@eeney I can understand the confusion. I do want to clarify that just because a ride doesn’t have lots of ‘high’ strain, it still can be a hard ride! One of my favourite VO2max workouts are the SMART - Closer series of workouts with the curved XSSR intervals. These workouts keep my HR significantly elevated, but don’t actually rack up a lot of ‘high’ strain, despite feeling pretty tough.
Technically it’s the same energy system - both are steady state, so both have to be aerobically sustainable. However, I could see an argument for there being anaerobic glycolysis in the ‘sweet-spot’ range. Modeling efforts in the ‘near-threshold’ region is an area that I think could likely be greatly improved in the Xert 2.0 model.
However, if you think about the main 3 energy systems, then I think this will make more sense…
Phosphagen System (ATP-PCr System): - e.g. Peak XSS: This system provides immediate and short bursts of energy. This is the main energy system for ~1s to ~30s power.
Glycolytic System (Anaerobic Lactic System)- e.g. High XSS: This system kicks in when the demands for energy exceed what the phosphagen system can provide. It involves the breakdown of stored glycogen (carbohydrates) into glucose, which is then converted into ATP through a process called glycolysis. This is the main energy system for ~30s to ~3 min power system (though it still contributes to all efforts above threshold in diminishing amounts)
Oxidative System (Aerobic System) - e.g. Low XSS: The oxidative system is the primary energy system for longer, sustained efforts, such as endurance cycling. It relies on the aerobic metabolism of carbohydrates and fats, utilizing oxygen to generate ATP. This is the main energy system for 5+ min power.
@ManofSteele Thanks for those explanations. Helps explain the theory behind it. Can we go back to my question about how to guage at what power range and ‘how much’ strain in a ride has been done at low/high/peak?
I’m really struggling with this, because the new FAI uses low/high/peak XSS to gauge how closely you have met your training goals for the day, however. I cannot find what the power ranges are for these three zones and I cannot see how to view the XSS by low/high/peak in the Xert app, neither as Garmin data fields/ap or in the Android app (I use Garmin head unit outdoors and Xert on Android to view my indoor (Zwift) sessions).
I like the idea that rather than just the guage we now have low/high/peak XSS targets for the day, but without knowing the power ranges and been able to see the XSS real time then it makes it very hard to plan your own workouts/rides and/or know when to stop riding. Note that I don’t always use Xert workouts, I like to view the workout requirements, then do zwift group rides, workouts or races that meet the Xert prescribed daily training targes.
Please let me know where we find the power ranges, or if this is a ‘future enhancement’ which I can happily accept.
I’m sure future updates will expose the XSS ratio everywhere (XO server pages and EBC apps).
In the meantime, you can view the ratio for ALL of your past activities.
For example, you asked how much strain would is required to hit 46 High and 9 Low XSS on a free ride/workout. For comparison and insight do this.
Enable Specificity, Focus, Low, High, and Peak XSS using Edit Columns.
You likely have to disable some columns that don’t matter at the moment such as current Athlete Type and other entries. You want the five columns noted to fit on the right side of the page.
Now sort the table by High XSS descending by clicking on the column header.
Scroll down the list until you locate entries around 46 High XSS, any Peak value. That will give you an idea what type of rides/workouts you rode in the past to achieve those numbers. You can click on the Name entry to view details and a map if outdoors.
This is also why I asked what the description of the Forecast activity was on the Planner such as Mixed Rouleur or Pure GC Specialist.
The analysis details will show you the range of watts you hit on those rides/workouts along with MPA drawdown graph and a difficulty rating (diamond count).
Whatever your target XSS ratios are in the future, this table view provides insight on the routes and workouts to consider to achieve those values. Past outdoors rides will also be listed under Outdoor recommendations when you Choose Training.
IOW you have been free riding to these target XSS ratios all along at the Specificity and Focus Duration points noted whether you knew it or not.
No doubt it will be easier to track ratio target compliance when added to EBC or as a Garmin Connect IQ field, but this table view gives you a pretty good idea what’s required. You aren’t flying blind.
@eeney what I do is I create a (temporary) manual workout and select some interval values above TP and see how much high strain a specific interval will deliver. This way I have a little idea on how to achieve those values in a planned ride. If you play with recovery, you can see that the values can change.
I think it is important to not view L/H/P as power zones. It is total different mindset, but I like something new
Probably not since it’ll just confuse people. The more you show, they more users think the need to understand to use the product and then more they abandon since they can’t make sense of it. Better if we just give you simple targets to follow and let all the underlying algorithms figure it out for you.
Hhhhmmm, fairplay. My only comment, and perhaps it’s just me. But if I"m out on a free ride, or doing zwift group rides, etc for training. Then I’d like to know what my current XSS is in relation to the low/high/peak targets for the day, and if I want to increase one of them, then what types of efforts do I need to do to acheive achieve XSS in each of low/high/peak.
If you give me targets, but on a free ride I do not know you to ride to contribute to the specific targets, or if I have do planned Xert created workouts in order to contribute accurately to specific XSS targets, then I think it’s taking away some of the beauty of Xert where you can easily integrate free rides and workouts on the one intelligent platform.
Example, yesterday I had 121 low XSS to achieve. In an outdoor ride I acheived the XSS overall target, but 12% was in high/peak, and I was therefore below my ‘low XSS’ target. If I had seen this on the ride, then I could have just done another 10 minutes tempo to hit the low XSS daily target.
Again, this may be me, but you give me great targets like this to manage my daily training loads and I will want to stick to them quite closely.
This may just be me, perhaps I’m just too caught up on targets
Another way to do it that I’ve tried to use instead of looking at workouts and past rides (although they’re still useful) is to look at the whole context of the workout suggestion, not just XSS targets to help dial it in via the Focus field.
Basically I take in the blue, orange and red targets that can’t be tracked in realtime (yet) I also make sure to look at what it’s called (e.g polar breakaway specialist) and the description (e.g. Focus on attacking with strong power efforts with light pedaling rest in between)
Then on the free ride I aim to accumulate the target XSS. While having my focus field match for both parts (colour for pure, mixed etc; and time for rider type). So for polar breakaway that would be blue, which is polarised (I think) and around the 5:00 mark for breakaway specialist.
Using the description and XSS breakdown I guide my free riding to hit those targets in the ‘right’ way. I.e. am I smashing a hard sprint that puts my power number to red, then recovering easy so focus rises back up to 5:00 (to accumulate red XSS), or am I surging up to threshold riding with my power number yellow-ish to hold 2-3 mins at my 5 min (breakaway power) and then riding tempo for example which I believe would build more orange strain. I could also be doing both, like surging into orange and finishing with a sprint or sprinting and then holding (like a race).
It’s not a perfect hit on the numbers, but so far it’s gotten me close enough. If you’re keen you can also use the planner to sense whether you want to ride to make sure you hit high intensity targets at risk of going over them, or ride conservatively to not exceed them at the risk of going under. This is based on when your next hard session is.
These things are of course all linked somewhat too where if it’s the sprint version it might be called polar because lots of easy low XSS is needed to get that focus, whereas the threshold version might be mixed because you’re spending longer in yellow and less in blue as less recovery than smashing it.
Autogen question - apologies if it has been mentioned elsewhere.
I have a high intensity workout in the planner which gives me target intervals at vo2 max power (330w) etc. but the autogen feature plans a workout with almost 100w more power at a shored duration around 1min. I wonder which is better? I understand that higher power includes both red and yellow number targets, but would time spent at vo2 not be more beneficial here?
I would expect a further increae in training load, threshold, HIE etc. I have checked and the same happens with other event types. Perhaps this is a bug?
However, this behaviour is expected - notice how the ‘Event Readiness’ drops from 1 (Excellent) to 2 (Good) as you increased the duration.
What the system does as the TL’s become larger (and less-attainable from where you are vs. the target date) is to increase the # of days needed to recover after the event. The idea is the less prepared you are for an event, the longer it will take you to recover from it. Or put another way, athletes can accomplish a huge event with a less-than-ideal training load… it just comes at the cost of being red status for longer after the event Hope that makes sense!
I get the system but maybe it should not jump like that but do it gradually?
If 1.0 readiness is not possible let the user be 1.1 or 1.2 ready for a slightly longer event with the same values as he would have had to do to get 1.0 ready for the shorter event?
This jump to very different values after a slight change does seem strange.
Not really an option (at this point anyways) - adding a full extra day of red status recovery drops the necessary training load for an event quite a bit. Just going from ~2 days of post-event redness to 3 is already a 50% increase in post-event recovery time, which allows TL to be significantly lower.
You can ‘game’ the readiness by setting the longest duration event possible before the readiness drops. That should allow you to reach the highest TL possible at that readiness value.
In my case, the race is actually going to be about 6.5hrs long at a decent intensity. So I’m some way off with 3hrs
The plan I have currently was generated before the updated UI here, so not sure what ‘readiness’ I will have. Based on training & racing history, I’m sure I’ll make it through the race. But I honestly have no idea how I will do relative to others. I’m still intrigued by what the assumptions are “under the hood” for different races!
I’d also noticed this so good to get the explanation on why it behaves like that @ManofSteele. My issue with it but have been assuming ‘race’ mode will solve it, is that it leaves a lot of room for error or misinterpretation.
For example:
I am training for a 142 km 1200 m elevation gain event with a Cat 2 climb, 2x Cat 5s and a few other notable rises.
The waves you can sign up for are sub ~4 hours (35 kph+), 4.5 hrs (32 kph), 5 hrs (28 kph), 5.5 hrs (25 kph) and then 6+ hrs (~22 kph to avoid cutoffs). My goal is to be as fit and prepared as possible.
Using the Xert tools alone it would reinforce over interpreting my ability because I could say well I’ll sign up for the 4.5 hour option because Xert says I’ll be excellently prepared with high TP, HIE and PP achievements compared to if I was more realistic and said actually I can probably avg 26 kph at best so ~5.5 hr. Over that duration I might see I’ll only be ‘fair’ prepared and have relatively lower TP, HIE and PP outcomes.
Like I said race mode I’m hoping will solve because it should be able to tell me what is the best possible time I can do that 142 km in based on where I am now right? or at least that 4.5 hrs is not acheiveable?
I think both of our examples highlight a similar problem; what exactly are the physiological demands of a certain race result?
For something like a road race, where tactics etc are a huge part of things, there is no clear answer. I would guess similarly for CX or MTB racing, where skill is a big coponent. Of course, the winners in every event will still have excellent physiology.
However, for the gravel rides/sportives/gran fondos/time trials etc, things are slightly more controlled, and the race demands can be approximated relatively well. What we don’t know (but Xert maybe does) is how strong the opposition are. If Xert can leverage their data to base required pysiology on percentiles (for example), then instead of choosing “2 hours” or “3 hours”, you could instead choose “top 10% finish position”. To me, that would be cool!
For both of you, I suppose the ‘Race’ option will be what many users are looking for - combines the necessary training load and signature needed to compete at a higher level. For the ‘Event’ option (at the moment), it’s more designed from the perspective of what does it take to be adequately prepared - especially for users who may be looking to complete an ultra-endurance event.
Hope that makes sense!
