Xert keeps asking for more and more training time

General
1

I’m trying to understand whether I’m using Xert incorrectly, or whether this is simply how the system is designed.

I’m a 45-year-old amateur rider with no races coming up. I want steady, sensible improvement of my fitness signature: TP, HIE and PP.

With Moderate-1, Xert tells me I need almost 13 hours next week. Even on Maintenance, it still suggests around 11 hours. My weekly availability is set to 9 hours, but Xert still recommends more than that.

This feels out of proportion. On most other platforms, 13 hours/week would be closer to a high-volume plan or a serious racing block, not “moderate” improvement for an amateur.

I understand that Xert uses Training Load, XSS, ramp rate and a rolling 7-day window. But maybe that is the issue: it seems to optimize mainly around Training Load, while my actual goal is the fitness signature, not maintaining a specific TL number.

After browsing the forum, this seems like a common complaint: Xert gradually asks for more and more time, and users are told to lower Improvement Rate, adjust availability, change focus (athlete type) or interpret the recommendations flexibly. That makes me wonder how literally the recommendations should be followed.

This is the second area where I feel I need to take Xert with a grain of salt. The first is XMB’s apparent bias toward micro-intervals, where I also feel the user has to apply coaching judgment rather than simply trust the recommendation.

So my questions are:

1. Is Improvement Rate mainly a Training Load ramp rate?

2. Why does Maintenance still require around 11 hours?

3. Why does Xert recommend almost 13 hours ato Moderate-1 if my availability is set to 9 hours?

4. If my goal is TP/HIE/PP rather than TL, how should I configure Xert?

5. Which Xert recommendations are meant to be followed literally, and which require user judgment?

I like the fitness signature model, outdoor XMB flexibility and breakthroughs, but right now recommendations feel unrealistic for a normal amateur rider.

2

1. Is Improvement Rate mainly a Training Load ramp rate?

yes, just that.

2. Why does Maintenance still require around 11 hours?

that’s your current training load. If you do 9 hours for the next weeks, it won’t ask for 11 any more for maintenance.

3. Why does Xert recommend almost 13 hours ato Moderate-1 if my availability is set to 9 hours?

As you ask it to increase training load, you will need more time.

4. If my goal is TP/HIE/PP rather than TL, how should I configure Xert?

Xert won’t do wonders. It’s depressing honest to you. The whole purpose of Xert is to make you better by helping you to increase your training load. It does that very well, but it won’t ever tell you to have 2-4 weeks off the bike (a real coach would do that occasionally).

If you did not reach your plateau yet, keep going with "maintenance“ and you might even improve because of consistency. Xert won’t tell you that you might improve without overload though.

5. Which Xert recommendations are meant to be followed literally, and which require user judgment?

All recommendations require user judgement. Xert is not a coach, it’s a tool that helps you managing your progressive overload.

If you reached a plateau and cannot improve your TL nor signature any more (time, fatigue, whatever): maybe it is time for a season break. Xert does not know you, just some of your watt numbers. You can always get off the bike for 2-3 weeks and start rebuilding with lower TL. Usually ppl get stronger than before after 3-4 times the time they got off:
2 weeks off, 6-8 weeks until you are better than before.
2 months off, 6-8 months until you get better than before.

1 Like
3

Thanks, that makes sense, but it also points to the main problem I’m struggling with.

If Xert recommends 11–13 hours, but the right answer may actually be “ride 9 hours and ignore the deficit” or even “take a break for 2–3 weeks”, how is a user supposed to know that?

From the forum? From experience? From already understanding training theory?

That is exactly where I feel the promise of Xert becomes unclear. For me, the appeal of Xert was that it would think through this complexity for me: training load, recovery, progression, freshness, workout choice, and what is realistic. I expected it to behave more like an adaptive coaching system, not just a model that gives me numbers which I then have to override using my own judgment.

I don’t expect Xert to perform miracles. But I would expect it to respect my stated availability and give me the best recommendation within that constraint. If I set 9 hours/week, and the system still says 11–13 hours, then I’m left guessing:

- Should I follow Xert?

- Should I ignore the deficit?

- Should I lower Improvement Rate?

- Should I switch to Maintenance?

- Should I take a break?

- Should I just wait until my TL decays to a more realistic level?

Those are coaching decisions. And if Xert does not make them, or at least clearly signal them, then the user still needs a coach-like understanding to use the system properly.

That may be fine if Xert is positioned mainly as an analytical tool for experienced athletes. But for a user who wants a “set it and follow it” adaptive training system, this is confusing.

So maybe my real question is: how much is Xert actually supposed to think for the user, and how much coaching judgment is the user expected to provide manually?

4

Everyone at Xert sooner or later will get to your questions. Me too. :slight_smile:

Xert is still a powerful tool for helping you find the questions you have to answer. And there is also a huge knowledge base to dig into.

The ability to make thoughtful informed decisions and take responsibility for them is the difference between human and machine. If you want a coach, hire one or maybe join a cycling club (the latter is probably a lot cheaper), but never let any machine make “coaching decisions” for you.

Either way noone will take the responsibility for the promise: “You can improve without investing more”.

5

​Thanks for the perspective, but I think you’re over-philosophizing a straightforward software usability issue.

​Suggesting that “machines shouldn’t make coaching decisions” feels like an excuse for Xert’s algorithmic limitations. Other platforms, like TrainerRoad, handle this perfectly fine—they respect time constraints (like a 9h availability limit) and automatically build in recovery weeks. It’s completely possible for an algorithm to optimize training within user-defined boundaries; it’s just that Xert’s mathematical model chooses to ignore them in favor of a linear Training Load chase.

​Also, regarding “you can’t improve without investing more”—as a 45-year-old amateur who has never done structured training before, 6–8 hours a week should theoretically be a reasonable starting point to see how my body adapts and recovers. Telling a beginner that they must ride 13 hours a week just to see a “moderate” improvement feels completely out of touch with reality, and it’s a fast track to overtraining and injury, not good coaching—human or machine.

​I like Xert’s fitness signature and outdoor tracking, but let’s call a spade a spade: XATA ignoring availability limits and lacking automated recovery cycles is a UX flaw, not a profound lesson in human autonomy.

6

On the UX points I agree… you’re better off using forecast AI if you want a plan that respects constraints. XATA ignores those… and doesn’t really ensure other preference re polarisation are applied, has simplistic periodisation only (and only if in base build peak). I’m not sure I’d recommend XATA except in very niche cases… build a forecast AI plan instead

On training prescription I see it a bit differently… there is no universal agreement on ‘best’ and there are many philosophies… that said, the successful approaches do have common principles eg prgoressive overload, specificity etc. which Xert does have…one thing they miss from my perspective is a bit of differentiation below threshold e.g. a way to implement something more pyramidal than polarised, without just doing it yourself

There isn’t really strong ‘science’ for regular planned recovery weeks - if you feel fresh enough / still on top of workouts, recovery weeks can be a waste of training time. I’d say Xert can foster more sustainable training practices vs others which push you so hard you feel you need an easier week… both can work, but sustainability for l9ng periods can be different (and individual)’

Also, the only way you’ll improve with 6 to 8 hours when you’ve been training for 11 hours recently, is if you are significantly Increasing intensity (or fixing some bad training practices)

1 Like