Is Adapted Training Based on Workout Level Executed -OR- the ACTUAL work performed?

I push most of my workouts to my Garmin and perform them as “outdoor” workouts even though they are done indoors on a trainer. Doing this “dumbs down” the workouts sometimes. For example, an endurance ride with lots of variation for a given interval block is simplified to “ride between x and y watts for z amount of time”. If I had a smart trainer with erg mode, it might make sense to hit all the prescribed values. Since I have an old “dumb” trainer, I just lean on the upper end of the wattage range (or exceed it) and may vary my cadence a bit, because I’m honestly not going to hone in to all the very small power variations.

However, I wonder if I’m short changing my progressions and/or skewing other metrics of load, recovery, etc. I’m currently doing the HV SS Base 2 and frequently exceed the prescribed workout (watts/total kjs/tss/etc.) if the legs are feeling good. A sweetspot workout may look more like threshold, for instance. It doesn’t seem like the AI registers any of this. My levels seem to progress simply by what is “prescribed” and marked as “completed” and not necessarily what was “performed”. I realize for the software to register all that data for every workout for every individual opens an enormous can of worms but my question really is, which of these circumstances is indeed happening?

Is Adapted Training based on the workout level executed -OR- the ACTUAL work performed?

AT does look at actual work, but there are limits to what it does based on those deviations from a planned workout.

All that above is current case. They are actively working on what they are calling “Levels 2.0” in discussion around here. It is supposed to look at the work in new ways and likely handle these deviations more like we might expect. Until then, you need to recognize that over-performing is not likely to give the direct changes that some think should happen.

@mcneese.chad I believe this means it is a simple pass/fail:

unless that support article is out of date.

1 Like

Yeah, that is likely true and I should have covered that more specifically. I hit it from a higher level and more towards the actual TR workouts, which was a partial mistake and missed the mark. (That’s what I get for rushing on my lunch break :stuck_out_tongue: )

And more specific to that Pass/Fail side, there is no current chance of exceeding, so the “same value” aspect still is accurate in this instance.

And to hit on the other aspect, if anyone aims to exceed the planned workout, it’s best to use the Alternates tool to change the workout. This could still apply to those pushed to outside use function as well, if the end goal is higher PL’s in the end.

Both replies are helpful. My question was mostly out of curiosity, as all the new AI is really cool. FWIW- really digging the program thus far! and the podcast (been listening for a long time) as well. It all makes me wish I had a better setup from a tech standpoint but Spring is just around the corner. With all this in mind I’ll definitely consider upgrading next winter. Thanks guys!

1 Like

Today I had Foerster, 50 second VO2 max efforts. The Atom v1 is a bit slow to catch up so I fall about 10 watts short on average per effort. To get around this, I set the workout to 105%. This means I hit the prescribed average, but the peak power is higher. Does that matter? What will AT do with that?

In short, “close counts” for hitting power targets. You will likely get “full credit” for the workout with Progression Levels assigned at the end if you were more or less hitting the target watts (even if that was by applying an intensity adjustment).

Make sure to rate it how it actually felt (not how you expected it or with any consideration of the intensity adjustment itself). To a degree, that is covered in the “Intensity” article I linked above (my 2nd link).