Yup, I asked about ones like these a few weeks ago. They said they ad essentially prep workouts aimed at Sweet Spot, and are labeled as such despite clearly being Tempo workouts by normal definition.
I did that as a test, also wanted to see what the level would be. I donât think I get credit for it though in my career pageâŚ
I had a sweetspot level 4+ that is a tempoâŚthat doesnât seem like prep.
The workout that was prescribed was perfect for what I thought I should do that day, itâs just an example of some head scratching labels on workouts.
Iâve been in beta a week. My PL were clearly low at start, so I replaced some threshold and Vo2 with workouts I thought were better suited, and things have been great since then.
Today I did Septeret, which was labeled as achievable and is 4x5 at 114-115%. I had some doubts going into it that Iâd be able to do that at target, but came out the other end fine. Certainly very hard in the last minute of the last two reps, but overall a highly appropriate workout for my fitness and goals.
My only quibble is that it is classified as a Level 6.6, and that seems a bit low. The 6.8 VO2 I did last week was Kosciuszko+2, which is 6 x 5 at 108%. Thatâs a drop in difficulty IMO, even with the shortened rest. I hit that at 109-110% and still consider todays a harder workout. 4-6% is just a big jump when in vo2 range. At some point the increased recovery just doesnât help, cause you have to burn a lot of matches as the duration gets extended at higher intensities.
Despite some quirkiness in the way things are classified, I can say the workouts Iâve been getting have been great so far. And thatâs the most important part.
Sure, I get that. Just relaying what I was told in my case. I donât know how far it reaches as my example made sense with their explanation.
If you find (relative) Level assignments that donât seem to make sense, then raise that with TR support and theyâll take a look to see whether the Levels are as intended or tweaking is required.
I imagine thereâll be situations where TR will be happy with a Level assignment but an individual still believes it to be âoutâ, and other situations where âeveryoneâ's on the same page and tweakingâs warranted, ie. thereâll always be some scope for disagreement since subjectivity is involved.
Thatâs a fair suggestion. And 100% the one from today could totally be a subjective thing. Iâm throwing it out here for discussion to see if others feel similarly or if I am an outlier.
Is it my imagination or are TR staff mysteriously absent from the forum the last 5 or so days? Iâve seen the odd post from Ivy but nothing from Nate or Jonathan and we all know coach chad has moved to the Moon.
Had a ramp test today. Landed at 248 FTP, which is a drop from 250. Iâm happy with floating there since Iâm performing better than ever in group rides and out on the road despite the minor drop in FTP. It appears my VO2, Threshold and Sweet spot have all dropped by 1.0. Meanwhile, Anaerobic is 1.9 lower than the last completed Anaerobic workout of 7.6, but that workout was May 4 at the end of a hard block, so the decay seems about right to me.
I guess Iâm either not experiencing the drastic level drop others have experienced OR they have addressed it and made the adjustments smaller. I feel like all the difficulties folks have noted here just havenât applied to me for some reason, and sometimes I feel like Iâm taking crazy pills thinking the experience is so good (wahoo outdoors not withstanding).
In any case, Iâm looking forward to getting into the rhythm with specialty in the lead up to Intelligentsia cup in 8 weeks away in July. Looking at you Glen Ellyn & Winfield crits. 
That seems odd though doesnât it? Why would your levels drop if you FTP decreased (although negligibly). Assuming you have been successfully completing the workouts that were progressing your Levels, surely at a lower FTP youâd expect to complete the same workouts?
I could understand maybe a âThresholdâ decrease in Level, if perhaps the machine assumes a drop in that zone is what lead to a specific drop in FTP score when youâre still getting fitter everywhere else?
Also, to those who are on AT, are you not able to rearrange any workout days? i.e move your training days to Mon, Wed, Fri etc?
-
We can drag and drop days, just like always⌠but doing so âbreaksâ the workouts out of the Plan Builder, just like it always did, unfortunately.
-
The issue here is worse since that break also separates it from full use in AT, so it should be avoided when possible.
This is a known issue/bug, and TR has said they aim to address it.
In the interim, the only âsafeâ way to move workouts around is to use the annotation control for the specific active training phase, and shuffle the days in that dialog, which will then update your plan.
- Not ideal, but it is the only way I know to change days and not break stuff right now.
Yeah, I have the same questionâŚI thought a major point of progression levels was that while threshold power / ramp test result may stay flat, you can still build fitness by increasing intensities and duration in zones of relevance to goals.
First, we donât have hard info here, but it seems that the drops associated with Ramp Test results / FTP changes are not absolute across all training zones.
-
Meaning, there is not something as simple as a 1.0 drop across all levels at a point of FTP change.
-
There seems to be unique changes for each training zone, not one size fits all. Presumably this is linked to the AT data about the rider and whatever magic they use to set those reductions. For all we know, this also takes into account the training phase adjacent to this FPT change. No idea, but I suspect this is all a bit more complex than a simple integer drop across all zones.
So, for those about to test or change FTP, I would record your PLâs before and after the change. See the delta between them, and I am guessing it will not be the same change for all.
Everyone needs a break after the first coupke thousand posts 
LOL FOR REAL.
I feel the general plan is to allocate a lot of attention/resources into clearing up initial confusion or questions after a big release, but beyond that, their energy is probably better spent (in my opinion) outside of the forum to refine AT, create resources, help athletes in other areas.
As for me: I try not to chime in unless thereâs a legitimate question or need for clarification on an issue to make sure athletes feel they have space to discuss topics with some agency to decide whatâs best for them/their training. 
I think Nate and Jon just avoid all the toxicity that started brewing. Probably a smart move.
Iâll lay out the welcome mat for you to chime in more often⌠I enjoy your posts and sense of humor! Sometimes I sit here and ponder âwhat would Ivy say off the record, over a beer or three?â
In podcast #308 Jonathan specifically mentioned (@27:12) flagging up to support for them to double-check any workout where the Level feels like it might not be right.
Although I understand your reasoning, the âtight binningâ would not necessarily be an issue (purely speculating here) if the model performs well. That is, generally, when there is a large model fit compared to low error or residual variance, a model can be more precise and thus tighter binning is, statistically, permitted.
In addition to this, a small amount of input parameters do not necessarily lead to bad model fit. It all depends on the strength of the relationship or predictive power of those input parameters, and the resulting explained variance of the model. 50 input parameters may collectively explain less variance than 2 input parameters.
Having said that, I completely agree that people may have differing power profiles, which may strongly affect the usefulness or accuracy of these profiles. For example, I assume that for a typical âendurance riderâ, VO2 max workout of âbinâ 6 is (at least perceived to be) harder than for a âsprinterâ.
I wonder whether it would be technically possible to estimate these profiles from the data they have (e.g., seeing that particular people particularly fail endurance, threshold of vo2max but not the other types).
But I guess (and I assume that this is what you are getting at) is that when AT launches in its full glory, this is taken into account by updating trainings automatically based on your individual past performances.