Is there any benefit to uploading my historical power files for AT to process? From 2013-2017 I trained 4-6x a week indoors/outdoors with power to a high level (4.5-5.0w/kg) and have files from each ride. 2018-2020 came Kids and I went to 0-2 rides a week and fitness diminished (3.0 w/kg). I’ve been back into training and riding for the last 4 months and keen to try AT when released from Beta.
I am curious if AT would be able to use the historial files to create a better model and if I should bother uploading them.
Just be consistent in how you answer the surveys and it will figure you out. No need to over complicate it. If you think it was hard, say so. If you think it was easy say so. Below is how I’m responding to my surveys, but others are probably taking a different approach. There is no right or wrong here since it’s looking for patterns in only your responses from what I understand.
Easy - just easy. Never close to struggling. Pettit for example would fall here.
Moderate - Quite easy but presents a bit more of a challenge than easy. Rides like Baxter, Town Hill and those longer endurance rides fit here.
Hard - It’s starting to present a challenge but is within the realm of reason. Antelope, Lion Rock and the like go here for me.
Very Hard - Super challenging. I want to quit but I stick it out and i barely finish. Baird, Williamson, Mary Austin, Pierce and the like go here.
All out - Reserved for breakthrough workouts or races where I’m pinned the whole time or on the edge of pulling the plug entirely and am questioning life choices. Spencer goes here.
Now if Baird actually felt easier on the day, I’d mark it as hard rather than very hard so it could adapt around how I’m actually feeling. Essentially the scores above are the baseline for what I expect for those workouts. Deviation from that will indicate to me and AT that circumstances have changed in some way.
I found the above to be simple to remember and execute. Anything more and I’d have been overcomplicating things for no reason.
My bad, I missed the bit about Polarized. I can’t comment on how it expects you to progress through that, it could be perfectly reasonable.
Those still sound like massive jumps to me though. I’m lucky to add 0.5 week on week.
I’m still really struggling with the whole RPE thing, especially with regard to consistency. I like your descriptions though.
I think my biggest issue comes of the rides with nasty spikes in them before long intervals. All I can remember afterwards were how much pain those sections were so I wonder if I’m rating the entire workout incorrectly because of it.
Also, VO2max always feels like very hard or all out to me, doesn’t matter if I’m doing a 3.0 or a 6.0. They all tend to be a fairly binary fail / pass in my mind.
Edit - Looks like someone has fixed my plan. It’s no longer endlessly suggesting adaptations. Might need to manually put in some alternatives though as what I have now seems miles off the original plan.
Any word on how long before the Beta turns into Prod and available for all? It is pretty heavily marketed on sign up (though is acknowledged it’s in Beta), would be keen to get it happening as my training has adhoc group rides which need to integrate into my training schedule.
I wouldn’t expect it within the next month. There’s quite a bit still to fix.
Edit - Unrelated, cross checking some of my schedule against the plans I’ve noticed that there are some strange inconsistencies brought about by the level system. Quite a few “progressions” in the plan that actually end up having you do an arguably easier ride, one of which is Galena (7.8) in week one vs Eclipse (7.0) in week two before McGregor (5.5) in week three.
I’m sure there is method to it, but it still looks sort of wrong.
Last night a deployment went out for mobile and electron updating some aspects of surveys. Please be sure to update your mobile and desktop apps as soon as possible. This will resolve and prevent some known bugs, especially with regard to surveys.
Cheers and thanks everyone for all the great feedback!
Yeah this is accurate for me as well, and I don’t think that’s wrong at all. If a VO2 workout feels moderate or hard, it likely means that your level has increased. And sometimes VO2 is intended to be all out, so that isn’t necessarily bad either.
For hard starts or spiky stuff, I tend to think about the workout overall after fishing how I feel with each interval. With each interval I’m asking myself where I would rank the workout. Sometimes it goes up and sometimes it stays the same as the workout progresses. By the last interval I tend to have a good indication of how it felt overall and that’s what I’ll mark in the survey. The way I see it, the answer to the survey can hardly be incorrect if I always answer in good faith.
Was curious what the points or rankings for each workout mean (ex. Townsend = endurance 4.1) and do these rankings change depending on how you do the workout (intensity level) or if you extend and do some extra?
Not sure if the best place to ask but thought I would give it a try. I am not currently in the AT beta (boo!) but wanted to see from those who are how AT might alter a current situation/ progression challenge I am facing.
Currently I am in SusPB MV and had to lower the intensity of the most recent vo2max workout (Raymond +7) in the final interval, bringing it down from from prescribed 8m at 107% to 8m at 102%. No big deal but the whole workout was very challenging and I would of noted so on the post ride survey if I was in the beta.
This week I now have Elephants +4 in the calendar but ideally had I been in the beta I would of had a suggested adaptation to give me something more suitable to bridge the gap following my Raymond +7 experience.
What do we think AT would likely suggest to bridge the gap between (a very hard) Raymond +7 workout and planned Elephants +4 workout? I’m willing to swap out Elephants +4 to try it
Somehow I was one of the first entrants into the beta. I just finished four weeks plus a rest week and I think I’m going to take a pause on AT for a bit. It was just too hard. Or the progression was too aggressive. Here’s a stretch workout. Oh, you finished it? Everything is this intensity now.
Within a couple of weeks, every workout except my Wednesday 0.76 IF hour was a 0.85 to 0.9x IF for 90-120 minutes. I was absolutely smoked by the time I got to my rest week. I did the rest week almost exactly as prescribed except for combining two weekdays into a single ride and crashed and burned in my ramp test the first week back. I don’t think I truly lost 17 watts, especially still coming back from a nasty case of COVID in October that knocked me down ~50 watts by the time I could train again. I think my legs were still too tired from the build.
I have been on TR since 2013 or 2014 and a very dedicated indoor rider during that entire time. I started to dread workouts and needed quite the combo of caffeine and stimulating media to survive the 4-5 sets of 15-20 minutes at threshold. My A event is in 9 weeks and I think I’m going to handpick my workouts until then. I don’t need all of the VO2 and threshold for a 5 day stage event that will mostly be about survival.
Not sure we can help (may need TR proper to step in), but out of curiosity… what were your survey responses for those workouts you found very challenging, but completed?
Presumably, choosing 4 or 5 for that type of effort should shift AT into a mode where it sees you having some trouble, and may then reduce pending workout levels in attempt to align better with your actual abilities.
My experience has been different, definitely not too hard, and in doing SSB1 HV (shameless plug here’s a playlist of my vlogs for this https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfTajZyojY38uTTptWgbB369-yXQuugZV) I wasn’t ever recommended anything that is stretch and kept progressing gradually as I kept marking my workouts as moderate. I imagine if I did something like all out or struggled with workouts AT would have scaled back my progression. Yes AT kind of sets your workouts to the hardest level you’ve achieved, but I would think if it’s indicated that you’re struggling it would reduce the recommended levels.
I’m forwarding your feedback to the AT team- this is not how we want it to work! For me it’s been the exact opposite- a more sustainable progression than ever before, and since starting AT I’ve not failed a single workout. However, there’s certainly room for fine-tuning in how it ramps you from week to week, so this is very valuable and important feedback.
Raymond +7 is VO2max 8.1, 4x8 at 108% with 5-minute recoveries. Elephants +4 is VO2max 8.4, 6x6 at 108% with 3-minute recoveries. Red Lake +8 is VO2max 7.2, 5x6 at 108% with 5-minute recoveries, so keeping the intensity but shortening the interval and giving yourself more time to get ready for the next one.
It’s not so much “bridging the gap” as stepping back a bit to let you get the work done without driving yourself into the ground.
Thanks @ellotheth for your considered thoughts. Red Lake +8 was actually the vo2max workout that preceded the Raymond +7 one the week prior. My thoughts on that workout were:
Looks like I might just repeat that this week to see how I go. Thanks again
…
ANNOUNCEMENT for athletes on AT Beta 
