🎉 🎉 🎉 Introducing Adaptive Training! 🎉 🎉 🎉

[gwhilts]

@Zissou

FTP is dead, long live the progress bars!

I’m with you, though if I understand correctly (and I might not), FTP is still part of the progress bar calculation. For example, a 3.8 threshold progress bar score at an FTP of 240, might be a 1.2 at an FTP of 280 .

[bfrostieone]

@Nate_Pearson I love the fact that you guys are so active on the forums and give an idea of the upcoming stuff. Knowing what’s coming does make it harder to have to wait, though.

[IvyAudrain]

@GeorgeAnderson

I think its awesome that you come on the forum and post feedback to all of our questions. Chapeau sir.

@Nate_Pearson

Me now that Nate + the team are so active on this thread:

[IceBear]

@IvyAudrain its augmentation not replacement!

[Skilaxin1088]

This is good stuff Nate, thanks for the response!

[pats]

Awesome!! Thanks Nate.
Keep up the great work!!
I look forward to this “game changing” update

[enki42]

@Nate_Pearson

You’ll see the data that we bring it because you’ll need to authorize it for third party APIs. We won’t share specifically how we build features on that data, though.

To me at least I think the question is what equipment would be useful. As in if you don’t use body battery from Garmin and I was planning to get a new watch then there would be no advantage to getting a garmin that had that feature. So if the fr935 has all the functionality I need I would have money and get that over say the 945 which adds body battery. Or if I have a scale that is internet connected I may not care about getting that data onto Garmin connect cause I see no point, but if you used that data I might go through the effort to do it. Or if you started to use HRV that would impact what HR strap I might buy as while optical straps are convenient as they just go on the arm they won’t provide that data well like a normal chest strap.

[sbrands]

I’m curious what would happen if you’d only use TrainNow for a while. With the full AT implementation, would this eventually ‘simulate’ a training plan? Theoretically it would work on a base if that is what’s needed. But would you still be lacking anything if you go this way? (Given that you don’t always choose for the Attacking option and choose some lower TSS options now and then as well.)

[enki42]

A training plan can have the needed cycles built into it that aren’t really possible if you just do day by day

The Science of Supercompensation and How It Makes You Fast

[sbrands]

Ah yes you’d have to then manually adjust for that. Defeating the purporse of course.

[Nate_Pearson]

@gwhilts

I’m with you, though if I understand correctly (and I might not), FTP is still part of the progress bar calculation. For example, a 3.8 threshold progress bar score at an FTP of 240, might be a 1.2 at an FTP of 280 .

Yes, it’s not that big of a spread though.

We could probably rebrand the FTP as “Ramp Test Result” or something like that, but that would be a big education effort.

[rocourteau]

@Nate_Pearson

We could probably rebrand the FTP

Gawd - the entire cycling world lives on arguing about The Meaning Of FTP, don’t go and take that away, what are we going to talk about then?

[Nate_Pearson]

@enki42

To me at least I think the question is what equipment would be useful. As in if you don’t use body battery from Garmin and I was planning to get a new watch then there would be no advantage to getting a garmin that had that feature. So if the fr935 has all the functionality I need I would have money and get that over say the 945 which adds body battery. Or if I have a scale that is internet connected I may not care about getting that data onto Garmin connect cause I see no point, but if you used that data I might go through the effort to do it. Or if you started to use HRV that would impact what HR strap I might buy as while optical straps are convenient as they just go on the arm they won’t provide that data well like a normal chest strap.

The problem is we don’t know what data would be useful until we run it through the model.

But at a high level here’s what I want if I could wave a magic wand.

• Daily scale weight
• Morning resting HR
• Morning HRV
• Daily Sleep hours
• Daily Sleep efficiency (this is hard because some apps don’t measure this well at all)
• Daily steps

[Nate_Pearson]

@Craigball

Anyway . How the F did you go from 250ftp to 350+ . I’ve been stuck around 260-290 for last 5 years and blame work …

Lots of carbs, sleep, consistency, patience. And AT .

[Aaron]

The new Dura Ace groupset. Whether we agree with Chris Froome’s assessment of disc brakes. Light weight vs. aero.

Lots to talk about, is my point.

[philrcook]

Quick question about my plan ahead of any AT beta access.
When I set my original plan it only went so far into 2021 as I wasn’t certain where the year was going. I’ve now got some plans for later in the year and want to amend my plan to suit. Just wonder if the best option is to do that now, wait till AT available or if it makes no difference and I can make changes whenever.

[mcneese.chad]

Unless you are at risk of “running out” of your current plan in the next month or so, I don’t see much benefit to redoing it right now. I think it makes sense to wait for your AT access and then redo Plan Builder at that time.

[philrcook]

It has weeks to go but it wasn’t set with any goal in mind. I now have a trip planned for late Oct that I want to make the most of and given no other goals it seems sensible to plan to be close to peak fitness for this trip.

[mcneese.chad]

@philrcook

I now have a trip planned for late Oct

• That is so far out (well over a regular 28 week cycle) that I don’t see a need to rush a redo.
• But if you want to jump in and see what PB offers, go for it. No harm if you are willing to nuke the current plan and run through the steps.

[mailman]

I actually think this is a simple solution to some of the most vocal forum members and the protocol threads