For self-coached endurance athletes

Four apps. Four different answers. One decision.

TrueFeel synthesizes your wearable data with how you actually feel โ€” and gives you one clear answer every morning in 20 seconds.

Backed by 30+ peer-reviewed studies.

๐Ÿ’Oura:Optimal
โŒšGarmin:Low Recovery
๐ŸƒStrava:Peak Fitness
๐Ÿ“‹TrainingPeaks:Intervals Day
CONFLICT DETECTED

Oura readiness is good โ€” HRV rebounded overnight. Garmin's flagging accumulated training stress from the last 3 days. For where you are in your build โ€” 3 weeks out โ€” intervals today but cap at 90%. You get the workout without digging the hole.

โ€œI wake up and my Garmin tells me base ride. TrainerRoad says rest day. Intervals.icu says optimal. Then my Edge wants intervals. Four different apps.โ€โ€” RockMover12, r/cycling

Your body and your data disagree
more often than you think.

A systematic review of 56 studies found negligible correlation between how athletes feel and what their devices say. This isn't a flaw in wearables โ€” it's a fundamental feature of human physiology.

โ€œI have tried whoop, garmin and oura. All were less accurate than a โ€˜how do I feel todayโ€™ metric.โ€โ€” 7wkg (56 โ†‘), r/cycling

But feel alone isn't enough either. Your body has blind spots. You can feel fine the morning you're getting sick. You can feel terrible when the data says you're recovered.

The answer isn't feel OR data. It's both โ€” synthesized through your personal history.

See TrueFeel think.

5 real conflicts. 5 different resolutions. Every one backed by science.

Your Feel
๐Ÿ˜Feeling meh
Your Data
HRV normal, sleep 7.2h
โœฆ GO WITH LIMITS

Meh for you usually means you warm up into it โ€” that's happened 4 of the last 5 times. Try the warmup. If legs don't come around in 15 minutes, drop to Zone 2.

๐Ÿ”ฌ

Subjective measures detected training responses with superior sensitivity vs. objective markers.

Saw et al., BJSM, 2016

20 seconds every morning.

6:45 AM

You check in

Energy, soreness, motivation, stress. Quick taps. Before data.

Seeing data first contaminates self-assessment.

6:45:15

TrueFeel synthesizes

Feel + Oura + Strava + plan โ†’ conflict detection โ†’ resolution.

Combined approaches outperform single-signal monitoring.

6:45:20

One clear answer

Go / Go with limits / Modify / Bail. With reasoning. Always.

When signals misalign, each captures what the other misses.

โ€œThe only purpose of the HRV stat is to spike my anxiety wondering wtf that means when it goes out of range.โ€โ€” irbilldozer, r/cycling

Built on science, not vibes.

6 pillars. 30+ peer-reviewed studies. Bulletproof foundations.

1

The conflict is real

Subjective feel and objective biometrics routinely fail to correlate. A systematic review of 56 studies found negligible agreement between how athletes feel and what their devices say.

56studies confirming the subjective-objective disconnect

Saw, Main & Gastin (2016), British Journal of Sports Medicine

2

Feel is not noise

The International Olympic Committee and multiple systematic reviews endorse subjective measures as scientifically valid โ€” often more sensitive than HRV or blood markers for detecting meaningful training responses.

IOCendorsed integrated subjective + objective monitoring

Soligard et al. (2016), BJSM; Montull et al. (2022), Sports Med Open

3

Body awareness is trainable

Interoception โ€” sensing internal body states โ€” is a measurable, improvable skill. Athletes with better interoception make better pacing decisions and self-regulate intensity more effectively.

โ†‘interoceptive accuracy correlates with athletic performance

Zeng et al. (2025), Psychophysiology; Hirao et al. (2025), Int J Sport Psych

4

Integration wins

Neither feel nor data alone reliably predicts injury or performance. Combined approaches โ€” subjective load with objective readiness โ€” outperform single-signal monitoring consistently.

2ร—better injury prediction when signals are combined

Williams et al. (2017), Sports; Windt & Gabbett (2017), BJSM

5

Wearables aren't enough

Commercial wearables vary 2-17% from gold-standard ECG. Even accurate devices capture partial readiness โ€” HRV alone doesn't predict next-day mental fitness after controlling for sleep.

17%max error rate of smartphone HRV vs. ECG

Gรถrdings et al. (2025), J Sci Med Sport; Doorn et al. (2023), J Clin Med

โœฆ

Contradictions confirm us

The strongest counter-argument โ€” HRV-only algorithms beat rigid plans โ€” actually supports TrueFeel. Those studies beat fixed schedules, not integrated approaches. We don't compete with HRV guidance. We enhance it.

+counter-evidence strengthens the integration thesis

Plews et al. (2023); Meier et al. (2021), Sports (MDPI)

The moments that change everything.

Real scenarios. Real decisions. Real science.

It remembers your season.

TrueFeel builds a personal model of you โ€” your sleep patterns, your HRV rhythms, what your โ€œmehโ€ means, how you respond to back-to-back hard days. The science calls this interoceptive intelligence.

That context can't be exported. Can't be recreated. It's yours.

Not this

โœ•A training plan
โœ•A readiness score
โœ•Another dashboard
โœ•A generic AI chatbot

This

โœ“Feel-first โ€” you before data
โœ“Multi-source synthesis
โœ“Personal pattern learning
โœ“Always explains why

What you need

๐ŸƒStrava
๐Ÿ’Oura, Garmin, or Watch
๐Ÿ’ชTrain 4+ days/week

50 athletes. 30 days. Free.

Built by a solo founder. Backed by 30+ studies. Validated by hundreds of Reddit athletes.

Join the Beta

No credit card ยท No spam ยท 2-minute signup

โ€œYour body knows things sensors can't measure. We help you hear it.โ€