Thanks Ming, an update on this bug which gets a little weirder.
Came back to an open TR calendar window to see that those workouts had tuned green. However look at the weekly TSS totals in the screenshot below, they are more than double what they should be.
I refreshed (moved to career and back to calendar), and the TSS reset to the correct values and the third workout of the week went blue again (non-editable) like in my earlier post. Would this be CTP or the new calendar?
Additional situation that is not intuitive and may be a bug.
Created a plan, changed rides to outdoors, this is the result:
Changed the 1:00 endurance ride to 1:15, get an over training warning:
Return to the baseline recommendation, change the third HIIT workout from 0:45 to 1:00, no warning:
Adding 15 min to the HIIT workout would add more training load than adding 15 min to the endurance ride, but it seems cool with the former and throws the warning on the later.
Looking good!
Question regarding ultra stuff. If I have a 24h race in the beginning of June 2025 and I set up the plan it says my long rides should be 1.5h-2h max. Even if I have set the race duration for 24h.That’s not realistic in any way.
I assume that at the moment the plan builder is not optimized for Ultra racing?
I noticed some weirdness:
Have TR, in the desire to get rid of the Hi Volume plans just replaced it with everybody selecting Aggressive ? In order to get their plan to tally up with the number of hours that they ride ? (and is the new HV plan 8 hours ?)
I tried the proposed Plan and got duplicates. Deleted the plan and re-did everythig and got duplicates.
Am I the only person wondering why this has been released with so many bugs and wasn’t offered as an “Early Access” option like the new calendar and new sport types has?
Loving the new update and the non race specific plans.
Below is the proposed plan for general fitness and aggressive setting. Quite like this plan but there are 2 potential modifications I would make: 1) remove the the wed easy ride of 30 mins (wouldn’t bother for such a short duration ride 2 ) Replace the sat 2 hour hard intervals with 3.5 hour group ride
When I update the 5 workouts to 4 workouts it removed my unwanted 30 min ride but revised down all other rides? Doesn’t really make sense as the obvious modification is just remove the 30 min ride and leave others?
When I edit the scheduled 2 hour hard sat interval ride (threshold) to a group ride for anything above 2 hours
it produces the warning. The logic would appear to be as basic as assigning equivalent effort of 2 hour threshold workout to 2 hour group ride? For me personally its the 2 hour interval session on a turbo which would contribute to greater levels of fatigue. I would equate 3 - 3.5 hour group ride to 2 hour threshold interval session. For both of the above I can just not do the 30 min wed ride and proceed with the group as it would be 50/50 in the winter as to whether I could get outside.
I’m assuming that by choosing a “demanding” plan like @np10 has in their post it moves the goalpost for the warning upwards and choosing “masters” plan like you have moves the goalpost for the warning downwards?
Maybe?
Could be that they underestimated the complexity of this change and the effect on their systems.
Personally though I think it’s an awesome step in the right direction and the result with updating my current plan with the new system is pretty good.
I get that some may be dissappointed for their specific situation and that they are annoyed about the bugs, but then at least provide helpful feedback to solve the situation asap.
Some people here seem to make it their mission to troll and only try to get others to follow along with their grievances and negativity. I don’t see the value in that. Let’s grow up.
I absolutely agree 100% with everything they have said. I’m simply asking the question as to why it has been released to all paid subscribers instead of offering it as an early release with the option to have it enabled or not “whilst” all of the bugs are ironed out.
I have asked the same question as to why this was not beta tested, with no response. The calendar is still in beta, but the training plan system goes straight to live, this seems a strange decision.
Also, there are features which have been lost in the process, polarized plans, direct control over training days, probably more, with their return promised at some nebulous point in the future.
Either way it’s optional to use. You ask it like it was the most important question. Maybe most users would want to try it anyway and it doesn’t make much difference. The calendar is a different story because you SWITCH to the new one.
Sorry you have completely lost me there. I’ve no idea what you mean. Anyway, it’s obviously just my opinion and we’re all entitled to voice our opinions.
My bad, it’s a new plan builder and we can’t use the old one.
Keep in mind that chrisian only joined the forum yesterday and that was their second post, could be that they aren’t aware that TR, have in the past always released to “Early Access” before releasing, and we have been waiting for some features for 3 (want to say 4) years because they don’t want to release it until it’s perfect
Can anyone help me with my question about replacing existing plan workouts with my own custom workouts?
I have a number of vo2 custom workouts that I like to do. They are progressive and the PL for each increases as they go.
Can I replace the Tuesday vo2 orkout in my plan with one of my custom workouts? Would this cause any issues with the plan? Do I just add in my own custom workout to the respective day and then delete the existing planned workout?
Thanks
I’ve only joined the forum yesterday, but I’ve been a TR member for a couple years now, so I have a pretty good idea how they’ve operated in the past years.
Giving us the ability to access the plan builder (and update our current plans) without doing early access first, is indeed a change compared to the release of other features in the past. Though you still have the option to keep using the old plan builder, so if one is not happy, just don’t use it until the bugs are ironed out.
I’m also not saying people shouldn’t voice their opinion. People have a right to be disappointed if they feel that way (I can imagine if you get promised something and then find out it doesn’t exactly work how you wanted it).
What I don’t like (personally) is when people only spout their negativity and keep bashing on how shitty it is. That’s a bit too easy, even though you’re a paying customer. It’s also about acting as a polite and decent human being, regardless if you pay for a service or not.
So even though I’m new here on the forum, I wanted to share that 
Happy to see that most of you put a lot of time and effort into offering constructive criticism
How would this work if say I am planning on doing an Ultra Marathon next year but also an ultra cycling event. Would it be able to factor both events in? I know you say triahtlon is coming but what about a standalone running event alongside other stuff?
Go ahead.
For some time now, I’ve tended to use TR generated plans principally as templates, with the calendared workouts acting as placeholders. This is so that I have full control over workout selection, such as you’re referring to, for example when doing progression blocks where I want intensity to remain the same but duration to be extended*.
Depending on how much of the original plan you wish to retain, it can sometimes end up being simpler to just schedule your own block manually - obviously this depends how close you can get a TR-generated plan to look like to what you actually want to do…
ㅤ
*Obviously, with manually scheduled workouts, you’re missing out on AT managing progressions, but personally I’ve not found that to be a problem - quite often the opposite in fact, as I often don’t particularly like the way that AT progresses things (as above: too much emphasis on raising intensity vs. duration).
On this latter note, I’d like to see a preference setting within Plan Builder which allowed us to direct AT into favouring progression of duration in preference to intensity when adapting workouts; and I’d like to see the workout library updated to include simpler workouts that better facilitate this. Perhaps in the future we’ll see dynamic workout generation, where simpler workout structures may well be favoured, and it’d be straightforward to generate workouts with progressive durations tailored to each person.
Although manual workout selection means missing out on AT, PLs themselves are really helpful in gauging workout progressions, and guided by these I rarely pick a wrong 'un now compared to the old days!
