this is definitely a step in the direction I was hoping for. There is one more constraint that I would love to see set in the goals aspect and that is available time per week and maximum time per workout. That would help inform both the program as well as the user what is real. If I have say 5h per week with 1 hour avg per workout then it is unlikely I will do more than 5 workouts per week. With this in mind there is a limit to what can be achieved and how to mix intensity and duration. I suspect there are aspects within the planner that allow for this already but for folks that just want to set it and see it this might be easier.
4 Likes
I would up vote +10 times if I could.
Edit: or at least define the max available time per week
1 Like
Definitely understand where you’re coming from. However, you can always filter by workout duration directly from the training tab. If you’re doing 5 hours/week (and not expecting your time availability to change), you can leave improvement rate at maintenance and expect to see approximately 5 hours/week recommended. Hopefully that makes sense!
Is not as clean IMHO. We might have achieved the max available hours but not the max intensity that we can sustain.
We’ve talked about this in podcasts. While it seems like a logical thing to have, the complexity of it is quite significant and the system is totally workable as is to give you the same thing. The Improvement Rate defines the time per week needed so modify the Improvement Rate to meet your available time. You choose the days you prefer to do workouts and the system will use your previous workouts/activities on those days to make a recommendation. If you have more or less time that you’ve had in the past, use the workout filter to make adjustments.
Most people have varying schedules every week. Rather input your schedule and ask the system to fit training into it, simply use the system decide on which days you wish to train. This is “six and one-half-dozen” as we say in English meaning they are essentially the same.
1 Like
Here is my BIG issue with XERT… the data and info is scattered all over the place and sometimes not in the way that all people consume info. Of course it would be ideal IMHO if Xert had someone who’s main task was to ensure a consice and understandable means of teaching and interacting with the user base primarily with how to use XERT and feeding back to the programmers what might improve the UX that would be a huge thing.
I think that you guys all know how to use the program… but getting that info into the hands of the users??? it is important to remember: if you are getting questions it is because 1- people do NOT understand and 2- they want to understand.
2 Likes
I agree with you that is easy to work around. That’s why I used the expression “as clean”.
I still follow XATA recommendations, but I created my own steady progression in a spreadsheet and just twick the XSS recomended (intensity)
I might not be doing full use of Xert… but it’s how I understand it at the moment.
Well, in the DCRainmaker article about TrainNow, Ray and Armando had a back n forth about it in the comments section, and Ray leveled some criticism at the workaround a Xert user uses…setting a date in the past for the event date. I think these new Xert features are most definitely a response to TrainNow and specifically Ray’s criticism. As far as “catching up”, TrainNow just took a leap ahead, since it uses machine learning.
2 Likes
Your use of the word “fanatism” in your reply is bit ironic. At any rate, Trainerroad is using machine learning now. It’s in beta, but the potential is huge. Xert uses a legacy approach, a 3 variable bannister model.
Making the choice explicit has always been in our plans. Adding a Challenge we thought was also interesting since the goal of simple Improvement is relative and doesn’t every end. A challenge can be a good carrot to reach.
As far as ML is concerned, we haven’t done it since there are many issues in using ML with cycling power data and we’re not ones to jump on the band wagon because it’s good marketing. I’m sure others will find ways to use it somewhat well but I suspect they may have more challenges dealing with the broad range of users and their data than a more robust, fully-understood, analytical model. ML black boxes like NNs will be hard to corral and constraining since how they work is out of your control.
I haven’t seen the DCRainmaker video yet - I’ll check it.
To be clear I’m not a huge fan of Xert user interface neither. It have its quirks.
The use of the word fanatic might have been slightly extreme but it was to convey the thought that some people defend TR in the same fashion of defending a football club and not for what it is - a service that you pay for.
For what I read about the new TR features (because I can’t teste it) I would use the expression “machine learning” for something bigger than after you finished Antilope +3 asking how do you feel and next time recommend +2 or +4 depending on your answer. And yes, analize trends of how many people don’t pass the first week of build phase is not machine learning neither.
There is plenty of scope for me to be wrong (I’m a weekend warrior with bills to pay) but I stopped reading the TR thread about it because I just want to shout: “THE KING IS NAKED!!!”
4 Likes
The problems with the UX, data and info scattered all over the place as you say, that problem has to be obvious to the people behind Xert. It truly is an example of Rube Goldberg in action. Today’s feature addition adds to the UX clutter. I think that’s how the UX got the way it is, one layer at a time. Rather than a revamping (expensive), you simply add to what’s there in the UX. After a few years, the present UX is what you’re left with.
1 Like
Your criticism of TR still sounds fanboyish. I’ll leave it at that.
Along with challenges come rewards, but for some, the safer strategy is to allow those with deeper pockets to lead the way. I get it.
Lol - when lacking arguments… throw stones.
Thank you for reinforce my point of how TR uses are moved by passion not rational.
1 Like
there are a few very specific items that I think make Xert unique, one of the most prominent in my mind is Smart Intervals. Most of the programs out there still use a single factor for training prescription, some might be trying to use more. I agree with Armando on machine learning, and in general multivariate modelling and prediction. Though in traditional multivariate modelling you can see where the levers are, NN and other machine learning programs tend to make it very hard to understand what is being used to predict what. Also it really takes the garbage in and out principle to the extreme. I have worked with multivariate modelling and can by no means be considered any type of expert on it. However though it can be very useful one needs to be careful that you do not let the machine run your world, you still need to use critical thinking.
What I hope for and why I pay for Xert is that it will grow and mature and find its feet. Remember, just because you are better does not guarantee a successful future, you still need to listen to your customers, ask Computrainer. So please take the time to listen, learn, and adapt. Your customers are your business not the Xert program.
3 Likes
Here’s a relevant conversation from 2019. There are some Xert comments too. https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/A_New_Approach_To_Predict_Performance_P6836199/?page=-1
Thank you Ron for that valuable feedback.
There is a lot of growth needed for sure but not just from us but also from the community of athletes, coaches and other content providers. There is still a lot of inertia around using FTP, FTP testing, old style training plans. Just go through the GCN library of videos on power and see how many refer to FTP vs. how many refer to a more than just FTP.
There is a lot of work to tack this ship and in many ways it’s independant of the money we can throw at it. People are just resistant to change and with Xert everything changes. We need the community at large to get it, reach new levels with it, win with it, share their experiences and for all those, it will take time.
We’re always watching and reading everything our customers say but we also track our data to see how customers are really responding. Customers complain about the UI/UX but a lot of that is driven by the newness of the methods and the complexity of what is happening on the system. We’re always trying to strike the right balance between creating abstractions for simpfications with the desire for more information and control. Customers complain on both ends so always a challenge! 
This is made more challenging given everything is new and much of what we’re doing has never been done before… not like we have a lot of good business models to base things on. We try something out and see how customers respond. Fortunately we haven’t yet had to re-engineer too much of the system. At least not recently. But lots of things are happening around here. No rest for the weary!
Personally, I like the fitness modeling and how Xert implements it. I’d like to do more of that and give athletes (and myself!) an even better representation of themselves as athletes, how they perform and how they can improve. We have changes planned likely affect a number of things on the system, someways simplifying things but also making it much more difficult on the back end (as if it wasn’t already!!!).
One of the things we think will really help is a better onboarding process for new users, especially those that are new to power. We don’t really have a good process for them and we could use something that will step people through the system, the concepts and how they can use it, train with it, using it on rides and ultimately to reach new levels of fitness. It’s all there at the moment but just a bit harder to work if you don’t have a relatively deep understanding of it. In some ways, new users have an easier time with Xert than experienced users do since they don’t come with expectations on how the software should work. Users that come from other systems expect to see features they are accustomed to and haven’t yet figured out that in many cases, those older ways of doing things are obsolete and they can find improved ways of doing things on Xert … but they’ll need to invest some time to figure that out. Some aren’t interested in that much change so will complain about lack of this or that or about something on the system - “Xert underestimated my FTP. Didn’t work for me!”
We tend to focus mostly on essential pieces athletes need to discover, improve and perform. Other systems may offer users various tools to slice-and-dice information or apply advanced filters from a massive library of workouts or plan an athlete’s training plan for the next 6 months. We don’t deem these essential so if you’re looking for these, by all means use Xert with another system. Remember, we’re only US$9.99/month. If you simply want to track and improve your fitness, even reaching your best fitness ever, there is certainly enough on Xert for you to give up everything else and just use Xert. We’re seeing a lot of users doing just that, especially now with Xert Sessions. We do however take in what users ask for but we balance these requests with what will make the most impact to users and their overall fitness. That’s the bearing we keep.
Keep the comments flowing! Always happy to interact with customers, even those that aren’t so enthusiastic about Xert as we are.
3 Likes
Armando, I see the progress and understand how hard it is to navigate the waters in an uncharted sea of information and in particular the exercise space. One thing I do feel you have right and that is getting away from the thing called FTP, so few people understand it and worse consider it a value statement or something that imparts value to them rather than just like any measurement it is nothing more than a metric to help determine where you are and where you are going… it is personal but only of value to you and should not be used to compare against anyone else.
I truly only want Xert to get better. otherwise I would not waste my time writing comments. The fact that you engage with the users is a very good start!. Cheers Ron.
Yes I am familiar with that thread and Alan Couzens feelings about data reductions/ modelling. I may and may not agree with all that either Alan says or Armando but it is a deep topic and I probably don’t have the depth to do the math to reinforce either argument. My background is other uses of multivariate modelling and I have used older NN programs as well but in the end the utility of any model is how well it predicts reality. When Xert is set right my experience is it does that pretty well. That is not to say that other models aren’t as good or better and maybe even Xert can get better with some as not used variable. What I tend to not like on ST is the personal attacks. Argue about ideas, etc but it need not get personal.