Not necessarily. Depending on where you are in your plan, it may have you in a maintenance mode for that zone, so achievable and productive workouts would be prescribed instead. This is the case for me in specialty where I only have achievable and productive workouts and there are no more stretches, which I believe is to keep me fresher for racing and sharpening. There are often very few stretch workouts in a week and fewer breakthroughs throughout an entire plan.
FWIW, it is Sustained Power Build LV. So I’d expect increasing Threshold to be a primary goal.
Perhaps it wants to keep it smoother in progression for you so you’re not burned out by the end of the block (assuming you’re toward the start and not the end of a block). The other option is that LV is likely only giving you one workout as productive or stretch each week due to the limitations on workouts per week. If that’s the case, it likely places a higher value on progressing you through over-unders. So I’m thinking it’s keeping your threshold workouts maintained so you can nail the over-under workout at 100% compliance, because it thinks this will progress you more. in other words, it is trying to save your legs for that one workout.
i look forward to unstructured rides being even loosely factored in to AT. i did a 7.5hr endurance ride at the weekend outdoors (with a PM), and wish it could be taken account of in some way.
Happy to clarify, AT will adapt as a result of custom workouts as well as TrainerRoad workouts, as all custom workouts are associated with their appropriate Progression Levels. Its not adjusting your custom workout or creating new custom workouts as a result of that, just identifying what ‘work’ you did and in what way through that custom workout, and potentially making adaptations in your future workouts to fill deficits or step off (depending upon your goals/plan/levels).
@IvyAudrain, I think in beta we’re still in the world where there are differences between what happens in different scenarios. Seems we have six categories of workouts on 2 different dimensions in our world – workout source, and how it’s ridden. Being a bear of very little brain (AKA Winnie-the-Pooh) I’m easily perplexed. I Just sketched out this grid to help me think through that.
If this represents today’s reality would you and your TR colleagues be very clear to which of these scenarios your comments apply? Thanks!
Edit, ah, forgot the Garmin/non-Garmin issue too. Probably means three location columns: Indoor on app, Outdoor on Garmin, Outdoor on non-Garmin. Nine-cell grid, yes?
I think your grid doesn’t show what is really happening, as you there are two higher levels:
- Completed workouts - which scenario(s) contribute to PL
- Future workouts - which future workouts on your calendar will / could AT suggest adaptations for
For example for #1:
- there is (should be) no difference between how AT works with a completed indoor workout that comes from the TR library or is a custom Workout Creator workout. So long as the TR app is used, then these are the same
- There is no difference between an indoor free ride / unstructured workout or an outdoor free ride / unstructured workout. Neither of these cases contribute to your PL at the moment
For #2: currently AT only adapts workouts that are part of a Plan Builder plan on your calendar. How / where you complete the workout (e.g., indoor or outdoor) is a secondary issue to whether prior to your doing the workout, AT will suggest adaptations. Once you complete the workout, you are in use case 1
Good comments. Chad was working in parallel in the beta thread.
However we end up, having this kind of view into the different dimensions and being able to clearly label what a particular comment refers to would be extremely helpful as there are so many moving parts.
For #1 (progression level updating) I believe the current status is:
|AT/TrainNow Feature||Goal||Current: May 28 2021||Status|
|Progression Level Updating||Indoors Structured||TR workouts only. Imported workouts from other platforms should be working. Custom Workout progression levels may not match TR workouts||Complete|
|Progression Level Updating||Indoors Unstructured, for example riding/racing in Zwift, FulGaz, etc.||not currently supported||work in progress|
|Progression Level Updating||Outdoors Structured||Only TR curated workouts synced to bike computer; Garmin computers only at the moment. No Strava upload support (= Wahoo)||work in progress|
|Progression Level Updating||Outdoors Unstructured||not currently supported||work in progress|
Nice clear table - TR should borrow it and add it to the AT status post
Now just need the same type of table for my case 2: which future workouts will AT adapt
copy & pasted from another thread (TrainNow). I’ve got a mental list of other stuff but no time.
FWIW, I’m very impressed with the reverse engineering that is going on. I think it’s great and very insightful. As mentioned above (or on another related thread), I hope TR incorporates the good / accurate stuff into their FAQ for AT.
Reflecting a few minutes on all the cool charts that are showing up in multiple threads, I think a major distinction is between two different capabilities/software/application platforms. IMHO, at this point in TRs evolution I’d not try to combine TrainNow commentary in with AdaptiveTraining as they have different use cases.
And I’ll echo several earlier posts I wrote and well as comments from others. TR is the ultimate authority on how things are designed and what is and isn’t production yet. No change in my POV – as much as there’s good stuff and counsel from users in the various threads, TR should be creating the FAQs/users guides/etc otherwise we’re all re-learning the same things (and sometimes re-asking questions already addressed) in this threaded discussion model of informal support.
I think all these tools sound great in the interim, but I would suspect TR’s vision is they aren’t needed because AT will work in all cases when it reaches production release.
As such, I’m not entirely sure how much time and energy they want to invest in creating those resources if they are obsolete in the near future. Especially when it’s better to have their resources behind development and getting AT out of closed beta. Not to mention that creating those resources would likely add to confusion down the line at the expense of solving temporary confusion right now.
So do they bite that bullet or just let folks do their thing on the forum like we have been while they cross the Ts and dot their Is and Js? If I were in their shoes, I’d focus on the final production release rather than create FAQ resources for a closed beta.
I disagree. They support staff, including Ivy, have to be getting hammered with questions from AT beta users. Internally, their staff need some reference to know these answers. So they should be able to share the basic details.
Yeah, it wouldn’t be a polished article, but a simple table is trivial to throw together. It just takes knowledge that TR has.
We’re definitely aware that this thread has become rather ungainly, and that the amount of athletes in the beta has reached a point where some more formal and easily-accessible how-tos and FAQs are needed. I’m personally working on this task this week.
Resources like the Known Issues page being separate (and meant for the identification of bugs and issues) help create a distinction from general FAQs/‘Getting Started’ tips that will apply to every iteration of Adaptive Training and really help our athletes!
I just got my first lot of adaptations for SSB MV2. VO2 Max and Threshold workouts have been updated upwards to current PL’s. but the Sunday SS rides have remained at low level Achievable.
For those who have been through the SSB MV2 plan with AT already, is the Sunday SS workout kept at an Achievable level be design as a lower intensity less challenging ride?
If so, I won’t override the workout with an alternative. No point getting caught in the trap of making every workout Productive or higher if that is not the intent in the plan design
I have a Ramp test today, so this might all change by the end of day, but it was good to get an adaptation of the plan prior to doing the Ramp Test.
Sure! We’ll definitely have more clarity for what’s accounted for within AT and a chart may help, however, it would probably look like ‘indoor’ ‘garmin’ and ‘wahoo’, but also tricky because… Im not sure what an ‘unstructured’ indoor ride would look like if not imported from head unit (so would be in Garmin or Wahoo column instead). Worth looking into, thanks!
Freeride 90 is a perfect example of what an “unstructured” indoor ride looks like.