šŸŽ‰ šŸŽ‰ šŸŽ‰ Introducing Adaptive Training! šŸŽ‰ šŸŽ‰ šŸŽ‰

Nope, Iā€™m on the second week of Short Power Build HV.

I think as @Sakay mentioned in the notes for Short Power Build HV itā€™s that SS is not the goal of this plan so I think the intention is for the Sunday workout to be less intense.

Even though Iā€™m on the Short Power Build HV plan it just seems a lot less intensity then when I was on the old plans traditionally and just recently after coming out of SS Base HV I & II.

I guess thatā€™s why I guess Iā€™m questioning it.

Also on week 2 of short power build (but LV) and seeing odd behaviour for the third ride of the week - no progression at all from this week to next and it feels like a big regression. For reference, last week I did Lion Rock -1. Waiting to see if anything changes after I ride today.

Backwards progression for me too between this week and next:

Hmm looking at the workouts, not the levels, next week looks harder than previous. Threshold workout is exactly the same, minus z2 part.

You think so? Dashuik and Keeper both look easier than Wild Snow to me. The extra Z2 on Senger makes it harder than Tunemah by definition, but Tunemah also has longer recoveries.

[e] (And obviously AT looks at levels, so what we think looks harder doesnā€™t matter too much :sweat_smile:)

I had The Chimneys +1 on the calendar for last night, and performed it here, and I rated it a 3-Hard at the end.

  • I have a current PL of 3.5 for Threshold.

  • This was rated as ā€œAchievableā€ with a Workout Level of 2.4 Threshold, which makes sense in light of my 3.5 rating.

  • I knew this workout was likely easier than I could handle and wanted, but I decided to follow it and increase Workout Intensity during the workout as I felt capable. I also added 30 minutes of Endurance, but am restricting this issue to the main set.

My workout:

Default ā€œThe Chimneys +1ā€

My concern here drives from the fact that I kicked up the workout a fair bit, as seen by comparing the TSS, IF and KJ. In fact, I compared this to find a workout that is closer to values I generated, and I found
The Priest +5

Considering that a comparable workout to the performance I made is listed as ā€œProductiveā€ with a 4.4 Threshold rating:

  • Why did I get no increase in my Threshold Progression Level?

I actually considered making this exact substitution using the ā€œReplaceā€ function, but I was trying to prevent over-committing like I have done in the past. I effectively matched the performance of the harder workout, through manual changes to Workout Intensity, but seemingly donā€™t get rewarded since I marked an ā€œAchiveableā€ workout (that was my base) as 3-Hard rating?

I am just trying to understand if my expectations, use or something else is off base hereā€¦ because this makes no sense to me.

(I will submit this to TR directly too, but wanted to share here to see if anyone else has had a similar experience.)

3 Likes

Not this exact issue, but it is consistent with the fact that secondary progressions so far are nonsensical for a couple workouts Iā€™ve done so far.

As in strong cross-over between a workout classified in one zone and others in another zone, but not a consistent secondary progression.

The analysis of workouts seems a bit too isolated ATM.

I was under the impression that the superpass feature is not really there yet, cannot find the reference to it though.

Lots of people seem to post here that they went harder than the workout prescribed and get no progression if they rate it hard (according to their real perceived effort, not the hypothetical effort of the original workout). This is the recommended protocol according to TR (wasnā€™t that even in response to you @mcneese.chad?), but that recommendation does not make sense to me as long as the superpass feature does not seem to work well yet.

This is less a comment on AT itself, and more a comment on how TR has been communicating levels and maybe how Iā€™m struggling to wrap my head around it

This morning I completed Magina (Log In to TrainerRoad)

It is 4x16 at threshold with 6 minute breaks. It is a level 7.3 threshold workout where you spend a total of 64 minutes riding at your FTP, but with some breaks

i completed the workout, but felt pretty gutted at the end, as one might expect.

I think the thing Iā€™m having trouble with might be specific to Threshold - but itā€™s hard for me to figure out how to rate RPE on threshold workouts possibly because I have it in my head that doing 60 minutes without a break at FTP should be a fully capacitive effort, and likely one that would require a bit of rest ahead of time to complete.

As such, hitting a workout like this in the middle of the fourth week of a training block I would expect it to feel like an all out effort, or near enough.

So, all of that said - completing this workout and rating it as all out gave me the following progressions

image

Soā€¦this is as expected for AT, but seems to indicate either that the context of where you are in a block isnā€™t being taken into consideration as I would expect or that I need to shift my mindset around the threshold zone in particular

Iā€™m not sure I have an actual question here, but it was a little striking to me that I had zero progression on threshold for this workout and rating so I thought Iā€™d share

I think this is going to be a mindset thing because time to exhaustion at threshold can extend to 70 or even 80 minutes for some folks. Rating it all out at 64 minutes would suggest to me that the workout is close to your ceiling and itā€™s being conservative in ranking you up because it wants you to be successful with the next progression of the zone. Thatā€™s at least my assumption from it.

Does it follow then that you can do this at any point, without some sort of taper for a few days? Iā€™ve done 60 minutes at my FTP and have a decent amount of confidence in what I can do for an hour

bit of an odd adaptation suggestion today, the only thing I had done following an easy z2 ride was change tomorrowā€™s workout (sweet spot 9.1) to outside and itā€™s suggesting downgrading next Saturdayā€™s workout from 10 to 8.8

Like can you do the effort whenever you want? I think the only way to answer that it to try it. That youā€™ve done it before means you can do it again. Iā€™m not sure who that question fits into the entirely of AT though. Thatā€™s more of a ā€œcan I execute on race dayā€ kind of question rather than a training one.

You are right - it is basically the same week :slight_smile: no progreassion or regression. I have made a mistake thinking there is another vo2 workout in the following week.

I think this is spot on. I donā€™t get the sense they are trying to nail what your max fitness is and give you workouts at that all the time, but rather keep you at just the right amount of effort to remain productive and consistent. Thatā€™s a pretty wide bar, and being conservative is better than going based on your best effort.

That said, Iā€™d rather they indicate what your achievement level is by completing a workout, and then give me the right dose of workouts (be it lower or higher leveled ones depending on volume). That just doesnā€™t seem to be the way the system is operating.

2 Likes

That sure could be the case, and may explain the lack of changes in PL that I would have expected.

Related to the whole survey response, what is expected, what happens as a resultā€¦ it is a mess in my head. I wrote a best guess comment that was my understanding of how things might work and it seems I was at least partly, if not fully off base.

Because of that, I really donā€™t know what to expect, and that is why I posted what I did. By my research, it would seem that the ā€œworkā€ I did would equate to a 4.4 Threshold workout. Since I completed it, specifically at a 3-hard rating, I expected a bump up in my PL.

I have completed workouts at 4-Very Hard and gotten bumps in PL, so I donā€™t think that a 3-Hard rating means there will be no change.

As I tried to estimate in my likely failed post mentioned above, I think the rating must be viewed in context to the assigned workout level, and the actual results within the workout. It all seems very complex, and it boiling my brain. So at the very least, I am trying to understand what TR is doing, so I can adjust as needed.

In my case, I may have been ā€œbetter offā€ to pick and perform the harder workout, with the same 3-Hard rating to get actual PL changes.

  • If the reason I didnā€™t get a bump is the fact the Super-Pass is not in place, fineā€¦ as long as I know it will be addressed properly in the final tool.
  • If this result is ā€œas intendedā€, then I really donā€™t like it and would take this as an indication that I would change my direction when given a similar choice in the future.

So much of this AT use is ā€œtrustā€ in the process, but itā€™s hard to follow without at least a consideration of what should or should not happen in some cases.

1 Like

Trying to game the system instead of following the plan? Adaptive training at the moment is built around TR planned progressions, correct? Seems like it might be better sticking with LV plan as-is and doing your extracurricular efforts outside the planned progressions.

1 Like

Nah. It should be recognized as a superpass and bump the progression with a larger point.

3 Likes
  • Not gaming at all. I saw a WOL 2.4 on my schedule, know my PL of 3.5, and was feeling like I wanted a bit more than an easier, ā€œAchievableā€ workout. Thursday is usually one of my hardest workout days of the week, per the regular TR schedule, and I wanted that vs one that was too easy.

  • This also has to be framed by recognizing that my PLs are still messed up, from the bad association issue I covered well above, not to mention the fact that I am also doing outside workout, but on a Wahoo, so I am not getting any credit for those, or the unstructured work I am also doing outside.

  • I have an incomplete picture in my current PLā€™s, and am trying to still get what I know I can and need to do with my current goals in mind. I am ā€œbeta testingā€ in ways and dealing with several ongoing issues that make the current state of AT well short of a "donā€™t mess with it proposition.

  • Yup, and as covered above, mine are not an accurate picture at the moment.
  • For the record, I am on a Mid Vol plan, as I have done for many years, successfully.

  • I am making the best of a bad situation. I figured that trying to elevate an actual TR inside workout would yield positive results. I chose one method to do that (via workout intensity vs workout swap) to try and compensate for the data losses I have with my outside workouts not registering, and my unstructured stuff also no in the mix.

The problem all stems from an incomplete and inaccurate picture of my current PLā€™s.

  • Any time I ā€œmissā€ a scheduled TR workout for any reason, AT assumes fail and drops PL, and all following workouts in that Zone. Not idea, and not correct for my current situation.

  • If I blindly take what AT is giving me, I am getting way lower level workouts than are actually appropriate for my real fitness.

  • I could swap to LV in attempt to minimize the issues for when I choose to do a workout outside. But then, when I choose to do one inside as an extra workout, I am left guessing to a degree again. So that is itā€™s own issue, and adding workout outside in any fashion still gets ignored.

I donā€™t see a ā€œfixā€ here that removes the guesswork for anyone that is doing any workout other than the current TR inside workouts, or outside via Garmin. Itā€™s all quite messy.

1 Like

You folks on the beta should know better. Just throwing out ideas. Sounds like you have other issues related to the beta status of AT.