FWIW, Iām very impressed with the reverse engineering that is going on. I think itās great and very insightful. As mentioned above (or on another related thread), I hope TR incorporates the good / accurate stuff into their FAQ for AT.
Reflecting a few minutes on all the cool charts that are showing up in multiple threads, I think a major distinction is between two different capabilities/software/application platforms. IMHO, at this point in TRs evolution Iād not try to combine TrainNow commentary in with AdaptiveTraining as they have different use cases.
And Iāll echo several earlier posts I wrote and well as comments from others. TR is the ultimate authority on how things are designed and what is and isnāt production yet. No change in my POV ā as much as thereās good stuff and counsel from users in the various threads, TR should be creating the FAQs/users guides/etc otherwise weāre all re-learning the same things (and sometimes re-asking questions already addressed) in this threaded discussion model of informal support.
I think all these tools sound great in the interim, but I would suspect TRās vision is they arenāt needed because AT will work in all cases when it reaches production release.
As such, Iām not entirely sure how much time and energy they want to invest in creating those resources if they are obsolete in the near future. Especially when itās better to have their resources behind development and getting AT out of closed beta. Not to mention that creating those resources would likely add to confusion down the line at the expense of solving temporary confusion right now.
So do they bite that bullet or just let folks do their thing on the forum like we have been while they cross the Ts and dot their Is and Js? If I were in their shoes, Iād focus on the final production release rather than create FAQ resources for a closed beta.
I disagree. They support staff, including Ivy, have to be getting hammered with questions from AT beta users. Internally, their staff need some reference to know these answers. So they should be able to share the basic details.
Yeah, it wouldnāt be a polished article, but a simple table is trivial to throw together. It just takes knowledge that TR has.
Weāre definitely aware that this thread has become rather ungainly, and that the amount of athletes in the beta has reached a point where some more formal and easily-accessible how-tos and FAQs are needed. Iām personally working on this task this week.
Resources like the Known Issues page being separate (and meant for the identification of bugs and issues) help create a distinction from general FAQs/āGetting Startedā tips that will apply to every iteration of Adaptive Training and really help our athletes! https://support.trainerroad.com/hc/en-us/articles/360059656131
I just got my first lot of adaptations for SSB MV2. VO2 Max and Threshold workouts have been updated upwards to current PLās. but the Sunday SS rides have remained at low level Achievable.
For those who have been through the SSB MV2 plan with AT already, is the Sunday SS workout kept at an Achievable level be design as a lower intensity less challenging ride?
If so, I wonāt override the workout with an alternative. No point getting caught in the trap of making every workout Productive or higher if that is not the intent in the plan design
I have a Ramp test today, so this might all change by the end of day, but it was good to get an adaptation of the plan prior to doing the Ramp Test.
Sure! Weāll definitely have more clarity for whatās accounted for within AT and a chart may help, however, it would probably look like āindoorā āgarminā and āwahooā, but also tricky becauseā¦ Im not sure what an āunstructuredā indoor ride would look like if not imported from head unit (so would be in Garmin or Wahoo column instead). Worth looking into, thanks!
Iām in the AT beta, and I plan to do all my riding/training outdoor (until winter, where Iāll have to move it indoor)
Question 1:
I only want to dedicate 2 days per week to higher intensity structured workouts. I prefer to spend the rest of my 6-8hr wk accumulating fatigue with unstructured junk miles becauseā¦ fun.
Up until now, Iāve just been using TN to pick a threshold or vo2max workout a couple times a week.
My understanding is that AT only adapts PB plans.
If I were to use PB to build a LV plan and then delete workouts from my calendar (so that I only have 2 high intensity workouts per week) and then add in unstructured rides as time permits; would AT still adapt the remaining workouts in my calendar? And if I need to move the scheduled workouts around (shift then by a day or 2 here and there), would AT still work?
Question 2:
Perhaps this is a silly questionā¦ In general, is there a certain thr/vo2 PL where you would typically expect to see a FTP increase?
The workouts left in the plan would still be adapted. Iām not certain or clear on the outcome of moving them around though. I think others can answer that.
I also donāt think there is a rule of thumb for FTP increases based on the levels yet. Itās more theoretical. Presumably if youāre in the 8 level range or higher it is possible youāve seen an increase but that isnāt always going to be the case. For example, a few folks on the forum have extended their time at sweet spot for really long periods that would suggest an increase, but their FTP has remained more less the same when they test.
@IvyAudrain I have a real issue with the phrase āUnstructured outside workoutā. (It just sounds like going outside to muck about!) I may not do a TR session (because using my wahoo elemnt is pretty inflexible, and I donāt find it easy to make work with outside workouts) and TR sessions donāt fit well.
However, I do do PURPOSEFUL outside rides.
Today was 40 mins to start (ride from dropping car off to get repaired). 6x a hill from both sides, at over 125% taking 2m and 2:30, then Z2, but pushing up the short hills for another 20 miles. Very purposeful. When home I associated it with Nachimiento, as that was the closest I could find, it being 2x2:00:@124% with 4mr. My recoveries were shorter.
Another day is 2 or 4 times 6 miles, at either SS or perhaps threshold. As the 6 miles out and back is inevitably faster one way than the other (wind and a hill) this can be anything between 16 and 20 mins. Again very purposeful. Definitely not unstructured. The mapping of minutes (TR) to real world (length of a road available) is problematic. Hence I just do those sessions, at planned powers.
I am on AT beta, but canāt use plan Builder as it assumes all TT of any length require threshold workouts. I do 25, 50 and 100m TTs. (I use LV Sustained build as a basis, to build FTP, and then add longer pacing rides to build endurance).
At least doing this āreverse fit to a TR sessionā allows me to judge my progression levels, alongside what the system is giving me.
I believe my outside workouts are definitely PURPOSEFUL. They are definitely NOT āunstructuredā. I think we need a clearer distinction in these words, please.
Not sure if this is an issue for anyone else as I havenāt been through the whole thread but my Survey Responses that I put in at the end of my ride on the PC app do not show up when looking at my workouts on the web or on the iPhone app. Just shows āMissing Responseā.
Common issue. If possible, leave the TR app open a bit and it should populate to the web. There is some amount of delay, and if you refresh the web after some time, it usually shows the actual response.
Donāt be too sad. Iāve spent more time reporting inconsistencies to Support than I have enjoying AT. It might be great someday, but it isnāt yet. The only reason Iām sticking with it is because my actual race goals (and need to be fit) have fallen through this summer.
I think we need a clearer distinction in these words, please.