Hi,
Interesting discussion with the chat since few days.
I made not “a real” FTP test during a bike race ; Garmin and AIE scores 265W.
The system computes the zones correctly with :
My feeling is aligned with this configuration. Aerobia until 128bpm ; power zones too ; Z2 is “easy like i can do during several hours” ; Z3 is a real tempo (lactate regeneration) not a threshold.
The system gives me 2h in Z2 with a power between 100-199W (Zone 2) for an ESS 103.
And i done 75 ESS with 16% tempo power zone ; 41% endurance power zone et 37% recovery (after climbing, descent !).
So huge difference (1h50 targeted vs 2h20 real and 25% ESS delta !)… chat says the targeted ESS is a FLOOR ; and if i targeted this floor, my feeling will be closed to a tempo bike not an endurance one.
- What is the real target ?
- How the system computes the week ESS targeted ?
To avoid “overload”, I need to match the ESS or the objective of the training… but i have a delta between the targeted and the reality.
The system proposes to reduce the ESS but is it aligned to the plan objectives ??? Too easy solutions : 80 gives 46 (waow !) and 52 (gives 33).
Estimated ESS is calculated as ‘worst case scenario’/highest possible if you stick to the workout instructions. So in this example if you ride 1:50 at exactly 199 W (upper limit) that would result in ESS 103. The instructions are to stay below 199 W so your actual ESS should be lower and it’s totally fine if it’s lower.
The AI model does not plan by ESS. It plans by time you spent at different power values, how those times and power values are distributed, etc → the ground truth of what your training actually looks like. ESS is a summarizing metric that washes over a lot of the important details of a training session. We do use it for recovery between session planning so it that sense it makes sense to assume the worst case for recovery: highest possible ESS.
We do not want you to fall into the ‘chasing ESS’ trap. It’s not about hitting a certain ESS per week but spending the right amount of time at the right power intensities with adequate recovery.
Ok, more clear. It could gives a feeling of training lack or delta regarding the objective.
Maybe a more clear objective (maybe on the plan page or the calendar).
Why i say this, when you take a look on the summary, you have always targeted vs real.
Not a view like clear objectives : like base, polarized, etc and area target (zone 2, zone 3 etc).
The ‘Compliance’ at bottom of dashboard page + suggested chat prompt of discussing your plan progress are currently what’s meant to check if you’re on track
