I figure this should be a new thread to not get lost…
Are the power targets in the new adaptive training staying the same as they have been? As a percent of your ftp. So the adaptive part is just the length of intervals and rest breaks and how many of them while leaving the target the same?
I ask this cause most zone 2 exercises are really the same then. They all target a percent of ftp and not based on your LT1 which may be a better target to base off of
14 posts were merged into an existing topic: 
Introducing Adaptive Training!
Not a firm answer, but here is info from the same ride, one week apart. The first was before I got into AT and the second after:
So, I think there are no changes to zone definitions, but this is far from concrete.
For those wondering I’m referring to this: Lower Threshold Power, what is this?
Can you edit your original post to include that link as your spark here, since I think the context is important?
Editable? If I try to do my endurance rides off lt1 this could get complicated 
also makes me worry if they are training the model based on fixed zones like that it could be poor training. Not everyone with the same ftp has the same lt1. Seems like lt1 could be calculated during the ramp test if they wear a hr strap
See the link about using hrv to calculate lt1?
No, I haven’t had to time to dig into it, but I see where you are looking to pull the info now.
Or if you are a xert user use ltp but was more thinking how tr could calculate it. (Kind of why I wished tr would buy or merge with xert in that xert had a better way to break down a workout or exercise session but the machine learning and overall training plan and ui seems better in tr. (I.e. xert calculations would feed the model much more useful information)
Let’s keep this thread focused on the Zone 2 / Heart Rate topic at the OP.
Please use the main Adaptive Training thread for discussion about access via beta and other issues already mentioned there.
Tr is doing ftp prediction because everything they have now is based on ftp. Estimating lt1 based on power is still more of an estimate then doing the calculations based on hrv during a ramp test. To the end user they wouldn’t do anything different other then being encouraged to wear a hr strap.
I guess I’m more thinking about the other side of this of trying to figure out what wattage I should do endurance workouts at. Training a model to determine if an endurance workout is useful or not seems highly dependent on if the endurance workout is at the right target wattage. This could have a big impact on their a/b testing of polarized training plans
I’m ok then, mine’s only at 82% 
Tp 142w, ltp 85w. Also off the bike since October from a wrist injury so lost lots of fitness and need to get back was at 176w for ltp. Just want to make sure I’m doing it efficiently
@Nate_Pearson Is there anything you can say publically about this for AT? Is the plan to have zones just be a percent of FTP (i.e. everyone else who has the same FTP as me has the same zones even if the points we are set to is unique or wil TR attempt to figure out what is the unique wattage target for us.
The progression system takes care of this.
Basically where you are relative to your ramp test result will change based on your performance.
IE you might be doing VO2 intervals at 115% or 125%.
Feels like that isn’t really modeling the way the body works as well. For example if I am doing an endurance ride I’d want it based on my LT1 value not FTP
It’s a mix between performance and RPE, and thus you end up at LT1.
From my understanding of the way AT works is is not changing the power target, just the number and length of the intervals. With endurance not having intervals to change I don’t see how it would change endurance rides
