I’ve tried to correlate morning HRV with training, and nothing. But real-time HRV does appear to have increased the accuracy of my Garmin 530’s FTP estimates, versus the 520 that appears to use a very simple method (w/o HRV and ML). Not that the 530 estimates are perfect, far from it, but for a ‘free’ sub-max estimate (pops up at end of workout) its ‘better’ than the alternatives I’ve tried including WindWarrior’s Magic FTP Estimation™ from '16-'17 season. At the end of the day I’ve found the best approach is to triangulate with at least two methods, toss in the occasional benchmark effort, and be a little conservative until I can prove otherwise out on the road.
But I’m a numbers guy so what’s easy for me is rocket science for my sister, so my advice to her (and others) has been “use TR LV plan and do ramp tests.” Having automated FTP estimation in TR app should help a lot of people. My sis called once and was confused and anxious because she missed the ramp test because of her work schedule.
Her anxiety seemed to be something like “hey I couldn’t do the ramp test because of work, will it screw up my training plan if don’t do it?” along with the “wanna know if I got better.”
This is really cool and I see it as a well to help people that are new or struggle with consistency. I think that is an untapped market. Having a 3 month plan that is 3-4 days a week for 30min during weekdays would help people get into the habit I think. I know I struggle with consistency due to work and life.
Seems like most of the sleeping/readiness products don’t really give you direct measurement of hrv anyway so you should base it on the derived metric the product tells you so you’d be less validating hrv and more validating the product.
Though also a bit more complicated than that as there could be subgroups inside a product. For example body battery results from someone with a Fenix 6 could be different from someone with a Fenix 7 in that the 7 has a more accurate hr sensor and better data in should improve the output. Same for Woop between versions
I very much agree with this which is why I bring up my desire for you to do this. (Maybe a bit too much, just ask DC rainmaker )
One thing I don’t like about how lots of this data discussed is that alpha 1 predicts LT1. What if it predicts a number that correlates strongly with many people to lt1 but really is a different threshold? It would still be very valid in finding a bottleneck in your performance.
For my n=1 study of myself my alpha 1 seems to stay high even at high percent of ftp even if my legs are burning and don’t want to do more. Could it be that I’m less cardiovascular limited and more muscular limited? If true this could help try figure out which bottleneck in my performance it should be training.
I see the same kind of thing with other threshold predictions based on other data sources like muscle oxygen. To me the interesting part is how they each are lightly different from the value is trying to correlate to. I think there is a good chance they are measuring slightly different bottlenecks.
I’ve been tracking my HRV for a while and there’s more noise than signal in my data. I’m on day 6 of a recovery week and my HRV has been all over the place, despite consistent, low training volume and intensity all week. I know others see more consistency but I can’t find any trends in my data (thus far)
As far as other data - sleep data (primarily around duration, although quality would also be meaningful) would be terrific to have included. My day to day performance seems to track to my prior 7 day sleep hours average more than almost anything else
Regarding the feature being discussed in this thread…
I’d love if I could set training times per day and whether I want a day to be a hard day or an easy day.
Where I expect to run into some problems early on is with the various definitions that Plan Builder uses. I believe these are currently Easy, Moderate, and Difficult but I’m not really sure what the specific zones are for each. Really, as a Plan Builder user I’d want to just say hard or easy and let AT take care of what is endurance, threshold, etc.
As an example - if I have 3 hours - I would consider a sweet spot workout hard/difficult. If I have 60 minutes I could consider a sweet spot workout easy. I don’t think this aligns with TR’s definitions, so having that laid out clearly (although probably requiring a clickthrough to avoid confusing zone naive users) would help a lot with an initial release
As long as you also tag the SKU with the sensor it has (elevate 3 and 4) and the model (Fenix 7 vs Fenix 6) in that there are probably strong correlations with sku that are close to each other and not treat them as independent when you’re training the model
As for firmware info, if not in the health info you could get it from the fit file you import of their activities. So them you’ll know all the data that comes in after that activity is that firmware or newer. May not be worth the effort if you have to do that though
Though all that may be going a bit into the weeds…
Yes! Target TSS and hours, ramp rate, available training slots, perhaps distribution of zones or number of intensity days. Of course setting one parameter would put restriction on others. That is my dream TR.
I struggled with finding volume-intensity balance last two years and burned out at the end of build. I have time but don’t recover as fast. Now I finally feel I got it right but it would be great to limit the necessary tweaking.
It’s the way to go. I’ve seen too many people get their feelings hurt b/c they are doing “low volume”. Get rid of the low/mid/high names and let the plan name be “sweet spot” or “traditional” etc.
)