At this point I’m just assuming they gave up on this feature to work on other things.
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.
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.
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 
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?
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.
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.
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…”
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.
I didn’t mean that as an insult.
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.
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).
The difference is that TR knows what training plans athletes are supposed to follow, whereas Strava and Garmin do not have that information. That is a key advantage and makes TR’s data pool unique in the business.
I’m working in data analysis and this kind of information is gold, worth much more than a bunch of ride files.
Could you explain how that elevates the accuracy of recovery suggestions above Garmin (or other platforms) that use far more data points? As that was the original point, and I’d be interested to understand how you feel TRs dataset with knowledge of the chosen training plan achieves that.
As I’ve said I think RLGL is a nice addition and should lead to some really cool additions in the future, but some of the suggestions in this thread about the quality of this function as it stands today are a little far fetched.
But RLGL does include unstructured rides? Unstructured rides are taken into account for everything bar PL’s at this stage.
Yes….i got a red light for Sunday after a very long unstructured Zwift ride and I got yellow lights after some stacked, long-ish outdoor rides a few weeks ago.