My marathoning days were now a few years ago. I definitely don’t have that anymore. But as I start cycling I feel improvements pretty quickly and take can on higher loads. It’s not like I’m in marathon training now and jumped on the bike.
Also also I’m about 15lbs heavier after not running so I’m trying to get rid of that as well.
Is there an issue here with taking running training into account.
I get the feeling there isn’t a lot of cycling training to use, so just wonder how much weight the ML gives to another sport.
Definitely could be. He did says he’s been consistently cycling since November though. Could all be unstructured and “not count” though.
They have cycling data from zwift since November, I am going to naively assume the tr/zwift integration allows them to see this data.
eta: it should allow tr to get a good idea of one’s fitness with just raw power data, you don’t need specific workouts to know if someone is strong or not.
This is simply not true…
And with regards to trusting marketing claims… I simply don’t do that… I’d rather lookup real (unpaid) reviews or try it for myself.
I’m also working in marketing, so I know the game…
For an athlete like this it will simply take more time to recognize the possibilities. The start will always be more gentle to not scare the average user.
@siturtle take it as a compliment that you don’t fit into the standard onboarding steps
Lots of people forget this.
The existing rides should be enough to get a very good idea of one’s fitness, sure ramping up volume might take time if OP has not been doing many hours/week before now but TR should absolutely be able to assign appropriately hard workouts and not be pushing them out after a recovery ride.
This will depend on the rides that have been done on zwift, do we know what they are?
“Eliminate guess work and get faster using personalized training that adapts to you - backed by the power of AI.”
“Just sync your data, we’ll handle the rest”
“The right workout every time. Not too easy, not too hard”
I don’t disagree with you at all, just that TR claims very differently on their home page.
Yup that’s what I mean. TR has my 14 hour week last week and the 13 hour from the week before etc.
Here is todays and tomorrows supposed rides the ai wants me to do.
A PL2.4 and a threshold PL1.5. Both would be way too easy but I suppose I scared the ai by doing the 5.9 endurance ride.
It’s the same issue that we see over and over again… PLs can be only be calculated from TR workouts. Everyone starts at 0.
Previous activities are taken in to account for fitness and fatigue (i.e. RLYL and AT calcs).
Hopefully WLV2 resolves this.
TR marketing is strong, the AI and ML claims are extremely exaggerated, but also after not very long it is pretty clear how it works and it offers a good deal of value once you manually adapt workouts to accelerate getting to the right place.
This. (Well, you actually start at 1, I think, but the point remains. 
)
Again, you have an extreme outlier athlete with a deep aerobic base. Any training platform is going to struggle to get the right workouts for them initially.
For years the complaints were that the plans were too intense, so TR made the business decision to make the AI super conservative. Look at the power data TR has released – the vast, vast majority of users are recreational cyclists/enthusiasts. That’s who TR are targeting, and for the vast majority of users – the marketing is true. Outliers like the OP are going to have to do some self coaching.
Not necessarily! I consistently undertested compared to what I could complete, other protocols like the KM.
I’m talking about this specific athlete.
I do agree that whether too high or too low, the Ramp isn’t a good test for many though
Your riding history, back to only November is likely insufficient for the Red/Yellow light system to work as you’d hope and is (rightly) being cautious and giving you these endurance rides. Two recent weeks with many hours is not enough to show the system of your long term training load capabilities.
Now you can tweak how conservative this is and will have seen this screen setting up a plan.
Perhaps you could dial this is up and see how the software responds?
This can be changed outside of plan builder here…
Aplogies if I’ve missed this already being discussed and you’ve done it already…
I’ve complained about how useless the low PL workouts are for a while. It’s absurd that the Silver Lake workout in your image is even offered.
For context, before PLs existed, the entry level threshold workout was Starlight -2, which is still pretty easy, but a much more reasonable starting point I think. If it were me I’d use that to replace Silver Lake on Saturday. That will give you an idea of what over/unders feel like (if you’ve never done them before) and hopefully get the AI to stop wasting your time.
Please ignore the people saying your FTP is too low. It may be, but there’s no way to know at this point since you haven’t done a workout that’s actually stressed you.
The two weeks is just an example. I’ve had a high load since December once I had my legs under me. For the training approach I set it to aggressive when I first started the plan.
I think OP’s background is actually muddying things a bit. The real issue is that with the exception of perhaps someone who has a) never touched a bike and b) never exercised, starting at PL 1 makes absolutely no sense.
Maybe there should be a short survey when people sign up to gauge their fitness history and use that to figure out what the appropriate starting point is.
You have to give it data. An algorithm isn’t just going to know your whole history when the platform just learned you exist. If something is too easy move it up. It’ll learn as you go.
Seriously it’s not that hard.
