Sorry, I’m not arguing either. I understand what you’re saying, but interpreted those statements that levels don’t 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 I’m confused there, and if that’s not how it is set up I don’t 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.
I don’t 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.
You’ve 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.
I don’t look at any of these as being precise guides. It’s 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.
I’m 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 isn’t 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, it’s hard to believe I’ve done just about an entire base-build cycle with AT. I’ve got race footage exporting now so I’m 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.
i did workout gaaslande outside yesterday (basically 45sec on at 123% and 45sec off) and got served a struggle survey but I didn’t struggle, I was able to say I didn’t struggle and mark it as moderate. Not going to spend too much time speculating on why it might have thought I didn’t 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 I’ve failed/cut-short?
I assume that I might be able to do that to shorten my workout tomorrow morning as I don’t believe hitting or missing the power target during the rear intervals effects things, but it’d 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 don’t think rest matters. I regularly pause during rest because I need to take care of something and never had an issue. I’ve 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 I’ve done early.
Yeah, I’ve definitely had the cut short one when I’ve ended my endurance spin early after my workout. I’m 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 didn’t get a struggle survey, but also didn’t 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.
You may get a struggle survey but I think one of the answers is “ran out of time” or similar. This is important because if you select “intensity” or whatever in the struggle survey it’ll try to back you off, if you run out of time etc it knows you didn’t struggle per se.
Another solution would be to use the “alternates” 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 “alternates”. This means you’ll actually get the PL credit for the workout being slightly harder…
Might have been mentioned but we’ve hit over 4k replies and some things have changed over time as things get fixed.
I’m 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
We need a wiki!
Lets be honest. There are so many threads, nobody can read them all.
I would really appreciate some Kind of wiki or a how to rlated to AT.
Nacht ce Greets!
I think a number of people in the beta have commented on this, and it seems a very valid point.
I suspect that in this current (“v1”) release of AT we shall just have to deal with this issue ourselves, as best we can, as you’ve done by manually scheduling tougher workouts aimed at capturing your true levels…
But my guess is that so-called secondary progressions are something that might be improved significantly in future AT releases. NB not in the current beta release, but in full version future releases in the coming years, as TR work to improve their models.
I think the PL system is a very good innovation and gives them an excellent platform to build on, but realistically the earlier versions - like we have access to in today’s v1.beta - are always going to be limited in sophistication compared to where things may end up a few years down the line as refinements are made and the platform’s potential maximised.
A wiki would be helpful as a searchable resource. Also know you can use the search function of this forum to find a lot of the answers in the same way. You can even limit the search to the current thread or specific users. While not the same as a wiki, it does provide some similar use.
In any case, right now the best resource is the below article, which has an FAQ at the end with a lot of the common questions people have:
I’m wanting to do a Zwift ride up Alpe du Zwift, which is going to be 60 mins just below FTP I reckon. Is there anything clever I can do to have AT recognise this ride? Perhaps a 60 mins sweet spot session associated with it? Would I need to record it on my Garmin as an outside ride then associate it??
I personally would just treat it like an outdoor ride and score the survey as you would for an outdoor ride. That way it is categorized and used properly once the update to AT that Nate has alluded to finally hits. Of course, that means sacrificing progressions in the moment for accuracy in the future.
More to the point, associating it to a workout won’t necessarily make it work. Others have tried this with outdoor rides to little or no effect. You could, however, run TR and Zwift concurrently and pick a 60-min sweetspot interval workout and complete the workout on TR while sending the power and cadence data to Zwift at the same time. Of course this means you won’t feel the grades of the mountain on Zwfit, but it will give you progression for the workout selected.
