I’ve thought a lot about on-the-fly adaptation as the next level of “intelligence” in workouts. I fear there are some days that I would attempt to destroy any computer that made me suffer more than expected on the fly…but built-in sandbag protection might actually be a good thing.
I see what you mean now. They have modified / hidden those numbers on the original ride for you.
AT has figured out my VO2max is lower on Tuesdays, and higher on Thursdays…
Something is definitely broken. In PC desktop app survey appears and I submit the response, but outcome in website still shows Missing response. On Android app however I don’t even get to submit a response as survey doesn’t appear. When I tap “back” after the workout, app ends up with an empty screen with a spinner in the middle. Have to then kill it using recent apps screen or exit via home button.
Thank you for this paper. For someone outside the field, it is interesting and revealing reading. The question is whether training is more like chess, which machines are good at, or charades, which they are not good at.
One obvious conclusion to me is that we should not expect AT to exhibit “common sense”. In TR world, I suppose that means that AT might draw conclusions from our data that are unrealistic. One example might be progression levels that are too extreme.
Another is that developers and users need to be on the lookout for adaptations that reflect simple correlations rather than rely on an understanding of causes. In training, the possibilities for this mistake are endless, and already something that typifies our field. For example: do TiZs reflect an attempt to be polarised or do they reflect the fact that after a HIT session people need a few days easy riding?
No doubt others among you can think of more profound conclusions.
AT going a bit crazy with my VO2max was one of the reasons I stopped using it. It wanted me to do a 5.0 today though my level is supposedly 5.9 (was 6.9 as recently as two weeks ago).
I did a 5.8 as a compromise and to be honest it probably wasn’t as hard as it should have been (I don’t think my HR made it into VO2max levels). One bright side is that it now isn’t offering me any VO2max adaptations (it’s still insistent on dropping my sweet spot though).
Edit - I should note that I kept the types of interval the same. It was pretty consistent on wanting to drop all of it.
Those are pretty different VO2 workout profiles though. One is short shorts and the other is more traditional intervals. From what I can tell, AT maintains an understanding of how you perform in each of the subcategories of each zone and serves you workouts that fit your abilities with respect to that information. I’ve noticed this with my own VO2Max prescriptions from AT over the past several weeks. My VO2Max level is actually lower for the longer intervals and higher for the short shorts, which I also know from experience aligns with ability to succeed in those workouts. I’m certainly better at one more than the other, so to see AT actually recognizing and adapting for that is quite cool for me (and it’s been bang on).
All that is to say that I don’t think what you are sharing will be uncommon for those using AT. It happens with a couple of the zones, but most notably happens with VO2Max and Threshold workouts (both have 12 subsets when you filter by them in the workout catalogue) as there are several ways to elicit the training adaptation for them.
That Tuesday swap looks like a case where the progression level might be too high for Ansel Adams / too low for Baird. Maybe AT is smarter than the progression values and is giving you a harder one
Baird is a much tougher duty cycle (60/30 vs. 50/40 is a big difference), and shorter rests between sets. The only thing you can say for Ansel Adams is 135 vs. 120% target, but I think I’d still find it easier with the much more generous rests.
I disagree with the assessment that Baird is harder. Ansel Adams is more intense across the board by all metrics, despite the increase in rest time. It’s IF is still .91 with that increased rest. It even has less endurance time at the end because the rest between sets is longer too. That makes those sets just that much harder.
Never mind - tonights ramp test increased FTP a measly 2%, and VO2 progression went from 5.4 to 2.3, so I guess another round of adaptations is on the way…
Just did Ansel Adams and
Something like that. Here’s what support told me (and probably @trpnhntr):
We did issue some fixes on the AT end (which, this display issue was a part of) yesterday, so moving forward, we shouldn’t run across this specific progression display being incorrect bug
Did you report this to firstname.lastname@example.org? The survey prompts very inconsistently for me on Android 9, and support has been working on it. If it doesn’t prompt, you can press the
... button in the bottom left and choose Update survey response to fill it out.
Yes, I think by now it’s very clear what I stated way earlier. AT will, when it is rolled out, hopefully a tool for people with near 100 % indoor rides and the willingness to follow an TR plan (or plan builder result) to the tee. In a way to cater them maybe a bit better adapted to the individual chosen workout from the library. Of the same type, but with an individual progression level.
If that works - that’s fine and progress, I guess.
But that’s also nothing to be really excited about. One (at least I) would be excited, if some meaningful alterations in the structure of the training plan itself would occur based on mass data. I.e. prescribing more Zone 2 work in favor of other workouts or more intervals prone to improve my glykolytic energy systems because that’s what the system (as a dumb trainer but one with the experience of thousands of clients) figures out best for me.
But - you have to start somewhere, haven’t you? So - no hurry to get into any beta, no hurry from my side towards TR to roll it out as a finalized product (at least in the shape of it’s first incarnation). When it’s ready it will be ready. And after that maybe in 2 years or later it also will start to become interesting for people who ride outdoors often and/or ponders about their own training a lot and have to adapt the canned TR plans to fit their needs anyways (for number of days, workout durations etc.).
maybe it assumes success will come on Tuesday? Anywho - have fun trying to stand up from the toilet Thursday night!
I performed an outside workout last night. It included a pause of the workout/ride, for a nature break and to let people regroup. As mentioned in another post above, I got a “struggle” survey, which I find quite annoying.
The break was roughly 3 minutes, and the only applicable option in that survey is “Other”. I added a note about why that gap exists, along with my displeasure in the designation by AT.
- Perfectly fine. Only stopped for a brief nature break and to regroup with the other riders. This is not and should NOT be a fail.
Gotta say that the detection on this should be better than what I see here. Comments were made by TR that breaks like this should not lead to “struggle” surveys, but I am not seeing that here. Maybe the threshold on duration is too short for practical cases.
I get that 3 minutes break in the middle of a long SS or Thresh level workout could be a sign of a problem. But 3 minutes in the middle of a long Endurance interval? I think there is insufficient “smarts” or consideration here.
Maybe the early parts of the ride where I exceeded the targeted power (while rolling in the group and in a firm headwind), also lead to the altered designation? But if anything, I would think that being over target would trip the “Super Pass” option and not the “Struggle” one.
Apologize if this is a stupid question or if it’s been asked before BUT - How will I know when I get into the beta for adaptive training? Did you get an email? Does Beta just update and let you know you’re in?
You get an email
Too polite! Next time be more clinical (stopped to urinate) and maybe that will trigger AI to stop asking