🎉 🎉 🎉 Introducing Adaptive Training! 🎉 🎉 🎉

From what I’ve seen, it suggests adaptations with the option to accept or reject, so I definitely think you could use it that way! I’m not in the beta yet, but have been wondering how I’ll tackle it… try to “always accept” and see how that works for me, or use my own judgement to decide? Try one for awhile, then the other? Not sure. I think it will depend what I think of the recommendations that get thrown up :slight_smile:

What I would actually be interested in, is if I accept some adaptations such that the plan doesn’t get me to where it normally would, then the plan could auto-extend (including appropriate recovery weeks) so that I CAN get to where I was meant to. It wouldn’t really work with plan builder and a set event date, but it would be an interesting option to try.


Not in the beta yet, so maybe the unstructured rides will be taken into account by then, but I’ll be interested to experiment in the meantime.

I generally swap out the “moderate” final mid volume workout for an unstructured spin when weather/ lockdowns allow or zwift events if it’s miserable. Just for convenience, I normally change that workout to “outside” (just for laziness of the automatic association in the calendar), but if I’m following correctly, I’d be better leaving as is, and matching later?

You are not alone. I don’t see AT as offering you a variety pack of workouts. I see it noting when you could go harder or need to go easier and offering adaptions.
The common perception is that people are burning out on Sweetspot and this is a way of limiting that, or perhaps spotting it in advance. A couple of failed workouts or one’s where rests were taken will be the identifier.
I think where AT could offer encouragement is seeing workouts and your overall ‘score’ improving over time. Then you test and start all over again.

One thing I picked up on was that when you fail a workout you redo it. Does that mean the following week rather than progressing forward with a harder workout or next day


Or maybe, you just really know you. I think that’s a skill in and of itself.

Like you, I find the current TR plans to be effective. Could they (the Plans) or I get even better? No doubt. I just fall into the ‘if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it camp.’ Clearly the current Plans weren’t working for a number of users, for a variety of reasons. I’ll give credit where it’s due and congratulate TR for trying to address this with a multi prong attack.

Am I keen to try AT? Hell yes! Do I want to be in the Beta Test? No, not really. Again, the current TR Plans are working for me. There’s no rush. Let me see the hare when it’s 100% ready to go.

For me, the hardest part of training and training effectively is filtering out the noise. I don’t tend to jump from one thing to the next. If and when the POL plans accumulate sufficient data for them to step away from the experimental phase, I might dip my toe at the end of this season.


Not my problem. Time trialist - regularly out doing 2x20 or 4x20 or other out on the road fopr teh season. SAometimes running at FTP. Sweet spot are core sesisions for me.

depends. Sometimes a few days later. Sometimes fit it into following week. Depends on season. I tend to start with LV and add extra. it feels better than doing MV and dropping sessions. and i diop useful progressive outside rides and various times of teh year which all help.

1 Like

Probably. twenty odd ytears ago self trained in long course/Ironman Triathlon to 14th in age group at ITU world champs years ago. Read loads of books on training techniches approaches, periodisation etc. More recently done multiple TTs from 10m to 12hrs, and very pleased with results I am getting (Its nice to set targets and beat them). I also generally tend to know when I am off the pace and need to rest up, when to stop, and when I can push. So I like to think so.

Possibly that is why I listen to Polarised stuff and think, This does NOT make sense. OK Compare threshold/Sweet Spot against higher intensity, if you want, but for goodness sake it is obvious it is not an either/or situation: mixing up both is all round good for you. (and the research groups and methods sounded very weak as Amber pointed out). I go out on a ride and rally push up some hills, just for the “Can I push this hard for so long” test. There - said my piece now :slight_smile:


I think you would still benefit from AT. If you do not like the easier session suggestion, do not accept it. But AT will also offer harder sessions if it sees that you are doing great with these 3 minute 125% intervals.


The standard plans are fine until the progressions stop working for you, and that’s happened for a lot of us. If we could all follow the progressions forever then we’d all be rocking 400+ FTPs at this point.

Be it trying to train when losing weight, when busy at work, or when just getting older… the need for controlled adaptation is real. Sure, we could all learn how to be coaches and make the adaptations ourselves, but by the same token, would we really need TR at all at that point anyway?


Aaaand finally.

We got some common sense back in the discussion again. Been holding my tongue on the ream of self-congratulatory myopia going around here today.

Thank you. Faith restored.

1 Like

I’ve enjoyed doing the stock plans, esp the SSB HV ones, but I’m letting adaptive training do everything and just handing over control for the time being just to see where this goes. In some ways I could see maybe Chad would see the progressions of adaptive training work be better than what the current iteration of SSB HV. In week 1, for example, my workout levels were between 4.5-5.7, week 2 gradually bumped me up to 6, and now in week 3 I’m currently trying to be 6.3 today but it’ll max out at 6.5 after the weekend. SSB1 HV, as it’s designed, throws 6.6 and 6.7 workouts at you the first weekend. Whether those big jumps are any better or worse than progressing 0.1 levels for each workout remains to be seen, but AT is more. So AT isn’t just about giving people an easier option, it’s structured in a way that if you’re finding workouts moderate or easy, it’s going to be progressing you, albeit in a less extreme fashion than maybe some of the stock plans have


For whatever this is worth, my experience so far with AT has been that it’s mostly trying to kill me, not that it’s going easy. I had SSBHV2 in my Plan Builder (look I just wanted to try it ok), and here’s how it adapted the first week:

vs. my current week, last before recovery (thank heavens):

It started easier than the standard plan, and ramped me up farther than the standard plan would have. (Obviously results will be wildly individual by definition so YMMV disclaimers apply :sweat_smile:)


Based on those cups it looks like you’re in a nice vein of form… so not a bad time to be pushing. :slight_smile:

I hope so! It’s all relative right, maybe my FTP is too low and this is actually Z2 :laughing:

[e] (Also this is the start of a new TR “season” for me, so the cups are all from working in a vacuum :sweat_smile:)


This 100%. The tried and true progression formula has remained the same. The steps along the way are what may change. So far for me the adaptations have been spot on. It has served me VO2Max work that is actually achievable for me compared to the stock plans which have interval sessions beyond my capabilities in that zone. Meanwhile for things like sweet spot and threshold, which I consider my bread and butter, it gives me higher levels to meet me where I’m at rather than giving me lower level ones that may be less productive.

So at a foundational level, it is operating properly in my use case, albeit with the bugs mentioned in the OP and by others in the thread.


Are you actually talking about AT, or about “Train Now” ? I’m using AT but I’m not using Train Now.

Based on my 4 weeks in the beta, I think AT will actually work best for people like you. If you are following a plan and nailing all your SS sessions, it will gently push you to substitute slightly harder workouts in future weeks. If on the other hand you are (eg) struggling with or failing VO2 workouts, it will suggest dropping the level of future workouts to something you can complete, and then build you back up. Just like @BCrossen and @hubcyclist said.

Also, if you don’t check the “adapt automatically” button, you can review the proposed adaptations each time and decide whether to take them. Back to the example, if you only failed that VO2 workout because of the unscheduled 100 miler you did the day before, don’t accept the adaptations!


Helpful, thanks @NickL . I am not talking about Train Now. Just my understanding of the options AT might present.

OK thanks - anyway I will wait until I get AT released and see how it goes then. I have loads of faith in the TR team and am sure they would not design or release things that they did not have confidence in would “Make me faster:slight_smile:

I’m curious the Vo2max progressions with AT, going from 3 mins to 6+minutes (in zone).
That’s the biggest weakness for me and interested how they progress it. Anyone have advice? Or a sneak peak of the levels?

What workouts specifically are you interested in? I can share some workout level screenshots later today so you can see how they stack up to one another.

For what it is worth, VO2Max also includes a handful of subsets of workouts. So you may have different progressions for different subsets (short-shorts, mixed intervals, etc.).

The sustained intervals in the “Vo2max zone” at around 110% for 4+ minutes, I know their supposed to be hard. I just struggle with them. Mount foraker +1 and then Denali +1. Those two I struggled with.

I’m in a similar boat. I can have two different VO2max workouts that are the exact same level, but one I can’t finish because of longer intervals. It seems that as soon as I go into that zone I’m just not able to sustain it for the same amount of time as others.

Maybe I just don’t like putting myself through agony any more. I definitely don’t treat the taste of blood after a workout as any sort of victory now!