Answering the survey now will hopefully allow TR to back fill and assess at least recent stuff when they release the full function. Purely a guess and it may be unused too.
TR didn’t (and rarely give timelines) because it’s tough to project completion when even a single issue can potentially lead to delays. The best we have is Nate’s post above.
I don’t understand this line of thinking. You voluntarily signed up for a beta test. You knew it would not be 100% ironed out. Why don’t you just use TR the way you did 5 months ago, before AT if you’re so upset about the beta not working 100%.
I would respectfully note that in my personal situation it feels like a lot more is required of me to participate in the beta than I inferred from everything I read from TR or heard on the podcast, and that the communications from TR about what actually works or doesn’t, and how to most effectively use the beta tools is too often fragmented, unclear, or sometimes even contradictory. I feel my progress may actually be lagging what it might have been otherwise. And the messaging from those inside using AT continues to be how wonderful it is.
So, yes, we do have choices on whether to continue in the beta or not. But I see a difference between things not working 100% and the implications of how far from being ready for general availability things are – even as TR in implying wider availability may be just around the corner.
Did my first structured workout in over a month today and it seems to have nudged my levels up a bit. Interestingly, the changes have appear when I look in a browser but the iOS app doesn’t show them.
EDIT: doesn’t appear in the MacOS app either.
Is this… a Wahoo issue? Was this done on a Wahoo head unit?
Currently we are experiencing some discrepancies in Progression Levels between web and mobile apps. Web is showing your correct PLs, this is a known issue the development team is working to resolve.
Yep, I’m using wahoo for all of my rides at the moment. I only commented because I didn’t expect any PL changes yet. Part of me hopes I’m in some kind of secret extra beta on account of me being so cool and stuff.
Ah sure. As aforementioned in this thread and in the ‘Known Issues’ of Adaptive Training, Wahoo isn’t supported with AT (and subsequently, Progression Levels) at the moment.
Hmm, ok. I wonder Why my progression levels have changed then? All of my riding for the past few months has been on my Wahoo.
This might explain it:
The January/February workouts no longer show PL updates. My last TrainerRoad indoor workout, using the TR app, was 11 months ago.
Cool thanks.
And here was me thinking I was special.
My ftp went down because it didn’t count the wahoo outside workouts and this was unknowingly. I’m just going to use train now
Why did your FTP go down… That doesn’t really make sense…
I accepted the adaptations based on training not being put through their system unknowingly. If I look at my Strava metrics my fitness has just been flat and my form isn’t that low, mine you feel fatigued enough!
Ah I see, that makes sense!
If I were you I’d just follow the plans without accepting any adaptations for now, till it gets sorted.
Not sure if this has been said publicly but I’m sure I’ve heard mention that it won’t just be Wahoo devices that would effect progression levels based on outdoor rides/workouts.
Has anything been formally said?
In future, any rides with power will affect progression levels - that’s been stated by Nate on here somewhere. No timeline on that though, apparently they are testing it internally. That will solve all the issues with rides not counting at once (structured/unstructured and head units etc).
Here is what Nate said.
couldn’t we just link up a trainer road workout after the ride gets uploaded?
Isn’t there already an association for that? Where you can link your strava ride to the TR workout in the calendar
its considered a manually completed outside workout, and listed in known issues:
For whatever reason TR has decided to implement a more general solution, and not support manual association.
It’s a surprising choice really considering the manual association would appear to be rather simple to implement in comparison and would keep a lot of people off their backs whilst refining the solution…
