Feature Request: Selective Adaptation

Hey there @tbright76!

I just took a look at your plan. In this instance, your Sunday Sweet Spot workouts are meant to be “Achievable.” These workouts are supposed to help maintain your fitness rather than push you. Your VO2 and Threshold workouts you have on Tues/Thur/Sat are meant to be the “Productive” ones that will really bump up your fitness. We don’t want too much extra load on that Sunday ride to keep the training stress of the plan manageable.

Hopefully that clears things up! Let me know if you have any other questions. :slight_smile:

@ZackeryWeimer thinks for the insight on the sweet spot workouts, that does make sense. I appreciate the info.

1 Like

Thanks for moving this. I did do a little searching to see if the feature request already existed but I guess I overlooked this one.

1 Like

So another week down and I had another adaptation change for Sweet Spot reducing my next workout but everything else was bumped up. I don’t understand what exactly is being looked at for sweet spot. My RPM, Power, HR, etc all seems good and on par with what the plan is giving me. I have decided to just go with the AI suggestions because I do feel that overall its taking me the right direction. But I am curious what its seeing to suggest the change. My assumption is that maybe my average HR is higher for the workout then it should be. I know @ZackeryWeimer said it should be “Achievable” but I am not real sure what that means when it comes to the specifics of the workout, HR, RPM, TSS, Etc.

Is there any update on the Feature Request? I’m just curious if its being contemplated or not.

Don’t forget that in the podcast introducing AT a couple of years ago Nate made the point that long term progress isn’t linear; if each workout got harder you’d eventually exceed your capabilities, therefore AT sometimes suggests workouts which consolidate gains. He used the analogy of bench press, if you successfully push 200kg you don’t necessarily advance to 220Kg next time, rather, you might do 180kg for a few workouts with increasing numbers of reps to consolidate the gain.

1 Like

The plan you are currently on is Short Power Build. The workouts meant to push your fitness along in this phase include On/Offs, VO2 Float Sets, and Threshold work with Hard Starts or Bursts.

Sweet Spot progression is not the goal of this phase of training. Sweet Spot workouts in this phase are kept Achievable so that you don’t get overloaded for the workouts meant to target improving your short power. Think of these workouts as maintenance rather than workouts meant to improve your capabilities at Sweet Spot.

When we’re talking about “Achievable” in the context of TR, we mean in terms of Workout Levels. Workout Levels go beyond traditional metrics like TSS and IF. They utilize Adaptive Training’s data-driven insights and incorporate nuanced factors such as repetition, interval length, and recovery time to quantify the relative difficulty of each TrainerRoad workout. At this time, we don’t analyze HR or RPM when determining the difficulty of a workout.

Rest assured that we’ve logged the feature request, but our devs have a lot on their plate right now with other big updates coming for TR. It’s something we would love to implement, but we don’t have an ETA at this time – sorry about that.

Please let me know if you have any other questions in the meantime, though!

1 Like

This isn’t exactly the same feature request but I think it’s in the same vein.

Request: Can users modulate or add-to the training levels (within a limited range)? Example: workout was really freaking hard but I completed it but with a few bailouts (backspins, -3%, etc). Instead of accepting anaerobic 5.4, I can down modulate it to 5.0 or 5.2. Conversely, after a period of time off a “stretch” might be too easy. I could push up that 5.4 to a 5.6 and speed up the adaptive workout selections to make learning a bit faster.
Perhaps this option is offered only under select criteria like a 1. 2, or “5 plus bailouts” for stretch and breakthrough workouts. I can see a case where users try to push up levels too much too fast inappropriately and get burned.

I’ve noticed the questionnaire down adapt future workouts if a productive or achievable workout is too hard which is nice, but I think it seems to speed up intensity if I start to push the fringes too much

I think it would be good if TrainerRoad could add a tooltip for each proposed change describing the reason for the change, just like you described in the text above. E.g. “The workout is expected to be productive (between 6.3 and 7.2), but the current workout is achievable (5.4)”. Or “The workout duration is expected to be between 90 and 120 minutes, but the current workout duration is 60 minutes.”

With the current functionality, we have to guess why the changes are proposed.

You can do this yourself using Alternates. If you want a harder workout, select a harder one from the alternates - your have options to select time & achievable, productive, etc. to filter the list of workouts like in the screenshot below. This is really the easiest way of changing a specific workout to be harder / easier.

1 Like

I know but not what I’m getting at. If I select a workout that was too hard but manage to complete it with a few bailouts and absolutely wrecked, my progression level goes up to that respective workout even when a lower one might be more appropriate. Hence reducing that by 0.2 points will be more accurate.

It’s easier to go up than back down because you just select a harder workout but in the case the difference is pretty large, it can help recalibrate a little more quickly. And it’s one less workout to get to the right spot

If you are feeling totally wrecked, are you rating the workout as All Out? If so, and AT is giving you full PL credit, than that feels like an AT bug.