We’re beating a dead horse here…and I don’t even disagree with you. But I think it’s important to note that following this advice is the OPPOSITE of simply answering how you feel .
At some point, I’d love it if more people would simply recognize this as a legit problem (aka opportunity) for TR to address, rather than repeatedly insisting the outliers here are just “doing it wrong”. Like any aspect of the TR app, it may work well for many people but there are also people that struggle with it.
To paraphrase something that really stuck with me from the Lee McCormack episode,
- If he gives the same instruction three times to someone but they still don’t get it, he reconsiders the messaging, and then uses a new/different approach in an effort reach this student in a way that works for them.
Main point being that the “keep it simple, it’s all about feel” is fine when it works for people, but there are clear examples where that path doesn’t get a person to the intended goal. Is it really so difficult to understand that a deliberately subjective “measurement” might be variable between people with different backgrounds and experiences?
I say all this as someone who adapted to the survey pretty well, almost from the start. It paralleled a scoring system I had already been using for my own notes. The time and effort I have put into this process was a result of the clear issues we saw right from the start and still see today. I did it and continue to work on behalf of the people that are still having trouble with it despite how “simple” it is supposed to be.
I don’t have more answers than the chart or other suggestions that I’ve already given at this time. But I still consider this an open and unsolved issue for a number of users. I fully expect we will continue to see reports of issues and confusion about it. The podcast yesterday covered a specific instance that is similar to others.
The one solution offered there was a restatement that Bailouts = All Out. Great, can we actually get that in writing this time in the official TR support article? If Jon thinks that is a clear and definitive example, it seems best to record that as such. Outside of that one issue, they offered nothing new and practically ridiculed people dealing with this. It’s dismissive, lacks empathy and is disappointing IMO.
Agreed. The whole situation strikes me as the tail wagging the dog…which as I noted above is sort of the issue I have with TR in general.
It’s pretty clear the attitude seems to be…“well this is what the software guys say to do, it’s out of our hands.”
Thanks for posting this Chad. I think I definitely need to skip that podcast!
Don’t skip it just from my summary. I admit my own bias here, so others may take that section differently than I did (subjectivity is a thing, right??? )
One thought that did ocurr to me though, for that specific example they covered (Moderate rating for a workout that failed to meet power targets and declined throughout) is that TR could employ some “error check” at the survey level. Jon specifically pointed to the workout data as the source of his review and the fact that the rating was incorrect from his review.
This is at least possible for things like missing power targets beyond some potential trigger point. If that is the case, TR could at least second guess & suggest a reevaluation when a rider selects a particularly low rating for a workout that slows problems that are not the current triggers for an actual Struggle survey (pauses, back pedals, excessive intensity reduction).
That is one way I could see the process improved, to addresses a clear instance (that may not be rare?). This is “problem solving” at a software/app level, rather than pure criticism telling people to fix themselves with no better guidance than what’s already known.
Rate the surveys how you felt.
If progression over time feels good
Don’t change anything.
If progression over time feels unsustainable
Be open to the possibility that “hard” may have felt “very hard”.
That’s it. It’s that simple.
Is any of that “official TR info” or what people have distilled from various discussions or sources?
And “Moderate” may have felt “Hard”. That’s my plan.
Let’s see how it goes.
Yea. The core thing I’ve figured out seems to be that Hard = just right. Everything else is either too hard or too easy to varying degrees.
It’s the one adjustment I’ve made which is the suggestion I made in the original post. It has worked seamlessly for me. If a workout is rated very hard adaptive training is not going to suggest a harder workout than subscribed for the following week.
Again I’m only suggesting this if you feel like you’re on the limit and subsequent workouts are increasing your overall fatigue or reducing your overall enjoyment.
My goal is to never fail a workout. I’d rather complete a 7 or 8 out of 10 workout than fail a workout and have the subsequent workout reduce a whole PL point lower.
If you need to backpedal or skip an interval, isn’t that by definition an “I did not pass” workout?
That’s definitely the way I define it. On another note, if I wasn’t doing TR and went out and did 5 x 10 min @ 300w and on the fifth set I could only manage 290w I don’t think I would call it a “fail”. But in TR I would.
Totally with you on this
I think it depends on whether 300 watts is endurance, threshold, or sweet spot. If I was 3% off on a tempo interval I’d think of that as a fail regardless - if I was 3% off on a VO2 interval I wouldn’t care at all
If only 300w was tempo for me.
Then to borrow a line from Nirvana, I have never failed to fail And got faster.
Funny just did 5 x 9 min @ Threshold outdoors and while I knew from memory the indoor workout was 290w intervals the outdoor workout on Garmin gives a 20w range from something like 280-299
It’s almost a month since I decided to go this route and I just wanted to share feedback in case anyone else was running into the same issue. Every ride I do, I now add +1 to whatever I thought it was. So, for example, if I thought the ride was “Moderate” in my head, I mark it “Hard”. If I thought it was “Hard”, I mark it “Very Hard”. It is working. My progression level increase has slowed significantly, but I still find myself tired at the end of a week and then re-motivated to hit it on Tuesday after my Monday rest day. I have been consistent with my training over the month, and my CTL is rising. I’m not saying this solution is perfect, and it’s certainly slowing my progression, but it achieved the intended result. I feel like I’m staying more positive and motivated, and while I’m accumulating stress, I am not feeling like I am about to fall off a cliff if I don’t insert a rest week.
I made essentially the same change about 6 weeks ago. Thinks are going much better. I answer most surveys hard/very hard rather than moderate/hard.