πŸŽ‰πŸŽ‰πŸŽ‰ New Product Release! Updated Training Plans, Workout Levels, TrainNow Updates πŸŽ‰πŸŽ‰πŸŽ‰

This is something I’ve done in a loose fashion with basic intervals, like Nx3min, Nx4min, Nx8min, Nx10min, Nx20, Nx30, 20 or 30 Min TT, etc. I have a journal of how I’ve progressed on those types of workouts.

I assume many have also gotten to the point where they looked at the workout style, TSS, IF and duration to estimate difficulty. As was pointed out, this can definitely not line up with expectation.

Systematically quantizing the workouts is a nice step, and also critical for any automation. It also sounded like from the podcast they developed an algorithm for it rather than a data-driven model, which is also nice. My one concern would be if their model can robustly pick up differences within the lower range of ramp rates, say .3 in workout level. On that, it is important to sanity check the workout levels as we progress through. They’ll surely pick up on that over time though if there is an outlier workout that people have low compliance on now that things are more organized with progression of workouts.

What’s going on with the ramp tests? Seems to be a ton of posts on them the last few days but I don’t really have time to go through them all.

Are they working more in line with expectations now? I.E. Not reducing levels a crazy amount when your FTP change is within the margin of error.

People not in the beta were able to look at their previous ramp tests to see their progression levels so they could better pick workouts with the workout levels. It’s since been fixed so non-beta users do not have access to that information. There was also mention of the zones being out of order or in a weird order when displayed on those ramp tests.

1 Like

Having recently finished a plan, and doing a lot of outside rides, I followed TrainNow’s suggestion during the last two days. Two days ago TN recommended a moderate threshold (60 min, climbing) and yesterday it was a an endurance ride (90 minutes). Today I went for an outside ride - as I have no power meter I estimated the TSS to be 281 (117KM at 4 1/2 hours with 2300 climbing are mostly hard for me). Yet, when I open the TR app, the recommended workout for today is an attacking WO. This makes very little sense, I would expect TN to suggest a very mild recovery ride (or better still to tell me to rest…). Is this just an issue of time lag, or are outside rides not really taken into consideration by TR? Thanks!

For me trainnow always recommends an endurance ride. Never a different recommendation. The recommendation by itself doesn’t make sense. Maybe there needs to be some context. I have no real swings in TSS or intensity. My workouts are based off of TR plans but they tend to be Adjusted downward ie mid volume I drop one day as I want only 4 days of riding or low volume and I add in an extra day of endurance.


It’s a thing with outdoor workouts.


Hmm… thanks! Hopefully that will change soon because the way it is now, the suggestions have little relevance.

I would guess the latter, since I’m doing mostly outside unstructured riding, and it recommends me endurance workouts after hard days, and not when I’m fresh. But this is probably not calculated live, but in batches or maybe even just nightly.

No it’s not. It is for the recommended workout levels. Maybe also for the choice between climbing and attacking. But fatigue from just unstructured riding outside is taken into account for the recommendation between endurance, climbing, or attacking.

1 Like

I donβ€˜t know, seems like outdoor workouts are taken into account now to me… I kept getting 1.9-2.0 Threshold workouts proposed to me, which is way, way lower than my other energy systems (all other proposals where in the 6.0 -8.0 range). I canβ€˜t know for sure though since Iβ€˜m not in AT beta yet.

I wasnβ€˜t too happy with that so I picked a threshold 4.0 workout to do inside. Halas, the sun came out to play unexpectedly, so I pivoted to outside workouts for the same workout and β€žsuperpassedβ€œ it (sat above the high range most of the time).

So now TrainNow offers me 3.2-3.4 ish Threshold workouts. Clearly it has learned from the outdoor workout. I had to close and re-open the app for it though, before that it still offered me high 1β€˜s…

So at least for levels I am pretty sure outdoor workouts are accounted for… For recommendations, I always get Endurance as recommended so I wouldnβ€˜t know :upside_down_face:

Have you seen/heard anymore info on this than the post below?
That’s all I could find on the subject that relates directly to TN.

That’s only going to be as good as the info being fed into TN. And for now there seem to be plenty of situations where that information isn’t being interpreted correctly in an outdoor setting.

That’s my take on it anyway. A bit like my Garmin watch constantly telling me I have a low aerobic shortage and a VO2 max to die for.

No more info no. That’s basically what I said. It can use all your rides for choosing between the types of workouts (endurance, climbing, attacking). For adjusting workout levels it needs TN workouts, and your previous quote for outside workouts was about that (i.e. adjusting your progression levels).

1 Like

With all this integration happening soon and all this new data gathering. will you include getting data from apple watch and or whoop?

1 Like

Fair call. I think it’s reasonable to expect that if you see TN recommendations as a totally separate entity to AT and the progression levels.
My take is that they’re linked. Though that’s only a guess.

Nate has said he wants to bring in more data points like HRV, sleep tracking, etc., But that the priority right now is nailing AT without those data points first. So it is on the roadmap, but we don’t have a timeline.

Me too!!!

A good summary by @hvvelo. I too am concerned with the new, much easier plans, and the inability to use the old plans (which work well for me) without some serious manual editing. This is one reason we pay for TR… not wasting time building plan calendars.

Would be good to have some way for those of us without AT to be able to load the old plans.

I understand this significant difficulty mismatch will be automatically corrected when AT is released. But the problem is most of us do not have access to AT. Thus what used to be a fairly easy process of setting up productive training plans now involve lots of manual calendar editing.

Some comments here, including from @Jonathan, goes along the line of minimum effective dose. I get that, and believe that philosophy deeply. But for many TR users, with years of experience (myself since 2017), prior experimenting with reducing loads (in general, as @hvvelo noted, I got faster for a while due to being fresh, but then tanks), regular FTP testing (every 4-8 wks), 99+ % compliance rate, we know how to tweak the old (much higher TSS) plans to suit continual improvement.


You start by saying you are a paying subscriber and shouldn’t have to waste time tweaking plans and finish by saying you know what you’re doing and can make TR work for you because you are good at tweaking the plans.


I said β€œserious manual editing” at the start, then β€œtweaking” at the end. Please read carefully :slight_smile: Don’t mind the latter at all. Don’t get me wrong, I very much like TR.

Just hoping to raise some awareness to the crew that the new plan role-out without concurrent AT support may be leaving some users in a somewhat inconvenient state.

Haha, but this is tough, easy plan or hard plan… there will always be someone complaining :slight_smile:


Same, I’ve never seen a recommendation other than 60 min endurance. Which is odd because I’ve been doing 3:15-3:30 hour endurance on Sundays.

1 Like

With Train Now you select the duration for the recommendation, default is 60 minutes. So of course it won’t recommend much longer unless you change that.