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¦
1 Like
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.
This is not a question or concern but merely a comment
The workouts on the 9+ area are kind of horrendous 
Moral of the story, donāt manually swap rides out for āBreakthroughā and then expect a normal life in the ensuing weeks
4 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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¦.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
I donāt disagree with you that the different zones are not comparable in terms of levels, but I would add that I suspect they might be closer (and shaped in general) for the general TR population.
Youāve obviously done a lot of SS Progression (thanks for your help on that thread), but a lot of people find long SS tough. I hazard a guess that the levels are shaped by compliance.
1 Like
I donāt look at any of these as being precise guides. Itās all in a range with lots of overlap and is just a rough metric of fitness increase that is more granular than a MAP test every 4-8 weeks.
Iām not overly concerned with the absolute numbers, which are hard to pin down precisely, but the rate of improvement and correlation of that with improvement in other zones. Improvement in one zone often carries over with improvement in others zones. So it just isnāt an accurate measure to show a large relative increase in one zone and barely see any increase in adjacent zones. Especially as you move down from threshold.
For anyone interested I have my week 18 training vlog up, itās hard to believe Iāve done just about an entire base-build cycle with AT. Iāve got race footage exporting now so Iām gonna do a race breakdown (which in essence will be pointing out all the times I stunk at holding wheels in the crit) so stay tuned.
7 Likes
i did workout gaaslande outside yesterday (basically 45sec on at 123% and 45sec off) and got served a struggle survey but I didnāt struggle, I was able to say I didnāt struggle and mark it as moderate. Not going to spend too much time speculating on why it might have thought I didnāt succeed. I did have a NP of over threshold for 25min, definitely not going to complain about that!
Little bit of a random question, if I cut the rests down/out of a workout will it still mark as a success, or will it think Iāve failed/cut-short?
I assume that I might be able to do that to shorten my workout tomorrow morning as I donāt believe hitting or missing the power target during the rear intervals effects things, but itād be nice to know.
(Three Fools -1 reducing the rests from five to one or two minutes, and the cooldown from five to say one minute. Just for reference sake.)
I donāt think rest matters. I regularly pause during rest because I need to take care of something and never had an issue. Iāve also skipped rest when I needed to finish early and workout counted just the same (as far as I can tell).
That said, ending early might affect it. At least it did when I accidentally ended the one outside workout Iāve done early.
1 Like
Yeah, Iāve definitely had the cut short one when Iāve ended my endurance spin early after my workout. Iām hoping the cooldown will be treated the same as rest 
Let us know. The one I ended early outside was missing the cool down. I didnāt get a struggle survey, but also didnāt get what should have been a bump in PL. that may have been because it was outside though, and nothing to do with missing cool down.
1 Like
You may get a struggle survey but I think one of the answers is āran out of timeā or similar. This is important because if you select āintensityā or whatever in the struggle survey itāll try to back you off, if you run out of time etc it knows you didnāt struggle per se.
Another solution would be to use the āalternatesā function to choose an equivalent workout at a shorter duration which you can fit. Just also noting that if you do shorten the recoveries, you are effectively making the workout harder - so if you were doing that on purpose, you could pick a shorter workout at a slightly higher PL in āalternatesā. This means youāll actually get the PL credit for the workout being slightly harderā¦
3 Likes
Might have been mentioned but weāve hit over 4k replies and some things have changed over time as things get fixed.
Iām supposed to have a workout today but instead, I have an exam (which aside I am not ready for!) so want to do it tomorrow. I know it used to be the case that moving it would pull it from AT.
Is this still the case? Should I leave it on today and just open and complete it tomorrow or is moving things an option now?
This is true for the workout being adapted (in that it will no longer be adapted), but it will still be included towards future adaptions. So with it being so soon i.e. tomorrow; both of your options would suffice 
1 Like