WKO. How you use it to make informed training decisions (inclusive of TR or heavily personalised plans)

I never use the generic VO2 target of 120%, for me that is crazy.
Why guess, use your PDC, you can also do this with the TR PDC as well, target 90 - 95 for repeatable intervals.

Anywhoooo, Would like to hear how people use WKO to inform their training or modify TR plans.

I just started using it a couple of months ago. As I’m still kinda sorta in “Base” phase, I use the training impact score to help guide my long Z2 rides — duration and intensity. It’s interesting to look at previous seasons where I didn’t have WKO and see why/how things went the way they did.

I’m just looking to build robust aerobic efficiency atm (w/o letting FTP plummet) so no real hardcore intensity.

I did use a free trial last fall when I was training for 1min power/KOM steals. Used the iLevels Pmax/FRC. So hard! :tired_face:

I am rebooting my 2021 season for various reasons.

Looking at targeting 5 - 8 TiS Aerobic, block one.


Is that straight aerobic impact w/o any anaerobic impact?

2hr Z2 rides (Boarstone etc) usually give me a 5/0 Ae/An.

how does WKO compare with the new trainerroad adaptive training? In my opinion seems to be TR AT is going to better than WKO

1 Like

I will aim to have one ride a week 3 - 4 Anaerobic

Uh…no one knows yet.

1 Like

Unlikely IMO, WKO is personal to you without any external noise. For a random user TR (ML, AI) maybe.

I think they are not really comparable. WKO aims to get physiological markes modeled from the PD curve and is more around for you as user to find pattern and understand how the pd curve and marker are influenced by training.
It teases out data from the power recording but it is on the user to find pattern and decide on the action.
AT is more like black box where you put training in and get a concrete recommendation on the next action to get to your goal.
This is then the ML part.

1 Like

They are not the same.

WKO is an analysis tool and has a powerful model of your Power Duration Curve. It is open and extensible. Nothing more and nothing less.

TR’s AT will be launched in the future. From what we know, initially it is targeted at overcoming limitations with giving everyone the same plan. It implicitly acknowledges that one size fits all training plans is the wrong approach. Very interesting and promising if you use TR’s off-the-shelf plans.


I’ve went through the same (fun?) exercise this weekend, looking at Training Impact Score for various rides.

@Bbt67 @bbarrera @Captain_Doughnutman , or whoever else has looked at TiS…
So is the consensus now that this metric (at least in part) addresses the “not all TSS is created equal” conundrum? I had spent a fair number of days complaining about that two years ago here on the forums. WKO (Tim, etc) thinks it does, as he has stated. But wondering what users think now that this has been out for a while.

Some Training Impact Score values for my rides (aerobic / anaerobic):
Every hard group ride in 2020: 10 / 10 :joy: Probably didn’t need software to tell me that. Good to be reminded though. Guy on the group ride: “but this ride goes to 11”.

  1. ISM/LT1/Endurance+ .75 IF type rides (>1hr long “interval/effort” in middle of 2-2.5hr ride) 6/1.

  2. My typical long ride: 7-8 / 2-3 (couldn’t escape at least a little bit of anaerobic contribution due to being outside and I’ve gone back and forth w/ including sprints throughout the ride)

  3. Steve Neal style tempo: 7 / 1-2. If I were to go off of a single metric (not saying you should), this has given me the most bang for my buck. Build up to >1hr interval duration (within ~2hr sessions on trainer) with interval IF ~.81-.83. Rinse, repeat.

  4. FWIW, if I even look at efforts near sweetspot or FTP, I get >8 anaerobic (FTP), >6 (high SST), and maybe that’s “good”/“correct”. Don’t know. This might explain all my (probably annoying) complaining about “slamming intervals”. LOL.

“Chronic and Acute TIS Load” chart is interesting. I don’t have a sense yet of what the numbers should look like for me, like one would with PMC metrics. But I can definitely see where I “mixed things up” in the past.

Could you clarify the specifications of this workout?. Thanks.

I’ll DM you. It will derail the thread if I say the “L-word”. :roll_eyes: It’s a rule @hdas, you cannot say the “L-word” on a thread that has the string “WKO”. I don’t make the rules. :joy:

1 Like

I find that TIS does a much better job of capturing the outputs and stress of a workout than TSS does. Personally its one of my favorite ways of evaluating workouts and I legitimately look forward to looking at the “score” when I’m done with a workout, specifically because its rewired what my idea of a good workout is.

I’m not going to lie, I definitely ride an extra 20 minutes on aerobic days so I can get a 10 out of 10 instead of a 9 :laughing:

I’ll post some examples here later of various scores.


Awesome, @stevemz. Looking forward to it.

I did a similar thing yesterday. Had about 3hrs available and it’s a “long ride” day (still mostly trainer rides in my part of the country). I “gamified” the ride a bit trying to get that aerobic score up.

That is funny, so did I.

I compared TR plans to polarised it was interesting. TR day after day week after week of Anaerobic TiS 10 scores and no aerobic TiS 10 scores actually only a few over 7. Polarised lots of aerobic 10s and regular anaerobic 10s

I currently looking at how to do the least possible and still be productive (various reasons). Hopefully be out of lockdown soon and then get the aerobic TiS ramp rate going up.

@tshortt Did you look at the TiS ramp rate chart? Ah I see you did last paragraph, missed that 1st read.

1 Like

TSS supposedly predicts glycogen use - what about TiS?

Can you DM me the specifics as well? :pray:

Good question, not sure. So far (WKO video) just high level correspondence to the two (out of three) energy systems, with the usual (and good) caveat that they work like light switches, so it’s never a one or the other scenario.

As a PDC model-derived “functional” metric, my guess is that is as far as they will take it in terms of tying it back to physiology (like FRC, as a good example). Happy to be proven wrong though.

Could I have the specifics PM’d also please. Much appreciated in advance @tshortt

What I am working on at the moment is getting a fix on TIS scores as they relate to 1.5-2hr steady state workouts like Gibraltar, Polar Bear and Phoenix (low tempo) and their variants at or around what I estimate the top of Z1 might be.