In the smartwatch market, Garmin is a tiny blip. And it doesn’t help if you are outside of the Garmin universe (partially or as a whole). So the size of the data pool would be much, much smaller.
That’s because they likely can’t. They would need scale to make sleep data useful. IMHO it is a big weakness in their strategy, they can’t even try a lot of things with statistical significance without it.
Sleep tracking seems to be a solved problem with the Apple Watch, at least when it comes to sleep duration. It gets trickier when you want to know about sleep phases.
You’re well outside the scope of add the feature to sync now. Your deep into add something they don’t necessarily want to add and requires a whole team to start to interpret apple sleep data and compare that to Garmin data and see if we can even do anything with it.
The counter argument to this is that you don’t need to use the data immediately, and the sooner you start aggregating it the easier it becomes to use it at a later date
that said, I don’t think Apple health integration should be prioritized
Oh yeah it’s not bad same way that Garmin was being grabbed for years.
That’s still resources for something they may not ever plan to use, or possibly can’t use.
Also it was said above that Garmin is a blip in the smart watch market, which may be true. But it’s not a blip in the endurance/sport market, this one. They may just not even have enough users to do anything with the data compared to Garmin.
Syncing sounds great as far as activities, but yeah other health data isn’t being used for any user right now so seems like a weird priority
There are plenty of competitors to Garmin sports watches (Polar, Coros, etc.), none of which to my knowledge can put their data into Garmin’s cloud. I am one of the 5 humans on planet Earth with a Wahoo Rival, so I reckon TR could access my sleep data (if it hadn’t stopped working … again).
Even if non-Apple/non-Android wear smart watches are overrepresented amongst TR athletes, I still reckon that Apple Watch still retains the highest market share.
Also, maybe I’m misunderstanding the situation, but I think other devices who implement HealthKit features can also maintain sleep data in the Apple ecosystem.
The thing is, just while TR was speaking about WLv2 there have been complete new AI apps left and right entering the market (enduro, join, aiendurance, humango…). Of course we can argue about quality and feature set but that contrast alone just gives a feel of slowness for TR, especially considering TR premium price tag.
Also when you see the what just one dev can do with intervals.icu (ok meanwhile David has a supporting UI dev), it’s crazy.
If it wasn’t for DC Rainmaker having TR in second position after Zwift…I’d assume TR is in trouble.
Forum and podcast have become less and less fun over the years. For me the 75% reason is Nates vibe is missing and the other 25% is other key players gone (Chad, Amber, Pete, Ivy). The funny thing is IIRC Jonathan said 1 or 2 years ago that podcast numbers wouldn’t reflect that (I can only assume it’s because the top podcasts as a whole are growing and TR profits from a well deserved pole position in that spot…but what do I know…maybe I’m just getting old )
I think quality is really important: it is easy to announce something that doesn’t work right. I remember FasCat Coaching announcing xPower/xFTP/not-sure-what-it-is-called and it was validated on 5 athletes and 100 workouts. When reading about e. g. Garmin’s training readiness scores and features like it, it seems like a mixed bag, something of rather limited utility. Doing something right takes a lot of work and makes it appear as if you are doing less, especially if what you get is a very simple signal (think RL/GL) and further advances are invisible to users (think AT or RL/GL again).
Apples and bowling balls: TR is a company with at least around 100 employees (that’s the last number I remember), which means it is an entirely different thing. Designing AI-/ML-based features is very, very hard as those devs are hard to come by and those who have some experience in exercise physiology are rarer still.
From my own experience, it is all the boring stuff (automatically cleaning and treating datasets, etc.) that takes a very long time to get right. It isn’t something that can be done by a single person for sure.
Yup, I agree with you on the podcast, it has become quite sterile and is missing the warmth and banter. I would also appreciate some semi-regular by @Nate_Pearson on what’s to come and what their thinking was that went into designing features. The current format is informative, yes, but not as fun.
Apple Health is also another independent and platform-agnostic way to maintain data. My Whithings scale has its own app, which displays trends in a better way than Apple Health. But it is manufacturer-dependent silo just like the Polar app, my Wahoo app and my SRAM app. Apple Health is not. In my mind, Apple Health should be treated like Garmin’s, TrainingPeak’s and Wahoo’s clouds: just another outlet to exchange data with.
In the aftermath of the Strava kerfuffle, TR was able to add syncing to Wahoo’s cloud within a short time frame. I realize this was something TR had done in emergency mode, but TR hasn’t done so in years with Apple Health.
I think I might have mentioned it before but I would be good if when adding an old style training block it would be good if as well as selecting the volume (number of days to train) we could also set the duration for the workouts.
I guess this could also be achieved by in the plan builder allowing us to set what block we want to do.
This is prompted by me wanting a 4 week short power block before the winter base works sets in again, I can add it but it’s a bit more manual than the builder.
Reading all the discussion above regarding TR product improvements, much of it politely expressed mild frustration from long-standing users who sense (rightly or wrongly) a degree of stagnation, it seems 100% clear to me that some official product roadmap communications here from TR would work wonders for morale…….
Bang on. In the past we’d get a steady stream of tidbits from @Nate_Pearson and @Jonathan. The most interesting to me were the whats and whys for (or against) certain implementing features. And even when I ultimately disagreed with the decision, understanding the reasoning was interesting. Nowadays, Nate is rarely on the podcast and (at least according to my memory) hasn’t disclosed anything feature-wise before release.
We probably also miss the feeling, correct or not, of being able to influence product direction by posting here. Now it feels like they’re going to do what they’re going to do and we’ll find out what they produce, but not the whys and wherefores, at the same time as the rest of the world.
I recently changed how I rate my workouts to follow this chart, essentially I wasn’t rating my workouts hard enough. Wish there was a way to let the system know that I’m rating my workouts harder not because they feel harder, but because I’ve made an adjustment in how I rate them. Not sure if it’s a huge issue or if the AI will adjust quickly to my new inputs but in the near-term I did get a suggestion to lower FTP instead of an expected bump up. Also feel maybe this chart should be standardized and included somewhere in the app? Really helped me to better gauge RPE.
I’ve had the chad chart since he made it. I definitely rated my workouts for a long time based on how I felt at the end of the cool down and not during the intervals knowing I wasn’t quite doing it right. . I’ve also more recently been way more critical of myself and rating them much harder than I would have in the past.
Not sure what feature change you’d want for that. But my experience so far is nothing is different if anything I feel like rating them harder is giving me harder workouts and pushing adaptations. I e dated something as a 5 and still has it suggest I bump a future workout not pull it back. Pretty sure it is already heavily weighting the work not our opinions.
I thought I heard in a recent video that the workout ratings are factored in although not sure how heavily weighted. It would be good I guess to get something like that chart into the app just so everyone is following a similar rating scale. But yes I’ve bumped up my moderate rating to hard, and have a better idea now of what Very Hard and All Out should feel like.
This has been requested in the past, and the response was that they didn’t want to overcomplicate it and that if we just keep our ratings consistent, the system will learn how we individually rate workouts.
Note: I agree with you, just sharing the previous response.
They are factored in. And they are individual as also mentioned. Having changed my weighting recently I feel like the rating is pretty minor in the grand scheme of further adaptations assuming you did finish the workout even with some bailouts or pauses and not outright failed. I guess my point is I got more critical of myself and the adaptions got less so seems like it’s less important than som other factors, whatever those may be .
Ability to add rolling averages to graphs (5/10/30/60 seconds). Instantaneous is great, but seeing how an effort is over time would be also helpful.
When zooming on a segment in the graph, auto zoom map to that segment
Option to toggle map to show power zone on the track.
Option to toggle HR zones on track
I can’t imagine what you’re paying google for the API calls, but something like Mapbox (or the open source offshoot before it was closed sourced) would be great to see instead.
There is also an issue when switching between time/distance on the map track. I assume this is related to the workout being tracked by time (per-second?) so there is a bit of inference needed when switching to distance in the graph. In either case, the map shows the incorrect segments for a respective distance.
)