The maximum contiguous time I was above Z2 was 9 seconds, and I can only find Z3 (no Z4, Z5, Z6 etc) in the fit file for that. If you include Z0 (thus below Z1 just turning over pedals) then I am 99.9% compliant. I would have thought that’d be fine for the intended purpose of a recovery ride. Otherwise the coach is asking me to work harder during the recovery ride, despite telling me I wasn’t taking it easy enough.
There are glitches in accumulated power within the fit file towards the end, which might explain why the time in zone shows those tiny Z4/Z5/Z6 bits.
Then one final view of the data. This is the 30 second simple moving average (of the ride), expressed as a percentage of the top of my Z2 range in Athletica. Is this really so bad for a recovery ride. Have I really overdone it?
If the warm-up and cooldown are meant to be ramps then you need to review the descriptions you provide for sessions.
For example, for the session I refer to above the session description says “WU 10’ steady”. So not only no mention of ramping, but “steady” suggests the opposite.
For cooldown it simply said “CD 5’” so there is no clue there either that a ramp is expected.
Another example of the AI Coach being frustrating today. For my session it reports “In today’s bike session, your load compliance is solid at 86%, but the significant time spent in Zone 1 (recovery) indicates a deviation from the goal of enhancing aerobic endurance, which primarily targets Zones 1 and 2.”
This session was (supposedly, according to the description) an entirely zone 2 session, my stats are as follows:
Zone 1: planned time in that range of 3.5mins, I did 17mins.
Zone 2: planned time in that range of 4hrs 14mins, I did 3hrs 58mins.
So I spent 13.5mins more in zone 1 than planned, which is obviously not ideal but in the context of a 4h15m session it seems odd to describe that as “significant time”. Also, according to the session description zone 1 was not planned at all.
The tone of the language used by the AI Coach isn’t great, it could even be described as abrasive. I could ignore that tone if the actual information it provided felt constructive and helpful, but unfortunately it doesn’t, not least because its expectations of a session don’t always match what the description says is expected of me (as per my posts above).
Overall I’m currently finding the AI Coach to be entirely counterproductive, and annoying.
I agree with this. I’ve been nailing the workouts based on pace or heart rate prescribed and I’m getting the ‘not enough time in the zone we asked for’ feedback. The problem might be the workout construction rather than the feedback, although this feedback issue has only happened recently.
My AI coach just told me that my tendency towards high intensity unplanned workouts were going to hurt me on race day and gave me a long spiel about compliance.
Those workouts were the three legs of the triathlon I had been training for.
I find it funny, and understand it’s a work in progress. But…. It is now at the point I do not read them anymore as I find it hard to have faith it has anything to add or teach me. This was not the case before the recent update.
The AI will also not seem to believe me when my comment is that the workout was indeed the race that the entire plan had been leading to.
Experiencing the same here. Was told off for my pacing today, when I put my best effort into getting the HR target right (which was at 90%). Could it be that this has to do with the dimensions of zoning (eg power, pace, HR) simply do not match? Each are set by seemingly one single metric (eg critical power, critical pace, critical HR). I’ve been trying to play around with changing up the inputs, which result in getting one or two zones right, but skewing up others, and vice versa. Could Athletica a) be more clear about what the critical values should be, how they are defined, and b) allow for inputting more known metrics such as eg LT1? The zoning is clearly template, one-size-fits-all based, when we know that threshold values differ wildly from individual to individual in terms of percentage of maxHR or vo2max, and also in how they relate to each other/range between LT1 and LT2. (See for instance LT1, LT2, and the scientific basis of heart rate zones for runners - Running Writings and other recent articles by the same author.)
Probably the better thing could be to add a button to select which was the prescription used for the registered workout. In that way both the “load” and the workout to plan adherence could be better eveluated
Well Sometimes it IS prescribed if you look under the hood a little more. Even if it says steady for warm up, you can check if the HR zones start in one zone and ramp up to another. A common one is starting in zone 1 and ending the warmup in zone 2 The problem though is that the AI Coach feedback seems to then be hammering you on not hitting your PACE zones, when you were on an easy activity and your only aim was to hit your HR zones. There should be an option on easy/aerobic efforts to tell the AI what you’re focusing on so it can then give feedback to what you’re actually attempting. Otherwise, there is zero context and you might as well turn it off. Further, it would be great to avoid the whole WU thing altogether if you choose to not warm up. Sometimes we just start in zone 2 and stay there. Even worse lately, it’s hammering you on pace zones for the workout you just completed and then reminding you that you’ve sucked at complying similarly all week LOL I’d rather bring back the deep stats and meaningful insights on my data, rather than telling me I was “unproductive” with no context…my Garmin already does that quite well
WU/CD usually takes a small amount of the whole workout (at least for what I have seen until now). I’m not a 100% on plan guy, if I go off for 10min over 1h or more it doesn’t bother me. It bothers me that I do a full 1h in HR Z2 and have the AI complaining that the zone was totally off because it interpreted it by pace/power. The some for the load.
The coach’s feedback has definitely become less productive and more grating / de-motivating. On aerobic runs where I nail the heart rate targets, it dings me for not also keeping pace (outdoors on undulating roads as prescribed). On the bike where I nail power targets, it dings me for my heartrate for not being 100% on target. Then it calls out those instances over the past week each time.
“In your current run session, you achieved a load compliance of 102%, which is excellent and within the recommended range. However, your time spent in Zone 1 (recovery) was significantly above the prescribed amount, while your time in Zone 2 (aerobic) was notably below. This discrepancy can hinder your goal of enhancing aerobic endurance. Your RPE of 3 indicates a moderate effort, and your feeling of 4 out of 5 suggests you’re in a good place, which is encouraging. However, it’s essential to align your training intensity with session goals for optimal adaptation…Stay mindful of your training plan to avoid potential setbacks from overtraining or underperformance. Stick to the prescribed zones to maximize your training benefits and keep up the great work!”
Me: “Please reframe the feedback with more specific details of where I did not follow the workout. My load is within two points of the prescribed load. My average heart rate was 137 bpm, compared to the workout’s recommended range of 128 bpm to 147 bpm. My average pace was 6:24 compared to the recommended 5:35, but if I had run that pace, my heart rate would have exceeded the workout parameters. If the focus should be on pace, the workout should be sent to the device with pace as priority, not heart rate. I look forward to more detailed and specific feedback.”
Revised coach:“In your recent aerobic run session, you achieved a load compliance of 102%, which is great and indicates you’re managing your training load well. However, there was a significant deviation in zone compliance, with too much time spent in Z1 (recovery) and not enough in Z2 (aerobic). This could be a missed opportunity to enhance your aerobic endurance as planned. Your average heart rate of 137 bpm is indeed within the recommended range, but your pace of 6:24 was slower than the target of 5:35. It’s essential to balance both heart rate and pace; if pace is prioritized, we need to adjust future workouts accordingly to ensure you stay within the desired intensity…”
Now, I’m a middle-aged, mid-level fitness person, who has always had relatively high heart rate zones, so maybe I’m an anomaly, but shouldn’t the system be aligning these based on the data Athletica has been collecting I’ve the past couple of years?
Could you please share the details of the sessions where you’ve experienced specific frustrations with the AI coach feedback? This will help us test the improvements we’re working on directly on those cases. Be precise please: we need:
your platform name
the session date and modality (swim, bike, etc)
Thanks a lot for your help! We really appreciate your input.
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback! You’re absolutely right—aligning the system with more specific data and individual profiles is definitely part of the roadmap. Right now, we’re focusing on fixing the major issues to ensure the feature is stable and reliable. After that, we’ll be incorporating more detailed data and personalized adjustments based on your past training history.
We’re on it, and we appreciate your patience as we work towards making this feature as tailored and accurate as possible. We’ll get there!
My name on the platform is Chris Gamio and yesterday’s HIIT cycling workout feedback is a good example of the zoned feedback feels off. It says I spent too much time in Z2, which will hinder my improvement but it expected me to spend more time in Z1. I cut the workout short and still hit 108% compliance for load, so if anything I went too hard, not too light.
Thanks for sharing, Chris! You’re absolutely right that the feedback should focus on the most relevant zones for the workout. HIIT sessions are designed to be performed in Z6, and exceeding that doesn’t provide extra benefits—if anything, it just adds unnecessary stress. Based on your data, it looks like you spent only about half the time in Z6 and the rest in Z7, which isn’t ideal. Your coach is correctly pointing this out.
It also seems like your efforts were at the boundary between Z6 and Z7, while they should have been centered in Z6 (228–272 W for you). This might indicate that your critical power—and thus your Z4-Z7 zones—are set too low, so it could be worth re-testing.
In the next release, we’re making sure the coach focuses on the most relevant workout zones, so feedback aligns better with session intent. Thanks for your patience, and keep up the great work!
FYI, I have tested with the new improvements, and this is the outcome:
Great job on your bike session focusing on VO2 max! Your load compliance of 108% aligns well with the training goals, indicating a solid effort. However, I noticed that your power zone compliance shows less time in Z5 and Z6, which are critical for maximizing your aerobic capacity. While you’re feeling strong and your RPE of 5/10 suggests you tackled the session effectively, let’s work on targeting those higher intensity zones next time to ensure you’re pushing your limits adequately. It’s fantastic to see you feeling amazing post-session!
Looking at your session history, you’ve shown remarkable dedication with consistently above-average load compliance in your last strength session…
Thanks for that explanation, and I do think I probably should re-test sometime soon. The test guidance you gave is a definite improvement and helps direct me towards being more targeted without demotivating.
And I’ve just caught up to these posts in this thread , following sending Paul an email a short time ago on the same.
In short over the past several weeks, Athletica displays the result of row erg and bike sessions in the line graph in alignment with how garmin connect and intervals.icu display the session. They are my control sample, if you like.
However, the time in zone bar graph then displays a break down of the session, usually over reporting time in zone above target, e.g. target zone z2, shows excessive time in 3a, 3b, 4 +, even up to 7. The AI coach feedback from my row erg session this morning “Your recent row session shows some impressive determination, but your current bike session has significant discrepancies from the plan.” I have no idea what that refers to. No bike today, just a row - which I rated as RPE3 due to it being 60mins but otherwise was a comfortable z2.
Edit:
After posting my subjective markers the AI coach has returned the following. In short, notwithstanding I’m at the end of a recovery week, I am simply finding the load and power targets too low, and athletica is not adjusting for that, despite my continually exceeding the targets and telling it that my sessions are easy.
@Stef , you illustrate an interesting point…. [quote=“Stef, post:55, topic:3084”]
It also seems like your efforts were at the boundary between Z6 and Z7, while they should have been centered in Z6 (228–272 W for you).[/quote]
I came to this conclusion only after receiving similar feedback from the A.I. Coach. Being a little too driven, I for months have been targeting the upper limits of my prescribed Power Zone on my row erg receiving nothing but positive feedback.
After receiving the recent negative feedback, I finally figured out that Athletica wanted me to target the center wattage of my Zones based on the feedback and looking at the graphed analysis on the new Athletica mobile app that clearly shows the target Power (in Grey) for each workout interval instead of a target range.
The challenge I find on a row erg is they (the air or water flywheels) can bleed Power quickly during the recovery phase of the stroke that can make it difficult to hit any specific Power target, especially at the higher power levels. Now, understanding what Athletica is looking for, I have adjusted my approach and my stroke so to do better, and work the middle of my workout Power zone targets.
It might be helpful to add Athletica’s intent on what it is looking for (your statement) working out in the prescribed Power zones to any new user onboarding reference materials the platform develops😎.
I love the platform and appreciate the responsiveness of the development team to your user’s concerns….thanks!
Here’s the time in zones report. I ended with two hill strides, not on the plan for today, and my HR sensor went haywire for the first five-ten mins showing up to 150 while cruising along slowly, but indeed ended up with most of my time in zone 2, sub-128:
Major question is whether the workout really should have been updated to what the coach seems to believe it should – a higher intensity – or if the coach is wrong.
Side note, I see no difference between aerobic development and strength endurance workouts, they all boil down to zone 2. Which is kinda hard to stick to in my neck of the woods, with hills and gradients en masse. On the upside, to the extent that I do manage to comply, it does discipline me to stay aerobic.
