Sorry to respond to the last post, but progressing higher levels is pretty straightforward and doesn’t require detailed instruction or levels. Unpopular opinion I’m sure.
2 Likes
Let’s fix this: 
I remember hoping Workout Level 2 would be ready in time for the outdoors season… two years ago. So 2.5years counting, meanwhile workout levels are still completely useless for me with a majority of my rides not per plan in base season 
Doing about 5x3h endurance per week, endurance level is 3.6 
My transition to structured build will be very bumpy 
Well, a toast to hoping WL2 will be out this season 
EDIT: At least with red light green light I now know when I am about to overdo things, so that’s a good step in the right direction. Not too sound too sullen, but I really hope one day TR might be able to give me “the right workout, every time”, accounting for outdoors rides and Zwift rides too 
That would be the dream!
6 Likes
Officially 3+ years now, since the AT debut (which included a mention of outside stuff in the Q&A) was in Feb 25, 2021.
14 Likes
So as not to become like this guy, I look at my ride, figure out the training zone that was most likely trained the most on that ride, then search for and associate the closest TR workout to it. This way my PLs aren’t terribly off and AT might pick decent workouts for me.
I still very much want WLV2 though.
4 Likes
At this point I’m just assuming they gave up on this feature to work on other things.
3 Likes
Seems unlikely since WLV2 apparently is the underpinning / back end of what drives RLGL.
Perhaps they’d cut it there and call off WLV2, but I doubt it.
3 Likes
They may not be calling it WL2, but RL/GL sure is working like that for me. If I skip a workout, it makes the next workout harder. If I hammer on an unstructured ride, it makes the next ride easier.
5 Likes
I can see that, and Red Light Green Light is definitly high value… If you train strictly according to a TR plan, or only add an outdoors ride here and there I guess you don’t even really need Workout Level 2. RLGL and adaptative training get you 95% of the way there.
But if you are like me and train 40% TrainerRoad vs 60% outdoors or added volume it doesn’t quite cut it. I don’t do enough TR tempo - sweet spot - threshold - VO2 - anaerobic - sprint workouts to have Training levels mean anything whatsoever to me. Currently my VO2max and Anaerobic levels are correct, but the rest is just non-sense.
There simply isn’t enough rides taken into account by Workout Lvl1 to give me a meaningful workout (let alone the “right workout, everytime”) at zones I don’t touch much in structured training, although I do touch them regularly.
I could let AI work it’s magic, but the training block would be finished by the time I get a workout that is remotely productive. Or I could just wildly guesstimate my level and do a workout there (which I do), but even then it takes weeks to zone in on the right level. By which time the other zones have started decaying into uselessness again
3 Likes
I don’t agree. RLGL is taking all rides into account. You don’t think it’s worthwhile to have non-subjective feedback on whether tomorrow should be a rest day, easy day, or a “go for it” day?
1 Like
There are so many other services that do that too though, and I think most of us have one or more of them. Garmin, TP, Intervals.icu, Whoop, etc. Of course you might argue that you prefer RLGL or that it works better or whatever.
2 Likes
We aren’t on those other services’ forums. It might be interesting to see how TR compares, but I have to think their access to ride data from millions of rides, their specific focus on cycling, and the fact that most of their users are, in fact, following a training plan gives their data an edge. In my own experience, it does a better job than the Garmin Body Battery and Recovery measures.
Crux of the matter for me is that the software was already giving me the perfect workout most of the time, and RLGL is giving it a new responsiveness that is already giving me the perfect workout even more of the time. That’s a winner in my book.
4 Likes
Yeah, not really relevant. They replied to a comment about not finding PL’s valuable in their personal situation by saying
So I replied that other services do that too. I think it’s fine if BB likes RLGL and/or PL’s, and I’m glad it’s working for them. I was just pointing out that just because we may not find the PL’s very valuable doesn’t mean we “don’t think it’s worthwhile to have non-subjective feedback…”
2 Likes
It directly addressed a point.
Please go back and re-read. I was responding to a comment specifically about whether RLGL was valuable. Specifically:
|
Yes. The point being the last sentence there.
I think this is a bit of a stretch. intervals.icu, garmin, TP etc have far more data to go at than TR and can easily distinguish between structured and unstructured training users. Not a dig at TR, but the shill doesn’t fit.
RLGL is a good addition but I think it is more the foundation for future functionality than a killer feature on its own IMHO. I look at all data but my HRV has probably been the most consistent and useful data point, coupled with feel of course!
We can disagree without insulting each other.
2 Likes
I didn’t mean that as an insult.
1 Like
Since when is being labeled a shill a good thing?
I get that some people have a different take on definitions at times, but that is one that only holds a negative connotation in any use I’ve seen.
9 Likes
Apologies for using the term shill then. It’s possible to use a negative term without meaning to insult the individual. My meaning was simply that it sounds overly kind to TR that they have secret sauce when all the other platforms listed have even more data to go at, even if they are not using it as effectively (arguable).
2 Likes