I’d go for true feelings, the outcomes for next workout, RL/GL and FTP are only as good as the data you feed it and you can’t say for sure if you’d rammed yourself full of carbs that it still wouldn’t be v hard.
The thing with the new AI shenanigans is that in the olden days I’d not even have questioned this, and just put it as VH. But because it TELLS me that it SHOULD be M or H, it makes me overthink it. Especially when you put VH and see the forecasted “FTP" drop by 2W
On the other hand it’s a good feature as it SHOWS me that maybe I did something wrong, in this case underfuelling.
Yeah I think that the VH rating is the right way to go - that 2w drop in predicted FTP will probably come back after a you have a couple of well-fueled workouts under your belt.
Interesting what you say about the predicted FTP feature highlighting a possible under fueling issue - I’ve come to the same theory myself - and its made me want to focus on fueling.
Last training block I was predicted a large FTP bump which didn’t materialize and this blocks is similar; but instead of just writing it off as rubbish - it’s made me determined to make sure all my workouts are as high quality as possible.
I’m massively skeptical of my planned increase (and doing workouts with that high FTP in the future scares me!) but I can only prove the system wrong by giving it the best chance of success I can….
A positive way to look at that 2W drop, It’s telling you that if you continue to underfuel your workouts then you will not increase your FTP as fast. Six months ago when the same workout selector was working in the background, you would have rated it very hard and you would have been given slightly easier workouts, but you would not have received the real time feedback.
I’d just reply with how it felt and not try to game the system by guessing why it felt that way. If the AI lowers the intensity of your workouts too much, you’ll just report them as “easy” and it will quickly get back to the right level.
