I’m specifically interested in why I can or cannot complete a workout that would’ve advance my progression levels (PL) on the day. TrainerRoad calls these workouts (that increase PL) “productive” workouts. They are hard. Sometimes really hard. But occasionally can feel more doable. There are days I fail them. And there are days I nail them. When I nail them, I call this good performance.
The first question is why are you using PL? Whats model inside it and how it works? What are requirements for that model to be working correctly and do you meet them?
As i know most of end-user companies uses some models derived from scientific research (and implement their own) and i see there is problem that models from research studies have their requirements. For example Critical Power model require few Time-to-exhaustion (TTE) trials to model Power Distribution Curve. TrainingPeaks WKO software uses this concept, but have built model just on cycling training data which is mostly not TTE, but reqular low-moderate intensity training. In that case they took model built on TTE but fill it with data not from TTE and expect same results, which may be not the case.
Another question is what algorithm is used for workout recommendations and why it should be used? Is it proved to give best results in increasing cycle performance? Also cycling performance have different domains (short-term anaerobic, long-term aerobic and a lot between them) and training strategy differs based on goals.
I have indoor trainer and bike and trying to build science backed KPI’s to measure my training progression. What i’ve got for now
FTP. This concept seems to be widely used by athletes but there is few issues with definition of it and it is not always predictive of trial results. Some studies show low correlation between FTP changes and other physiological metrics changes (VO2max, LT, VT etc). Also someone may ask why it uses hardcoded period = 60 mins. Why not 55 or 65? No answers on that.
VO2max. Hard to measure because requires visit to a lab. Some standardized protocols can predict VO2max but accuracy is questionable.
LT. Lactate testing requires fingerpricking during ramp test which is hard to do often.
VT. Usually it requires lab testing (VO2max with measuring ventilation), but there are talk test protocol to roughly determine VT1.
CP. Critical power concept seems be interesting. It requires 3-5 TTE to be done and build power curve. Its seems to be better concept than FTP because you have multiple points (not a single one with fixed period). This model provides 2 variables: Critical Power (power that mathematically can be sustained indefinitely) and W’ which is a measure of Anaerobic Capacity (amount of mechanical job in kJ which can be done when we exceed Critical Power). This model also can predict time to exhaustion on different powers. CP is seems to be connected with MMSS / MLSS because model the same concept.
There are also a lot of other metrics, some of them is sport-specific. Like for long distance runners fat oxidation rate is pretty important.
I have indoor trainer and bike and for now i’m testing CP model. I’ve estimated my VT1 by doing talk test for a few times and using my HR at CP as a VT2 (it somewhat a proxy to real VT2 / MMSS / MLSS / AnT). I’m spending 80% time just below VT1 and 20% after VT2. I’m aware that VT from these tests is just estimations but since i’m cycling in recreational/health purposes i’m fine with that. Every 2-3 weeks single TTE can be done to update CP model and compare PD curves to see the response to training.
Environmental factors influence performance for sure. Lets assume recommended trial is 200W for 20 mins and you cant do it on monday, but can do and wednesday. That doesnt mean your performance changed from monday to wednesday, more likely the performance were same. But results arent same because of some other factors (sleep, stress, recovery etc).
To asses what factors influence your actual trial results (not base perfromance, because base performance doesnt change that too fast) you need to measure these factors and trial results and build some dataset. It’s better to go with simple variables which can be measured with lowest error rates (each device or subjective feeling expressed on a scale have a margin of error). After you have built dataset - some statistical skills are required for analysis. Some of examples you can find in my blog.
It’s not an easy task to measure nutrition, sleep, activity, psychological state. It’s time consuming. And it will take some time to build protocols / model / analyse data and find out causal relations between variable of interest and lifestyle factors.