Recovery Logic and ATL/CTL calculation for high-volume athletes

Hi LeCoach Team,

I would like to provide some feedback on the training logic and readiness assessment, as I’ve encountered a persistent discrepancy between my actual training load and the coach’s recommendations.

The Issue: The system continues to prescribe recovery days and warns of high fatigue (ATL), even when I have performed very little meaningful training for over a week. It seems the model is overly sensitive to the number of consecutive training days rather than the actual physiological load of those sessions for an experienced athlete.

Example from my data (Aug 5th – Aug 16th):

• Historical context: I came off a very high-volume block in the Alps (CTL 100+).

• Recent period: For the last 12 days, I have recorded an activity every day, but most were very short recovery spins or commutes (load < 30).

• Actual intensity: In these 12 days, I only had 2 proper workouts (VO2max and Threshold). The rest were effectively "nothing" for my fitness level.

• The Conflict: Because I didn't take a full day off (0 load), my ATL remained mathematically high (~127). Consequently, the AI coach kept proposing recovery days, even though my fitness was actually stagnating/decreasing due to a lack of stimulus.

Suggestion for Improvement: For athletes with a high CTL (e.g., >90), could the logic be adjusted so that:

1. Low-load activities (e.g., <30 load or commutes) are weighted differently or ignored when calculating the "consecutive days" penalty.

2. Readiness assessment looks more at the nature of the load (Z1/Z2 vs Z4+) rather than just the 7-day ATL average.

3. The coach recognizes when an athlete is "under-trained" despite a high ATL, especially when the TSB is negative purely due to a high frequency of very low-intensity activities.

I feel like I'm losing my "Alpine form" because the system is too protective based on a mathematical model that doesn't fit the reality of my training intensity.

Best regards,

Gianni