VO2 Max and I needed to “raise the roof”. Xert didn’t pick this up.
