🎉 🎉 🎉 Introducing Adaptive Training! 🎉 🎉 🎉

The progression levels look a lot like progress bars in a video game. When confronted with them, I naturally wanted to make them go as high as possible, as fast as possible in hopes of maxing them all out.

Blame an adolescence spent in World of Warcraft.

1 Like

I don’t think it’s necessary to go through all past rides and redo the surveys, I could be wrong. I have recently been added to adaptive training Too so; im taking it on from here, kind of approach. I have an upcoming FTP test so I assume all my levels will drop as long as I get a bump in my FTP.

1 Like
  • Not only unnecessary, but impossible.
  • You can only enter or edit a survey for a ride within 7 days of completion.
  • After that, they are locked forever.

I haven’t had to monkey with many workouts at all. The Adaptations and Level’s have been spot on.

I haven’t had an FTP change since starting AT, and replace some/all of the Sweet Spot workouts with ones from “More Sweet Spot”.

Yeah, I don’t find the bar-chart visual for PLs very useful. Seeing the numbers in a table would be fine for me. If current values must be visualized graphically, I think one of these radial plots would work a lot better:



Not to beat a dead horse, but besides workout compliance / workout failure rate, it would be good to understand what else AT is designed to optimize for. If it is simply workout compliance, then the degenerative case would be to make every workout something like Lazy Mountain -1. No one would ever fail a workout, but neither would anyone get faster. So 100% workout compliance / completion is not the only objective. And I would argue that “failing” a certain % of workouts is actually healthy / leads to improved fitness, as if you never challenge yourself, how will you (or AT) know what you are really capable of doing? And this by definition means that sometimes the challenge is too great a challenge, but you won’t know that till you try.


Boy, talk about sympatico. On my 90 min endurance ride yesterday I was pondering my experience with AT beta, and found myself asking a similar question: If the purpose of TR is to “Make you a faster cyclist” then what is the TR team looking at to know that those who are following AT are getting faster “more better”:slight_smile: than those who are not? (That would also be using AT as designed without trying to game the system [not a judgement, as I am so tempted to try to ramp up PLs post-FTP change, and sometimes think “oh, and can do something harder than what’s on my plan for the day”])

@IvyAudrain Without disclosing proprietary/competitive info, what insights might TR be able to provide – perhaps at least to those in the beta pool…


Pretty sure they hit on this in the release podcast (maybe others). It is far from just compliance. They looked at multiple factors and used the ML to try and find the “right mix” of progression in workouts that got appropriate gains matched with desired compliance.

I highly doubt it’s as simple as we might think if we were looking at graphs and charts of the many thousands of workouts, training plans and such. Because of that, I also expect we won’t get much in detail there since that is likely a huge piece of their project and not something appropriate to share (where competitors might leverage the info).

1 Like

Definitely hearing you all that you’d like some more transparency about how Adaptive Training ‘measures its success’, I have to present that to the team and see how they’d like to speak to it. Thanks for your patience!


Plus I’d love AT to be able (some point in the future) give me actionable feedback. For example, I’ve done Festive 500 for the last several years, and this is a pretty large training block - 7 straight days, and ~1,400 TSS. Is this “good” for me? Or does this big a block ultimately harm my performance because it takes so much out of me that I suffer a big post Festive 500 training implosion?

I still might do Festive 500 because its a fun challenge, but I might try and reduce it / employ other strategies to try and minimize any negative impacts.


I have this issue with the F500 too - I want to keep doing it but I’m not sure it’s ultimately good for my training.

1 Like

That is heaping a lot of hope onto AT…

1 Like

It is :grinning:

1 Like

For me every big training overload week, at some point, delivers a fitness bump. Its all about managing the week or two after the overload :wink:


AT will never replace a coach, yourself and simple common sense :slight_smile: at most it will prescribe easy spins as a workouts, nothing more.

Reading all the related topics I think people have some really high expectations about AT, but it is only a tool that can help a little bit with progressions through the workouts that users do not have to think if 3x15@FTP is harder than 2x20@FTP. I cannot imagine it can do anything more even if you feed it all the metrics in the world. Because there is a ton of aspects that cannot be quantified by any mathematical modeling (example - I have had very intensive and stressful weeks at work. I failed workouts that I could do 2 weeks earlier. My every parameter was in norm, even during the ride - but my mind was not. Today I have done the same workout with ease - just simply because today was an easier day at work).

Sorry for the digression and my 2 cents.


Not a digression. Perfect examples of why optimizing only for workout compliance / zero workout failure wouldn’t be a good solution.

The biggest problem with having AT manage fatigue/adapt your rides to recovery etc is a)athlete honesty, and b)athlete ego/expectation.

From what I’ve read, most people have a ready excuse when a workout is a fail or struggle (I’m the same), and want to keep moving forwards with their training without being able to see the forest for the trees.

Personally I think AT is on the right track and I’ve found the load just right and exploring my limits with workouts already. I think the TR team have some interesting ideas planned.


When it comes to me and my strange preferences I would trade AT for any decent plan builder not controlled by some things but rather combination of user preference and level.

For example:
I want to focus on my Vo2 max for 3 weeks, I choose time frame, zone with main focus, number of hours/wk or some other progression (could be even based on my previous weeks and training load). It could be expanded into secondary focus etc. This way I would have block that can be moved as a whole and used in the future as a template, but changed dynamically basing on my actualparameters like levels, tss, load ftp. This would be the most awesome feature. I would like some automation but with ability to use this automation as support of manual decisions.

But I am strange this way, as I like to have control over my training, and like to change things to see how my body will react. Maybe my biggest problem is the lack of features for “tinkers”, that like the process of choosing the workouts (if someone was playing Football Manager ever in his life know what I am talking about ;))

Edit ----
I have reflected that described almost old plan system, but with some twists. Maybe I am too old for this s… as someone has said :slight_smile:


I do think after reading the SS Progression thread, that there’s merit in having VO2 Build, SS Build, Threshold Build as options for Build phase.

AT has been perfect for me so far. I’m bumping up to some pretty daunting looking threshold workouts though so it’ll be interesting to see, if I have a struggle at some point, how AT will then manage the load/progression.


For what it’s worth, I’m not talking about base being too easy in my case (I’m in build), it’s the fact that the system seemed to always make things easier when I set workouts as hard / very hard.

My faulty RPE meter perhaps, but it’s rare that even an “easy” workout feels easy to me. I’m not one of these riders that gets a endorphin boost from training, so they all feel pretty miserable to me.