🎉 🎉 🎉 Introducing Adaptive Training! 🎉 🎉 🎉

I have a hypothetical based on my workout today and curious how AT would handle it. So I had Mount Goode, 3x15 @ 95/99/97%. But I just wasn’t feeling great today. My HR was crazy high for SS/Threshold and I knew its was going to be difficult. I ended up lowering the intensity and did 3x15 @ 95%. Here’s my question. According to the planned workout, I failed. I had to decrease the intensity. But let’s say I created a custom workout that was 3x15 @ 95%, and I completed it perfectly. Would AT treat these workouts differently? Like, they’re the exact same workout profile. But would AT “penalize” me for lowering intensity?

Software development takes time…two months is not a long time.

Hey, all!

Just want to drop a note in here regarding a super helpful resource: an ‘Adaptive Training Known Issues’ page that will be continuously updated with existing and resolved issues surrounding adaptations, outside workouts, progressions, and more FAQs. Its pretty sick.

Its fairly comprehensive so far but as usual, you should definitely reach out to the team at support@trainerroad.com if anything is missing so we can document and help mitigate it as quickly as possible.



That is great! Should we edit the OP at the top to include this link and replace the “Known Issue” current list shown there?

We’ll probably keep… both!!! Cause reading can be hard. HAHA. I’ll get Nathan to update the OP. Cheers!

1 Like

Also I believe you are being modest about your abilities in sweet spot and the tri success you have had.


It would probably call it a struggle pass. 5% change isn’t enough to change the nature of the workout enough to be a total and complete fail (you didn’t cut short or bail entirely). You still managed 90/94/92% intervals of 15 mins each, and that’s definitely still in threshold intensity. It would serve you a questionnaire asking why you struggled to do it at 100%. Your answer would then be processed by AT and used for future adaptations, if any.

1 Like

Great idea, @IvyAudrain but I suggest you should title it as “Adaptive Training BETA known issues”. Otherwise some outsider wanting to score points will use it as a stick to hit TR. (They will anyway, but you see what I mean).

It can always be renamed once live.


Quick question re plan adaptations. I took a week out last week (combination of Covid vaccination and kids destroying two nights of sleep, fun week…), then struggled with my first workout when back in the saddle. I’m about half way through SSB2.

AT correctly worked out that I needed to tone things down going forward and adjusted the plan accordingly, all the proposed adaptions made perfect sense and it worked well. The one thing it didn’t do though was ask me to repeat the week again, which if I was still editing my plan is what I would have done.

I understand why it hasn’t done that, as it’s working to a goal date and adjusting around that but it would be nifty if there was a way to prioritise the best progression if your dates can flex. Thoughts? Or have I missed a way to do that?

IME designing/developing/operating high quality, complex software is really hard. Doing it in such a manner that the end product remains pleasant and intuitive to use, exposing only the necessary tip of an iceberg of complexity, is really, really hard. That’s the route that TR chose for itself, which as a user I very much appreciate and it’s why I’m a customer.

TR seems to have some very talented people, and they’ll all be working their socks off honing this product for eventual general release. But as you say it all takes time, and rushing it is in no one’s interest - users or TR - and hence is no answer.

The way I look at these things is that the beta users in aggregate are doing some of the heavy lifting - discovering problems, spending time feeding back comments, dealing with workarounds - so that my experience when I get to use it will be a better one with fewer frustrations from outstanding issues.

Be patient folks - the world comes to those who wait :wink:


One thing I regularly tell my leadership team and my developers is that a 90% or even 95% solution usually takes about 20% of the time and the last 5-10% is where the difficulty lies

While not universally true this is something to keep in mind while waiting on this release


Can i check, is this because you used the Planner, rather than simply choosing which plans to follow.

I would have done the same - repeated a week, and adpated the plans as I approached my races. That is because I did not use the planner, but simply chose plans to follow.

Planner, when I enrolled in the AT beta I basically recreated my plan from scratch using plan builder, just with a start date in the past to factor in where I was

1 Like

I am being caught by the Plan Builder because it will not allow me to schedule two 25m TTs as A races within 8 weeks of one another. I have them 6 weeks apart. Bit frustrating. I can understand why it is doing that, especially if I were scheduling 100mTTs that close together, but a 25. Ummm… So I end up having to bodge things.

Software development takes time…two months is not a long time.

Tell that to my customers!

I don’t think it matters about repeating weeks (in fact I think it would be preferable not to) with AT since it theoretically could have changed all of your workouts in a week with adaptations.

Let’s say for example you didn’t skip and your Tuesday workout was too hard/too easy. Now your Thursday workout could have been adapted as well as your Saturday and Sunday ones because of your performance. Not to mention it would likely adapt Tuesday workouts for the next three weeks (assuming they’re the same system each Tuesday). Repeating the week is meaningless in this case because the data on one day changes the whole thing.

AT still has you on the glide path to progression, regardless of the missed week, so put trust in the system. As I’ve stated before in this thread, you have to surrender to AT to get the most out of it. That’s going to be hard for a lot of people because they don’t want to let go of control.


Thanks for that, I don’t disagree. I guess repeating weeks is probably the wrong labelling from me as well. In my example I basically missed a week of training, AT has correctly identified that and reduced the IF of some of my future workouts but the net result will be that my training plan will finish on the same date but I will have done less work than originally planned.

I get why it’s done that, my thought is that it would be nice to have the option to insert an additional week (as my dates can flex) so that my overall training load and progression remains the same as originally planed.

That’s what I would have done without AT, I get that AT has no way of knowing that I can move my target dates but I think it would be useful if it could.

1 Like

There is the option to move weeks of your plan (which will then move subsequent weeks as well). On you calendar look at the end of the week were the hour and TSS totals are. There should be three dots. If you click that on the week you want to move, you can move it forward, and all weeks after will be pushed as well. It will alert you that it will break Plan Builder if you do this though. Ideally, this is something they could adjust with PB in the future so it doesn’t break.

Also, the training load/TSS thing is something Nate mentioned in the first podcast. Internally, TR had people performing less TSS than they normally would because of AT, and they still saw progression and gains. He said they all really struggled with it because it goes against all conventional wisdom we know and use right now. So to your point about maintaining that TSS progression, it’s not as important as you might think.


I just did a new ramp test and all the progression levels reset after, is that right? And then no adaptions to further workouts based off the ramp test results.

Welcome to the forum!

Have a look at the link in the below post to see if your issue is on the list of known issues. If it isn’t on there or is an issue listed as resolved, definitely email support@trainerroad.com to give them the low down.