💬 Feature Request: Restore Partial Credit for High-Effort Workouts—Respect Past Standards & Returning Athletes

[vorzap]

TrainerRoad team,

I’m a returning user who recently rejoined after a one-year break for coaching. I came back expecting the same structure and feedback mechanisms I relied on before—but discovered that workouts which previously earned full credit, even when executed with short breaks or HR-based pacing, now award zero Progression Level advancement unless power targets are hit exactly.

Specifically:

• I started with a VO₂ max PL of 3.1
• Attempted a 10.0-rated workout (Irvine)
• Completed all intervals, maintained elevated heart rate and time in zone
• Garmin registered a clear VO₂ max bump from 55 to 56
• TrainerRoad awarded no PL advancement because brief pedal breaks disqualified the effort

This wasn’t a failed workout—it was an imperfectly executed adaptation stimulus, and it delivered results. The fact that TR now dismisses efforts like this, which used to be rewarded, feels not just discouraging—it feels like a bait-and-switch. I paid for a full annual subscription expecting to continue a system that used to respect effort with nuance, only to find that precision now overrides progress.

Partial credit systems aren’t about lowering standards—they’re about honoring physiological reality and respecting returning users who built their training identities within your platform.

I’m asking you to consider either:

• Introducing graded completion feedback for workouts attempted from lower PLs
• Restoring legacy logic that recognized time in zone, HR strain, and interval completion as valid progression signals

Athletes are more than spreadsheets. Our bodies adapt in complex ways—and your platform used to honor that beautifully. Please let it again.

Sincerely, A loyal, disappointed athlete who still believes this platform can lead

[Twowkg]

I assume this is the workout you are referring to?

I am not surprised that TR didn’t use that to assign any PL bumps. Going off of what details we can see in the TR screenshot those are more than brief rests and it looks like none of the intervals were completed as assigned.

Why the decision to jump straight into a PL 10 workout? Unless you were doing similar workouts during coaching that seems a bit hasty.

[vorzap]

Yes, that’s the workout.

I understand that from a system logic perspective, it wasn’t completed “as prescribed.” But for returning users like myself with years of experience and a well-established feel for VO₂ load management, it’s frustrating to see a workout dismissed just because it deviates from strict power continuity.

The intervals were completed with elevated heart rate and sustained time in zone. Garmin registered a measurable VO₂ max increase. That suggests the workout delivered the intended adaptation—even if pedal breaks disqualified it from PL progression.

What makes this even more frustrating is that TrainerRoad failed to maintain connection with my Wahoo KICKR v6 mid-workout. I had to switch to my Assioma power pedals just to salvage the session—losing power tracking, breaking flow, and compounding the data gaps. Despite this extra effort to recover a session derailed by tech, the system still awarded zero credit.

Here’s where it feels punitive: attempting a larger jump in workout difficulty has essentially become a gamble. If I crush the intervals but don’t execute them with robotic precision—or get undermined by a platform glitch—I get no credit. That disincentivizes real-world effort and puts returning athletes in a bind: either play it artificially safe or risk losing progress acknowledgment entirely.

I’m not asking for full credit on a Level 10 workout. I’m asking for a smarter system—one that recognizes adaptation markers and maps the effort to a lower PL when full completion isn’t achieved. That would respect both the physiological nuance and the reality of tech imperfections that impact performance.

Progression Levels should reflect growth, not just structure. This was a high-effort day, completed under adversity, and it moved me forward. The system should honor that.

[huges84]

@vorzap

pedal breaks

A pedal break is a few seconds out of a 15+ minute interval to stretch your legs. You spent more than half of the total interval time well below the target power. That’s not even close to the specified training. It’s not a pedal break, it’s you apparently not being able to handle the interval (maybe you can, but in this case you didn’t do it).

IMO it’s totally reasonable for the algorithm to classify it as a failed workout (it was!). Trying to give partial credit when your execution was so far off the mark doesn’t really fit with TR’s approach of gradual progression of workouts. If you follow a TR plan then you would never be at a PL of 3.1 and be given a 10 workout (unless you hit a bug).

You’re right that it was still some VO2max stimulus. Great. Garmin’s (not so precise) algorithm gave you a 1.8% bump in your VO2max estimate. So what? That’s basically a rounding error.

There’s nothing TR needs to change here IMO. You already manually picked a higher PL workout than TR recommends. You can do so again if you really believe that you can properly execute and would be better served by a higher PL workout.

But don’t let your ego bite off more than it can chew. Start with something like (your current PL + 1.5) as the workout level. Execute it with near perfection. Then evaluate if you can and should go higher again. So you should try a PL 4.5 workout and do it without any “pedal breaks”. VO2max intervals are short enough that you shouldn’t need any.

[bobmcstuff]

If I was returning - and therefore knew my VO2 PL in TR was low - I would pick a VO2 max workout which I could actually do (based on my training outside of TR, or past experience - whatever), which would get my PL to a sensible place to start with. Then I would just follow the TR recommended VO2 workouts after that. Alternatively, I would just complete the one I was given and mark it easy - TR will give you big increases in recommendations if that happens (and FWIW I do get Stretch or Breakthrough workouts recommended by TrainNow where TR presumably thinks my current PL is too low).

I wouldn’t pick a 10.0 workout, fail it, and then blame the system… I don’t really understand why you would do that in the first place, you’re just setting yourself up for failure.

[vorzap]

@huges84 @bobmcstuff

Appreciate both of your replies—fair points all around, and I think you’re right to call out the gap between structure and execution. That said, let me clarify a few things and share where I’m taking this from here.

Since TrainerRoad costs more per month than a World of Warcraft subscription, I’ve started treating Progression Levels like raid bosses: stacking energy systems, optimizing execution windows, and learning the mechanics as they evolve. I’m not here to break the game. I’m here to beat it.

Yes, I was at PL 3, and yes, I manually selected a Level 10 VO₂ workout—because before stepping away for a year of coaching, I regularly completed efforts at that level. I came back knowing my PLs had reset, and assumed (as used to be the case) that if I finished the intervals, kept heart rate high, and completed the session—even with minor breaks—I would still be credited for the effort.

The real sting wasn’t the “looks like you had trouble” survey. It was that none of the effort or adaptation was recognized, despite:

• Completing all intervals and finishing the full workout
• Holding heart rate squarely in the VO₂ max zone
• Accumulating solid time in zone
• Garmin immediately bumping my VO₂ max from 55 → 56 after the session

Just to be clear—this used to earn full credit. I’m not talking about partial credit for a disaster. In the past, TrainerRoad awarded Progression Level increases for workouts like this where you pushed through and adapted—even if they weren’t textbook-perfect.

To make things worse, TrainerRoad dropped my KICKR v6 connection mid-workout. I had to switch to my Assioma pedals to salvage the session, so power data continuity was broken through no fault of my own. Still, I finished the workout.

Where I’m Taking This

After sleeping on it, I’ve accepted that TrainerRoad now prioritizes execution fidelity over physiological fidelity. So I’m adapting:

• Focus on +1 Productive workouts only
• Prioritize short-duration sessions, where one or two mistakes don’t kill the credit
• Stack multiple short workouts in a single 2-hour window to hit different energy systems and rack PLs with minimal risk
• Let TR reward power precision, and let Garmin tell me whether I’m actually adapting

I’m not frustrated anymore—I’m dialed in. The rules changed. That’s fine. So did my strategy.

Thanks again for the feedback. I’ll be out there grinding PLs, one algorithm at a time.

[ingluis29]

@vorzap

I’m not here to break the game. I’m here to beat it.

[Elgro]

They are getting rid of the productive, breakthrough, etc levels so you may need to adjust again.

I think you need to just follow the training plan and quit trying to game the system

[slipdog]

As is tradition with this forum - people are pointing out everything wrong with what you did and claim and you are sticking your finger in your ears and asking for TR to cover your tracks for you?

@vorzap

The real sting wasn’t the “looks like you had trouble” survey. It was that none of the effort or adaptation was recognized, despite:

• Completing all intervals and finishing the full workout
• Holding heart rate squarely in the VO₂ max zone
• Accumulating solid time in zone

You didn’t complete a single interval. Getting to the end of it doesn’t mean you did it.

What is your max HR? For this effort it was 181 so I’m guessing it’s higher than that. Your average HR for the VO2 intervals were:
152
150
161
157
146
149

So of the 6 intervals of 3 min Vo2max you spent zero of them at 90% or above HR (based on 181 max…which I’m sure you max is higher which makes your intervals even worse for making it into actual VO2max).

You spent less than 12 minutes TIZ for VO2max when the workout called for 19.

So if this were a test you failed every section. Why do you think you deserve credit for it?

[vorzap]

@Elgro @slipdog
For context—I’ve spent the past year untangling myself from a toxic coaching and team environment that burned me out. Six-day tempo blocks. Teammates critiquing cadence and aero form every session. I lost any sense of internal pacing. I’ve since filed a SafeSport report and stepped away—because not only the fact I couldn’t handle it, I also refused to keep giving my mental space to people who weren’t helping me grow.

This session? It wasn’t VO₂ max by textbook. I didn’t hold cadence. I swapped power meters mid-ride. But I stayed present every time the intrusive thoughts tried to hijack me. That’s not a failure. That’s a turning point.

If you’ve never had to rebuild trust in your own body and effort after a toxic system tore it down, I don’t expect this to resonate. But I’m sharing this because not every breakthrough is visible on the chart. Some of us are training to reclaim the mind before we can unlock the legs.

[Neuromancer]

If you came from an environment where life was governed by needing to seek toxic external validation - maybe trying to force an app and it’s developers to provide replacement external validation isn’t the greatest solution here?

If you feel good about the workout - what does a PL matter?

[GoLongThenGoHome]

You can’t handle a 10:yet, try a 4 and see how you go

[vorzap]

@Neuromancer
The irony is I’m not trying to chase validation—I’m trying to avoid burnout from chasing it in all the wrong ways. That’s exactly why progression levels worked for me. They helped replace toxic reinforcement loops with something healthier and self-contained. I didn’t need a coach watching me—I needed the kind of lightweight, adaptive feedback that let me train with autonomy but without ambiguity.

If I felt good about every ride, I wouldn’t care about PLs. But some days, fatigue, meds, sleep, mood—they all distort my internal compass. The tags weren’t trophies—they were signal stabilizers.

If that system no longer works, fine. I just think it’s fair to say: don’t sell me signal, then remove it mid-sub without telling me.

As for @GoLongThenGoHome ‘you can’t handle a 10, try a 4’? Cute. But I’ve handled more than you know—and I’m still here, not because it was easy, but because I kept showing up anyway. If that isn’t progression, I don’t know what is.

[James_Sanderson]

Is AI writing these posts, the emojis and the way it’s all written scream AI.

Also you keep saying you hit the targets, clearly in the screenshot your way off, so why get rewarded for it?

Why so desperate to do a level 10. Wanting to avoid burnout, but chose a level 10 straight off the bat.

[James_Sanderson]

The more I look. The dropped 2 in vo2, no one has time to write that correctly unless AI does it.

[trpnhntr]

The tell for me was the m dash. AI loves it for some reason

[vorzap]

@James_Sanderson Yeah, I’ve been active on forums since you had to hear your 56k modem sing before you could even read a thread. I use AI now because I’ve also been online long enough to know how quickly a reply can turn combative. It keeps me clear, honest, and less likely to waste time feeding the trolls.

Still me behind the keys—it just helps me show up how I want to, not how my cortisol wants me to.

Call it snowflake behavior if you want, but I’d rather sound polished than stay silent or get drawn into another pointless spiral. AI’s my throttle control, not my replacement.

[grwoolf]

Essentially what you are asking for is for TR to rate the workout based on the work performed (ie - what you did), not the work prescribed (which you didn’t do). That is the feature many of us have been waiting years for.

With the way you executed that workout, you are also highlighting the difficulty of developing the ability to rate “unstructured” work. Looking at that power/HR graph, it would be really hard to guess at what (if any) quality adaptations are happening. Good luck trying to compare that to previous efforts to determine progression or not, I personally wouldn’t know where to start. A key part of determining progression is to do things in a somewhat repeatable and measurable way. X power for Y minutes with Z rest between intervals is the typical formula. Are there adaptations happening when you don’t follow a structured formula? Most likely, but good luck finding a meaningful correlation. There is a reason athletes train with structure using powermeters and stopwatches, it’s proven to be sucessfull. Will there be a day that a really intelligent system can look at a “messy” workout and make sense of it? Probably, but I’d still bet that using a messy approach won’t be as effective as following prescribed workouts.

[vorzap]

I think there’s room for a hybrid approach here. Let’s say I don’t follow the exact interval prescription but still produce a power curve consistent with a lower-rated sustained VO₂ workout—why not give partial credit accordingly?

Even something like: “Workout incomplete, but output matches 3.1-level effort from a less structured VO₂ session.”

That would at least acknowledge the training stress and intent, instead of throwing the whole effort out. Right now, it feels like if you don’t color inside the lines, the system treats it as worthless—even if you stayed in the right neighborhood physiologically. That’s demotivating when you know the work counted for something.

[grwoolf]

@vorzap

Even something like: “Workout incomplete, but output matches 3.1-level effort from a less structured VO₂ session.”

Agree that this would be a reasonable step toward giving credit for workouts that don’t need to be defined up front. I still think a workout would need structure to get “credit” and I think this is where many people would take issue with the approach and complain that it sucks. I mean, nobody wants to be told they aren’t getting quality adaptations from their 2 hour smash-fest group ride. And they may very well be getting some adaptations from efforts like that, it’s just a really hard thing to find correlation in that data. I’m afraid TR has shelved the entire idea of “measuring” workouts that aren’t pre-planned, possibly because they don’t want the backlash of what many would see as a flawed/limited solution if it still required structured watts x time. I don’t think I’ve heard any progress updates on this feature in a long time, but maybe I just missed it.