Does this look correct for a sequence on my Forecast AI training? I was surprised by 5 days of High Intensity Training in a row. None of the days seem that difficult, I was just curious if it was a mistake/glitch in the forecasting.
I’ve been using the program with the “Magic Buckets” on my Garmin and everything has been really smooth so far. I really like the “Magic Buckets” and how easy it is to have the AI Forecast adapt as needed.
Thanks in advance for the help!
Other information:
-Polar GC Specialist Program
-Currently 2 weeks into a program designed to end towards the end of May.
-I hit “Adapt Forecast” multiple times and it kept the same plan.
-Stacked High Intensity days don’t seen to happen again.
I’ve been meaning to get a blog post that discusses this put together. I need to get in that - maybe after I finish the Magic Buckets video for our YouTube. So much content for us to cover!!
You’ve kinda already picked up on the answer - none of those sessions is particularly challenging, so Xert expects that you’ll be recovered from each of them within a day. Just because Xert has the training listed as “high intensity” doesn’t mean that you’ll be doing all out intervals to failure. It just means there’s some amount of high & peak XSS assigned!
For “why” Xert is doing that, there’s always a reason. It could be that Xert isn’t able to fit all the high/peak XSS needed to keep you yellow for several days into a single session, possibly due to availability or XSS per hour preferences (another topic for a short blog post). Also, Polar GC specialist is mostly low XSS with smaller contributions from High/Peak systems, so most of the recommended workouts in this range don’t have large doses or high/peak XSS to begin with. In fact I think you’ll find quite a few “Vo2max” style workouts at this focus/specificity.
If I were you & I wanted to keep my training more polarized, I might try and find a higher XSS workout for one of those days (maybe Tues) then pin it & adapt around it.
This is an example of how Xert uniquely models recovery load between low and high/peak strain.
You’ll see this on the recovery day pills shown on XFAI workout reports. For example:
Which reflects gradient changes on the Training page 3-day window –
In your case recovery day values were calculated to be less than 1.0 or even 0.0, so form is expected to return to fresh within hours not days.
While your HIT days are in a row, when you look closely, they aren’t very hard as Scott mentions.
Quick indicators are Polar Specificity (easier than Pure or Mixed workouts) plus XSS/hr rating (Difficulty). Divide total XSS by the indicated duration time estimated for an indoor workout (outdoors will take longer).
For example, your five days in a row work out to 65, 70, 65, 66, and 64 XSS/hr.
Difficulty below 50 (1-diamond) is rated Easy, 50-75 (2-diamond) Moderate, 75-110 (3-diamond) Difficult, 110-1150 (4-diamond) Tough, and >150 (5-diamond) Hard.
IOW those HIT days are mild. You can make them harder if you want.
My recent three HIT days in a row week were higher difficulty than yours but I was at 3+ status stars level. Conditions also changed over those three days to affect the third day.
I like to do most HIT workouts in Slope mode so I can control target watts and durations. I overshot the XSS targets on the first two days (because I felt strong) which downgraded the third day’s workout. Instead of three 3-diamond workouts in a row I ended up with two 4-diamond activities (one with Near BT) and the third day was 2-1/2 diamonds. Then I got successive days off.
Main point I want to make is XATA doesn’t adhere to traditional conventions and neither does XFAI. While core principles are the same, deployment differs based on Xert’s unique mathematical model.
I’m sure HIT days in a row freak out a number of users accustomed to that being a no-no. That is until you actually do them and decide “hmm… that wasn’t so bad.”
Why do you think that Xert not following “traditional conventions” is good? Looks like Xert is too focused on its mathematical models than on people actual physiology. I think you claimed that you don’t work for Xert - can you explain why do you think that having Xert’s unproven math is better than other unproven math (these “traditional conventions”)?
By traditional conventions I mean books and bibles written decades ago based on rigid canned plans with HR-centric origins that evolved into TSS workout spreadsheets anchored on %FTP (when power became king) along with 3/1 blocks followed by test and repeat and other practices I would label as “traditional” thinking. Tried and true? Sure. But there is always the possibility to improve by trying a different approach. Xert does that.
Adaptive training by power changes things. In Xert that starts with a 3-dimensional fitness signature that floats day to day plus workouts comprised of low, high, peak strain that scale to your signature.
Xert does employ standards like periodization, blocks, polarization, and phased progression, but is not limited to traditional conventions when deploying those principles.
Knobs and dials are also available to adjust the fit to best meet your requrements.
Yeah, I perfectly understand what you are saying, this is a dig at Joe Friel. As I wrote in my other reply to you - please listen to what he has to say about all this in the interview with CTS just 3 days ago.
I’d think he has more experience in training than creators of Xert. Funny, I tried to find how many Olympic medalists or TdF winners trained purely on Xert and I came empty-handed. Xert is designed to compete with TrainerRoad. But competing on the same ground is hard - so there is always an option to make your own “ground” by naming things very differently and claiming they are the best. I see the issue - there are things called “industry standards” - things most players in the field use. They might be not ideal, but they allow things to be compared across that field. If someone came up with better option - great - now make this new standard, explain and provide data that others can adopt that instead of “bibles written decades ago”. But this isn’t what Xert is doing, and that is unfortunate.
Not a dig. Just an observation.
I’m not discounting the contributions of seminal works in performance training or that old-school methods are invalid or inadequate.
But if you’re going to take what you read as sacrosanct (as many do) at least ensure you have the latest edition of those books. Concepts and tech have evolved since the original manuscripts.
Revised editions don’t stray far from their central message but some do mention the latest approaches including adaptive training.
Bottom line: Old-school conventions are not the only way to train successfully.
What I find interesting - while re-listening to that podcast with Armando, I was a bit surprised how affirmative he was on Xert’s use of many traditional concepts, many of which were brought up to light with Joe’s help.
Yes, yes!! And he made that clear himself in that podcast I have mentioned!
You can make them harder if you want.
