The double-day thing is pretty unique and I doubt we’d support that at first. In my mind, it adds a lot of complexity. BUT, with the system, you could add an easy endurance ride to make it a double day, and then it would adapt. We’d probably just not do the work to prescribe it.
HRV is a big project. When you measure HRV changes what your HRV will be. And different products measure them at different times so it’s not consistent.
There’s also some research that HRV is not as useful as some might think.
Our approach will most likely be to validate how HRV influences workout outcomes by product. IE we’d try to see if there’s a correlation between HRV, our prediction on how someone will do in a workout, and their actual outcome.
If HRV increases the accuracy of our prediction of workout outcome, I think it will help drive redlight/greenlight.
If it doesn’t increase the prediction…then we won’t have it drive things.
And if that happens, I’m guessing we’ll have to publish our data because there’s lots of money tied up with HRV and we will get attacked for saying it doesn’t improve our workout outcome predictions.
For TR, I hope it DOES help improve outcomes. That would help us makes athletes faster. But we won’t implement it unless we can prove that it will make our athletes faster.
I actually think we’re in a very position in the industry to accurately test HRV on a large scale. I think ERG cycling workouts paried with how precise workout levels are gives us a pretty details view.
And I’ve used Alpha 1 in workouts and we’ll look into that too. Again, more validation is needed.