Bring Old Training Plans Back as an Option

One of our core values is “Constant Improvement” and in that spirit, our plans have consistently evolved over time. Each year we’ve made adjustments based on our athletes’ results, feedback, and progress in the science of training and coaching. When we find updates that will make you faster, we make those updates!

The old High Volume Sweet Spot Base plan you’re referring to was always a bit of an outlier. It was a very difficult plan for many of our athletes to successfully follow, and we used to actively encourage most athletes to follow a mid or low volume plan instead. For the minority of athletes would could handle such a high volume and training load, it was an effective plan, but our recent updates were intended to make our plans more effective for everyone. We do continue to offer Polarized and Traditional base options for those who prefer them.

I took a look at your account, and I see that for the past several seasons you’ve consistently had a difficult time successfully completing many workouts within that High Volume plan. Many workouts are cut short and there are frequent pedaling breaks within work intervals, and I’m seeing the same trend continuing this year. To me, this suggests a lower volume would probably be more productive and sustainable for you and would likely make you faster. Knowing this, I encourage you to build a custom plan this season and follow the recommendations. Your overall volume and amount of intensity will start a bit lower than you’ve attempted in the past, but it will be personalized to include what you’re able to productively handle, and I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised by the results. As the season progresses you can always add volume or even update your plan’s settings as your capabilities change.

Regarding the ability to copy and paste previous plan weeks, this was actually an unintentional omission, and adding it back is something we have on our list of planned updates to make in the coming weeks. I’ve moved this up our priority list in response to this thread.