For those using both Xert and intervals.icu - what value are you still deriving from Xert?
I’m having a few frustrations with it, and I’m finding intervals.icu does a much better job of presenting the data and allowing you to visualize it. The Xata workout recommendations were nice to start with, but now I’ve got a better idea of the type of session required, any workout library will do the job. Fitness signature is a nice marketing term, but it’s basic data that intervals.icu also provides.
I haven’t ended my subscription yet, I’m still torn, but I’m interested to hear everyone else’s views.
To me, intervals.icu is an awesome addition. Or, maybe I should say was an awesome addition, because @david has been adding so much more to it, that I can see how you are considering switching.
I still think that Xert has a better handle on how you should train, but many (also around here) stick to the old methods, even though it’s becoming increasingly clear that those are no longer the only way to train.
Other than that, wherever I look, I seem to miss the tools to accommodate for the preparation of a two week intense cycling tour, rather than the one day event.
Plus, for the athletes ‘of age’, there also seems to be less to take away from using Xert, TR or SUF. Even them oldies can find more info about and learn more from their peers here, than anywhere else.
As a triathlete, Intervals is way more important for me. Even though the site don’t have complete support for running and swimming activities (running and swimming pace zones, grade adjusted pace and rTSS would be the real MVP’s on that) so far, it’s indeed a more complete multi-sport tool than Xert.
For cyclists, I would say that both tools have it’s own advantages. FTP and HIE algorithms from Xert are pretty useful (more for cyclists, but still usable for triathletes) as guidelines of training intensity. However, for training management intervals way more complete. You have way more freedom and access to your data. It’s way more configurable and clean.
I don’t like their library of “recommended workouts” since I think that some of their interval workouts are just to complicated to execute. If you have just a little of creativity and knowledge about intensity, interval training and so on, you’ll be fine with intervals - Otherwise, just open your wallet and ask for a coach xD.
Last but not least: Xert’s user interface sucks. David’s colorful website is fine art
I basically agree, also as a 70.3 triathlete. The Xata recommendations are basically junk for longer distance cyclists / triathletes as they just give you endurance and sweet spot sessions all the time. It is easy enough to build a good library in intervals.icu.
Not really, as there’s a philosophy and/or model behind it, tailored to your event. I know it’s a little hard to ‘trust’, which is why people start doing their own thing and might as well leave.
But even so, they are recommendations and you are free and possibly even encouraged to mix in - i.e. pick from the library - any other training at any given day. The beauty of that, is that Xert will learn from it, get to know you better as it were, and adapt its recommendations.
There’s simply no way / system that can ‘out of the blue’ prescribe you a workout trajectory towards an event.
Ultra endurance and the aforementioned multi-day events, are a category of their own and probably require some level of personal coaching.
Don’t get me wrong, XATA is excellent for most cyclists. However if you set your athlete type to time trialist or century rider, it struggles. It starts with endurance workouts during the base phase, but as it becomes more ‘specific’ it still gives you endurance workouts as it will only move closer to your focus type. You need to manually add in supra-threshold workouts (if you choose a polarised approach). Personally, I find I only need a small library of focused workouts for the 20%, and the 80% of L1 is mostly made up of long outdoor rides/run monitoring power and heart rate to keep it on point.
They also do not monitor the fatiguing impact of sub-threshold work well, which causes some issues with the freshness report and advised workouts.
I think it is great for cyclists that need to focus on those sub 20 min efforts, but for longer distance time trialists or triathletes it loses a lot of its value. I’m keeping it now for monitoring HI and MPA for zwift races, but I will probably not keep it going once race season starts again.
That seems too narrow - I have had no problem(s) preparing for 40K TT’s and the occasional Gran Fondo, so one day events and cycling only, but no sub 20 minutes. Triathlon, multi day and ultra long distance events are not well covered, for sure.
I don’t know - may well be. I have not had problems with freshness a lot, although I do use the slider occasionally. My current TL is over 200, so Xert is not really dealing with that very well either, I think. Most of my work is SS (33%) or in terms of zones Z3 (35.5%) and Z4 (30.5%)…
That’s a big training load, and also a very taxing zone split! Have you had any problems with plateaus ands potentially over training? It’s interesting because generally it feels like the bigger the training load, the more polarisation is needed to sustain it. You may be bucking that trend though!
Last week was 23.2h at 234.7 XSS/day.