I wondered if there was a way to use ML to learn athlete’s workout preferences? For example when doing endurance workouts I tend to pick workouts with long unchanged intervals e.g carter. and when doing threshold I dislike intervals with sloping increase/decrease in power and I find myself switching the suggested workout type a lot. Is it possible for ML to pick up on these preferences and suggest workout types that I prefer / do more often?
8 Likes
Hey @Karllove1220 
Not as of right now, but I’ll submit it as a feature request!
4 Likes
Have you considered doing the ones you don’t like in order to get better at them?
8 Likes
I’m not trying to get better at workouts. I’m trying to get faster. Are you going to tell me riding at 180W, then 200, then 180, then 200 is better than steady riding at 200W?
I agree with OP. VO2 max is a big one. Short-shorts do nothing for me. Long sustained intervals with or without hard starts get me the best results.
1 Like
I’m not telling you anything. I’m just saying that if one doesn’t like certain workouts, that could be a reason to explore them, rather than avoid them.
4 Likes
If this was a request to avoid certain types of intervals sure. But something like 3x20 @90% and 3x20 ranging between 88-92% is essentially the same workout and if one has a preference between the two then it seems like allowing them to select the ones they like more would be nice.
It’s not going to have any impact on their training but might make them more likely to do the training in the first place.
3 Likes
Glad I’m not the only one. Gently sloping intervals drive me slightly nuts.
4 Likes
Exactly. 
Compare Tray Mountain series vs Eclipse series. Continually varying intervals can be good for “variety” in erg mode, but in resistance mode & outdoors, having to hit a moving target can be annoying. Resistance & outdoors will naturally have some sort of variance anyway.
Many thanks Caro!
1 Like
By different I mean the same workout level but simpler workouts. For me they’re more enjoyable and easier to execute outside. I think this will make me faster in the long term like @CaptainThunderpants said!
2 Likes
Not a TR user, but if you switch the workout to outside aren’t they always simpler ? or does it still make them “complex” ?
No problem!
I have one question though about your request. Are you asking for this feature in the context of Training Plans?
If so, the workout profiles are chosen to be most suitable for your event/goals.
IDK about TR, but outdoor versions of Systm workouts are simplified to make executing them more reasonable. I haven’t investigated doing TR workouts outdoors, and pretty likely I won’t, simply because I don’t try to do structured workouts outdoors anymore.
Yes, within a training plan. I don’t mean changing the overall purpose of the workout, but preference in how the similar types of workouts are structured. I think Twowkg explained it best.
The workout alternatives is already a great feature which allows me to choose, but I find myself constantly replacing workouts with undulating or sloping power targets and it would be cool if TR could learn these preferences and prescribe workouts that it knows I like to do that achieve the same goal.
2 Likes
I think this is a reasonable request, with one addition I would make. I don’t mind at all riding an indoor interval workout with rapidly changing watt targets, since I generally use ERG mode for that. But on outdoor rides it becomes very difficult to hit the rapidly changing watt targets. I just rode a TR threshold workout outside today, and it had over-and-unders which were really hard to manage. They changed too fast for me to “settle in” to my cadence and rhythm, especially with slight uphill, downhill or wind direction changes. Plus, I kept looking at my head unit to check the watts which isn’t very safe (note to self: stop doing that!). So, I would offer amending this request to automatically select simpler workouts with fewer changing targets, but only when a ride is edited to be an Outdoor ride. I’m sure it is possible to get a similar training stimulus, but with a simpler workout. Again, for me this is an issue only for outdoor rides. I don’t think it would hurt to offer the user a choice of simpler rides whether indoors or out, but I think the outside rides would really benefit with auto-selecting simpler workouts.
1 Like
Outdoor workouts are simplified and give power target ranges rather than exact power targets.
Wouldn’t that be discipline-dependent rather than based on preference. The purpose of ahort-shorts is different from long, sustained VO2max intervals. So one issue I see is that this decision is made on what you like or think is good for you rather than what the data says is good for you and necessary.
2 Likes
I’d say it’s more objective dependent than discipline. Or timing (time of year) dependent. I still have short-shorts in my training, just not in my VO2 blocks. To me, short-shorts are not good VO2 max workouts for building or working on VO2 max. That isn’t to say I don’t utilize them elsewhere on my calendar for different reasons, usually closer to races.
1 Like
The discipline implies goals, although you could add training objectives (e. g. working on your limiters) to the list of factors to consider.
Time of year = training phase, no?
To me, comparing 30-30s to long, sustained VO2max work is akin to comparing over/unders to sustained threshold work: both happens in the same power zone (right around FTP), but they have different purposes.
So I wonder whether this is simply a matter of semantics: VO2max as a power zone vs. extending one’s VO2max as a training goal. Long, sustained intervals are aimed at doing the latter, short-shorts belong to the same power range, but have a very different goal (getting better at short, repeatable bursts of power in the 120–150 % FTP range).
1 Like
For some things, yes. But I’d argue that regardless of cycling discipline, and probably regardless of sport, working VO2 max is going to have a benefit. Which is why I said objective dependent rather than discipline. If the objective is to improve VO2 max, I think long sustained intervals are more effective. It doesn’t really matter what the discipline is. I’d probably call short-shorts more discipline dependent actually.
Yes
I firmly disagree here. I’d put both long sustained Threshold and Over-Unders in the same block. I’d never put short-shorts in my VO2 block, or really even in the same training phase. That’s pretty much my point. Short-shorts and long VO2 have their distinct place. Long Threshold and Over-Unders are more similar in my mind.
This is my point. Pretty much exactly. There is riding in VO2 power (short-shorts) and there is training to improve VO2 (sustained intervals). If I’m doing a VO2 block, that is, a block of training to improve my VO2, I don’t really care about just riding in VO2 power (short-shorts). I want to improve my VO2. In a different phase I will do short-shorts because it’s the repeated efforts with little rest that I’m looking for.
1 Like