Makes perfect sense.
Baird is 3 sets 5x 1’ rbi 1’ rbs 8m = (Stretch) easy
Baird -2 is 3 sets 5x 1’ rbi 1’ rbs only 3m = (Breakthrough) so harder
Baird +1 is 3 sets 7x 1’ rbi 30s rbs 6m = Not recommended (much harder)
8 Likes
I get that. But then what does the + / - number mean? You cannot look at two workouts, where one is +2 and the other is +4, and know which is harder / easier without reading the actual workout description. Which is why I’m saying this is wonky.
3 Likes
Definitely not. Baird -2 is more intense only 3 minutes between intervals as opposed to 8 minutes.
3 Likes
The session is less time / duration. -2 is 45 minutte vs 1 hour.
However it is more intense = harder, less rest = higher level.
4 Likes
Sadly, the + / - signals are more about duration (longer / shorter) than difficulty in many cases. Often, there are cuts to recovery intervals and such in the shorter variants that make them harder. That difference and fact it was not consistent from one range of workouts to another, lead to so much of the confusion when people swapped out for those options.
The new Levels system should be better, and can potentially show the places the old +/- system fell short, as this seems to be one of those cases.
7 Likes
That is what I said. 
Good to know you think the same. 
2 Likes
Yeah, same train of thought. I was meaning to reply to Alpha (apparently at the same time as your other replies), and clicked the wrong reply button (yours not his). Sorry for any confusion 
1 Like
So what you’re saying it’s skynet is never wrong but people are?
I do wonder if someone modeled all these workouts in xert how that system would rank the difficulties of the different workouts
Except see the Baird +1 & +2. This are the same length of time - 1:00:00. So is Baird, Baird -1, and Baird +3.
So at least for Baird, the +/- doesn’t imply duration or intensity. So, what does the relative number mean?
Right, as I said, it’s a mess. The modified versions are not clearly easier/harder or longer/shorter in all cases.
I think it is a legacy of the evolution where one workout got made, then desire to add more with different time and/or intensity and changes were not universal. Like many systems that develop over time, exceptions pop in and this system seems to prove that rule. Stuff gets messy over time, and is why the Levels should help in the future, to where we can largely ignore the +/- entirely.
Essentially, I think the +/- got used for two different reasons over time (duration / difficulty) and the mix of those eventually means that something has to break. Fixing it would require starting over and renaming old workouts to fit into the expanded scheme (which would be confusing if someone always got use to doing the +1 and that eventually changed to -1 for some reason in a resort). So they stuck with the mess until now with the new system “detached” from the naming for ranking.
6 Likes
Still makes sense…
The interval are 90sec vs 1 minute…
Basically, look at the detail or find an actual bug/issue or trust the TR team.
Sorry that sounds harsh, its not meant to be, just can’t workout the correct words.
Good questions and conversation but no evidence of anything ‘wonky’
8 Likes
Well said.
Going forward trust the levels.
If you find one that looks out, look at the recovery and IF, then flag it.
1 Like
The +/- version isn’t consistent. Sometimes they are harder. We’ve though about renaming them all but then that’s confusing too.
We hope that people can just look at the levels and use that as a gauge.
As @Bbt67 said, the -2 is more intense and thus harder because of the shorter rest between sets.
10 Likes
In this case, I would suggest renaming them like the following:
- Baird → Baird 3.8, where 3.8 is the progression level for Baird
- Baird -1 → Baird 2.9
- Baird +1 → Baird 6.0
- Etc.
5 Likes
That’s a great temporary idea. I too would love to see those ratings - in any medium - ASAP to make my own planned workout adjustments slightly more informed.
2 Likes
As best I can tell, the +/- nomenclature is based solely on TSS (remember this was done manually by (presumably) Chad when he created these workouts and their variants).
Progression Levels and AT appear to be using IF (and hopefully more such as TSS, total duration, work duration, rest duration, etc).
1 Like
I had a thought, apologies if its already been covered in the other 1,997 posts!
I’ve been tacking on some Z2 additonal time after workouts. I’m on LV SSB, one way I do it is to extend the cooldown by 30mins and then ramp the workout up to 150% (or whatever brings the wattage up to the right level) and the other way I do it is to just chuck a 30mins endurance workout on straight after the last interval of the scheduled ride finishes (which means I might cut the WO short by 5 mins to avoid the cooldown).
Just wondering if the AT will recognise this, is there a preferred option, will one work better than the other etc?
1 Like
I follow a duathlon plan that I bought through TrainingPeaks because TrainerRoad unfortunately doesn’t offer any and the triathlon plans for duathlon are unfortunately not really useful.
Now my question about AT, my workout is automatically imported from TP to TR, if I look for a similar TR workout and merge both after the ride is finished, does AT then take it into account in the logic?
Nate has mentioned creating plans with volumes between low and mid. I would presume using one of those may help if/when they are released as if would provide the extra volume you’re looking for.
That said, I’m not sure how AT looks at and understands extending the cool down and raising the resistance. And I’ve not seen TR answer this question in particular.
2 Likes
IIRC, someone from TR has responded previously that the warmup and cooldown are ignored by AT, including any extension of the workout
1 Like