hi, i just completed “Spruce -2” (2x20@85) workout is 3.2 sweetspot but i did at 110% so it was 2x20@93 which is almost same as “Eichorn +1” (2x20@92) which is 5.0 sweetspot.
i get only 3.2 sweetspot PL, IMO i should get 5.0, because thats the effort i really done.
is intensity ignored and only source workout is considered for PLs ?
Welcome to the forum! 
As of now, we’re generating PL changes based on the workout you’ve completed.
Instead of increasing the intensity of one workout to resemble another (this can become a bit of a slippery slope), it’s better to use Workout Alternates to find a replacement workout that best suits your needs. That way it’s much easier for us to recognize precisely the work you’ve done and assign the progression credit that you deserve.
Let me know if this makes sense and if you have any other questions!
Why do progression levels seemingly not take into account the actual work the rider does?
IMO it seems very backwards to just look at the source workout rather than noting that someone did 3x20 at 90% or whatever and taking that into account.
Maybe, but it’s not really what it’s for. So if you start a ride and as you get into it you’re like, man this is too hard I’m not going to finish. Tweak it down. Similarly, if you’re getting to the end of a workout and you think it’s not even touched the sides, add five or ten percent. I wouldn’t use it from the start for the whole workout, as you Eddie says.
Ideally sure one only adjust a workout slightly but I see no reason not to credit someone for doing the work they objectively have done.
OP did 2x20 at 93% but the “ai” is not recognizing this (or at least that seems to be the case).
If any increases in intensity aren’t factored into the progression levels given by the workout, is there still an incentive to go to the effort of increasing it? Do FTP calculations include these increases in %, for example?
Ah well the AIFTP does analyse all work done, as does RLGL.
Its progression levels we’re talking about here. And I’d say this has parallels with a coach saying, do X and the athlete deciding to do X +10 because they think it’s better, when it isn’t. So not getting PL “credit” would be a good thing imho.
To @jrg106 it’s incentivising the athlete to stick to the prescribed workout.
I very much disagree. If one of my athletes goes out and does their tempo workout at FTP I’ll chastise them for going harder than intended (or red light green light in the TR world) but I will definitely credit them for the work they have done and take that into account for future workouts. Like if they go and do 2x20 at 93% as OP did I am not going to have them go a do an easier SST workout because I definitively know they are capable of at least 2x20 at 93%.
Because then you’d have to actually look minute by minute at the work done and assign a value to the aggregate of that.
That’s very different from - and much more tricky than - “just” assigning a difficulty to a workout profile in advance.
I agree that is more difficult than just assigning values to the workout and assuming it was completed then adjusting based off of the athletes RPE and feedback.
I don’t know how difficult it would be to implement for TR as I have no idea what their backend looks like.
However intervals does a very solid job of automatically detecting my intervals and I have made several dashboards in wko5 that do the same for different types of workouts.
Nate talked about proposed changes along these lines in this thread
No idea bout the ‘when’ as far as I can see though
It’s good to see them recognizing some of the issues with PLs, hopefully this can roll out for users soon. Or maybe it will be rolled out with workout levels v2 if that ever materializes.
I’m new to TR. For my part, I have noticed the system seems to “suggest adaptations” that increase the TSS of future workouts after completing a higher TSS workout (even though I have seemingly completed the workout within all the set targets) and then later on in the week, I’ve seen the system push me into a yellow day and suggest a decrease in the TSS of future workouts though I have completed every prior workout within targets. My point within the context of this thread is; the AI seems to be looking at a lot of variables I would have never considered in the past in spite of training with a coach for decades! I remember countless workouts where I felt great and crushed the numbers (inside and out) only to pay a price downstream.
My thoughts on your higher power numbers for the workout are, by doing the increased wattage was there an increase in HR and did that push you to yellow later in the period? Did the AI suggest any adaptations, up or down? Would the increase in FTP% change the workout level? I apologize for trying to answer my questions via yours!