Assuming you applied a āTime Offā annotation to the calendar for that, delete the annotation for that time off, then let plan builder recalculate when prompted.
3 Likes
Just deleted my time off annotation from yesterday (surprisingly, it just deleted the workouts for the time period without any changes when I started again. This is a recovery week before starting a new build next week, so maybe it thought I should just have the time fully off and then come back in as planned?) so I could check what workouts I had prev for the week.
Got the recalc prompt, the the dreaded ānasty spillā error page. Calendar is now blank after yesterday; have emailed supportā¦
UPDATE: Already fixed by our quick response support group!
I did. Thanks, will give that a go.
I absolutely love the concept of progression levels Trainer Road has created. It appropriately matches the concept of fitness compared to the overused convention of using 4-8 week fitness tests, estimated FTP, and MAP as the primary metrics.
That said, Iām remain puzzled by exactly how TR is implementing them. Has the logic in how decoupled they are been discussed and I missed it? Here is a snapshot of my current progression levels. Which maybe donāt look that bad. Except that prior to doing breakthrough workouts in sweet spot and tempo, I had much lower numbers in those (3-4 units lower).
Where this is important is the level of workouts getting suggested. And Iām finding that I am increasingly picking my own workouts versus what AT is giving me now that I am a few months into using it. Iām confident that across the board my numbers are low, and Iāve still be swapping out harder workouts than suggested for almost all workouts.
Two questions:
-
How are you typically rating completed workouts (ratings of Hard, Very Hard or All Out lead to minimal PL increase)?
-
Are you doing any outside workouts that are not getting included in PL changes (all Wahoo and some Garmin are currently ignored)?
Why do you think they were too low before you did the breakthrough ones?
I know that some of mine (especially endurance, and I suppose sprint where my TR value is 1.0) are low since I do a lot of that work outside TR.
At the moment, this is just a limitation of the system - work thatās not indoor TR or outdoor Garmin (mainly) doesnāt count.
There is supposed to be some consideration of coupling of the PLs downwards (i.e., being good at SS should influence tempo etc), but I couldnāt really comment on how accurate those links are. Theyāve said itās been assessed by their ML. Youād assume that it would vary for different athletes in the same way that performance in various FTP tests also varies as well.
Iām guessing TRās response here is that youāll need to bump up your FTP at some point to bring the levels down so you can progress back up again. You can complete a level 9 sweet spot workout at your current FTP, but if you bumped your FTP by 2-3% would you still complete workouts at that level? Thatās how it aims to keep you progressing as far as I am aware. Maximizing each bar isnāt the goal at all.
Almost all of my ratings are easy, moderate, or hard. Iāve had a couple here and there that were rated as all out or very hard coming off of highly fatigued days or improper nutrition.
I almost never ride outside for workouts, and I workout at least 6 days a week.
I thought they were low because of what I could do at a threshold effort, and having familiarity with the sweet spot workouts, as well as using NP as a guide for tempo/endurance.
Iām not trying to maximize levels at all. iām just noting that the different levels are not accurately correlated in how they are tracked with PL, which makes me question how they are being served to me against different zones.
Regarding raising FTP, I can certainly do that, but it shouldnātā be a requirement for making progress. Ramp rate is ramp rate, shouldnāt matter too much if it is a level 3 or a level 6. And cross correlation across zone should be somewhat independent of level as well.
My FTP setting is certainly a percent or two low, but Iām not sure if my MAP is (which is what a ramp test more closely measures). Again, Iām not sure this should matter with levels though. If I start at a level 3 or a level 6, I should be trying to raising that X units by the end regardless. The starting level is the offset, ramp rate is what matters.
Is your ftp accurate (being updated)?
I think an alternative solution is to do the test (if you want to) and then stick to the plan and donāt adapt until you complete the first weekās workouts. Once you complete the stock workouts, your progression level should jump back to at least where the plan starts and adapt from thereā¦
My threshold progression level is pretty accurate. Albeit after me swapping to a bit tougher workouts than picked by AT.
My FTP is set to 285. I did 288 AP /289 NP on the bike I train on for a 10 mile TT in 24:30 a couple weeks ago. FTP setting is close to accurate Iād say.
Regardless, my question on cross correlation is not super closely tied to that.
The different systems scoring are not relative to each other or consistent in how they progress, because they arenāt relative to each other. A 5.0 VO2 Max is not relatively the same as a 5.0 Threshold. To me this is a flaw with the current workout ratings and one that will bite us harder until itās more closely corelated.
There is some secondary progressions that appear at times. But way too loosely correlated than what I would expect is accurate.
It is heavily weighted on what one has done, versus what oneās capability could be reasonably extrapolated to based on performance in other zones. Not sure why that would be. Itās already done from MAP ā FTP.
Not arguing your point, but my point is specifically about the ratings of the workouts themselves, not the applicability of them to your progressions. The main use case is, you complete a sweetspot 7.0 workout and think you are good at sweetspot, but youāre not because a sweetspot workout 7.0 is not hard. A 7.0 in threshold, regardless of your other progressions, is hard AF. A 7.0 in VO2Max, not so much.
Kinda wish you hadnāt shown me that workout, as itās piqued my interest now 
24 mins at 94% FTP is ok but the preceding 1 min at 150% is going to sting I should imagineā¦.
Sorry, Iām not arguing either. I understand what youāre saying, but interpreted those statements that levels donāt match up because of different sensations in different zones.
I do not understand your statement that if you do a level 7 sweet spot you are not good at sweet spot. Loosely, I understand a level 10 as around max level of fitness in a given zone if FTP is set correctly. You can go higher than level 10, but most likely that is because FTP setting is not accurate (though this can break down the farther you get away from threshold zone).
Maybe Iām confused there, and if thatās not how it is set up I donāt see a reason for it. It causes unnecessary confusion on the meaning of progression levels.
And here lays the problem when you remove tte from the equation. Sst lvl 10 is not particularly challenging (5x20@92% is a lvl 10.8 - ability to do this has nothing to do with improved FTP) as whole sst progression is quite easy. For comparison 4x20@100% ftp is lvl 8.4 - it is incomparably harder workout that can be sign of improved FTP or very good tte. This is huge difference between different zones levels and in my opinion the discrepancy is too high.