Most of what a training platform tells you is a count. Kilojoules, hours, a stress score, a form number. Counts are useful, and we compute all of them, but a count answers the question of what you did, not the question you actually have at seven in the morning, which is what your body can do today and what it will cost you to find out.
RAMTT's answer is a model of the athlete, not a scoreboard. It keeps a running estimate of the things that actually change from hour to hour: how much fuel you have, where your thresholds sit today rather than on the day you last tested, how much reserve you have above them, and how recovered the systems are that you will lean on tomorrow. Each estimate is a range, not a point, and the width of that range is part of the answer. A narrow range after a lab test means one thing; a wide range after three weeks of unlogged rides means another, and the platform says so.
This is also why RAMTT grades its evidence. A number that comes from a measurement is not the same kind of number as one that comes from a population average, and neither is the same as a number the model has inferred from yesterday's ride. We show you which is which. Not because measurement is always better, but because you cannot decide how much to trust a recommendation unless you know what it stands on. Most platforms hide this, and the result is a score that looks equally confident on its best day and its worst.
There are two broad ways to build the thing that tells an athlete what to do. One is to write rules: below this form number, rest; above this ramp, warn. The other is to model what is going on inside the person, carry the uncertainty along with the estimate, and let the advice follow from the evidence. Rules are transparent, easy to audit, and hard to fool, and we keep a small number of them where the cost of being wrong is high. Everywhere else we prefer the model, because the athlete in front of us is never quite the athlete the rule was written for.
The list is long and it grows, but it has a shape. Work is what you did: power, duration, the kilojoules, and how the intensity was distributed within them. Supply is what you had available to do it with: the fuel you took on before and during, the fuel you had stored, and what the two together imply about what is left. State is how the body responded: the drift in heart rate against power over the course of a ride, the way a threshold settles as fuel runs down, and the signals you give us each morning about how the night went. Everything else, from a race-day plan to a warning about the coming week, is built from those three.
None of these are read from a single sensor. A threshold is estimated from many rides and moves slowly; a fuel level is estimated from a few hours and moves fast; a morning signal is one number from one person on one day. The model weighs them differently because they deserve different weights, and it says how much each one moved the answer. When two sources disagree, we do not average them into a comfortable middle. We show the disagreement, because the disagreement is usually the most informative thing on the screen.
It follows that RAMTT is slower to be sure than the platforms you may be used to. It is quicker to notice, and slower to conclude, and we think that is the right way round for a tool that will be trusted with a season.
Every claim in RAMTT carries a grade. The grade describes the state of the research behind the claim, not its importance and not our confidence in this particular athlete. A claim can be early and still be the best available guide, in which case we say both things. We would rather show you an honest early than a dressed-up established, and we would rather you argue with us than take the number on faith. The grades are:
The grade sits next to the number, not in a footnote. You will see it in the app, in the weekly review, and in the science notes where each claim is written out with the studies behind it. When a grade changes, because a replication landed or failed, the note changes with it, and the app tells you what moved.
We generally favour judgment over rules, and where a rule exists in the platform we try to explain why it is there and what it costs. A hard stop before a race, for instance, is a rule, and we keep it because the cost of being wrong on race morning is high and the benefit of cleverness is low. Most other decisions are not like that. Whether to push a session or hold it depends on things a rule cannot see, and the right answer for you is not the right answer for the athlete next to you with the same numbers. A model can hold that; a threshold cannot.
This has a consequence for how RAMTT talks to you. It does not issue verdicts about who you are. It describes what it sees, how sure it is, and what would change its mind. If that sounds less decisive than a red badge that says rest, it is, and deliberately so. The badge is easy to build and easy to ignore. A description you can check against your own body is harder to build and harder to dismiss, and it is the only kind of advice that survives contact with a real season.
There will be days when the model is wrong about you. It will be wrong less often than a rule would be, and, more importantly, it will be wrong in ways you can see coming, because the range will widen before the answer breaks. That is the whole point of carrying uncertainty instead of hiding it: the platform gets to say I am not sure before it has to say I was wrong.
It will not invent precision. If a number rests on a population average, it says so, and it does not show you two decimals of a guess. It will not hide a disagreement between its own sources to look tidy. It will not use colour alone to tell you something matters, and it will not tell you the same thing in two different colours on two different screens. And it will not describe you with a label you did not choose, because a platform that names you has stopped measuring you.
Everything above is a description of intent, and intent is cheap. What makes it real is that each of these commitments is a thing you can check: the grade on a claim, the width of a range, the source behind a number. We have tried to make RAMTT a platform that shows its work, in the belief that an athlete who can see the reasoning will train better than one who is handed a score. If you find a place where it does not, tell us, and we will show you what we changed.
Last updated September 2026
Most of what a training platform tells you is a count. Kilojoules, hours, a stress score, a form number. Counts are useful, and we compute all of them, but a count answers the question of what you did, not the question you actually have at seven in the morning, which is what your body can do today and what it will cost you to find out.
Most of what a training platform tells you is a count. Kilojoules, hours, a stress score, a form number. Counts are useful, and we compute all of them, but a count answers the question of what you did, not the question you actually have at seven in the morning, which is what your body can do today and what it will cost you to find out.