https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18737-6
The study from big data of runners, and surprise surprise - bigger volume = lower intensity = better performance.
I agree, if they called for 8 hours of z2 60% I would comply 100%, just want to be the best me I can be. If they dial in 8 hours of 90%, I will comply also.
Yeah, hard to run a decent marathon without putting in enough miles.
Of course, you don’t need to rely on “big data” to come to that conclusion.
I think more than anything what this paper demonstrates is why Nature is referred to as a “boutique journal.”
I haven’t had the time to read the whole thing but would be appreciated if you could point be to the relevant page. As far as the conclusion goes it’s not only volume. It also doesn’t state the more the better. 
„Correlations between performance indices and training volume and intensity are quantified, pointing to an optimal training“
I think @JDMBPR88 asked, because he likely did not know how to access the “Advanced Plan Builder”. I am wondering the same thing. Could you tell us how you got that interface in the Plan Builder? When I select Plan Builder, I do not see a way to circumvent the designed plans from TR.
I think this is a beta feature. MacOS
I have created it myself as visual solution that will solve many of the problems in TR customization. It is not a part of any of TR app and probably will never be. It is only concept that shows general idea that will prevent discussion like here.
11 Likes
. I wish TR would further delineate its users and plan recommendations based on other factors, ie:
-
I’m super competitive, compliance is not an issue and I want the best long term training plan. Make me a stud!
-
I’m here to gain fitness and/or loose weight, I race occasionally, I need an all around type of plan.
-
I struggle with compliance, tend to dabble in other training that peaks my interest, give me a plan that keeps me engaged week over week.
Obviously there are more/better ways to sus this out, but it would be a step in the right direction for TR. Dropping users into their current large basket recommendeds through Plan Builder is too vague.
Yeah but if D.Bishop approves it means that is worth at least reading (my noobish approach).
What I like most is that there is absolutely no reaction from TR side. That’s really cool and shows again that they really focus on what’s important. Kudos!
You think Nate or Chad knows you better than you know yourself? Follow the prescribed plan, if it gives you the desired outcome, great, if not, another off-the-shelf plan probably won’t either unless it addresses the changes needed for your individual requirements for success. I think the plans offer a place to start, but as we delve further into our own training experiences, the hope (I would think) would be to learn what works and what doesn’t for you.
That’s the paradox of the TR ecosystem; they’re simultaneously giving us amazing information via the podcasts to use to help guide us towards our own success, and also heavily marketing plan builder. It’s a tough nut to crack, to be sure, but it’s something certainly worthy of criticism.
Without repeating other sentiments here too much I want to mention that I’ve gotten exponentially more out of the TR experience than I have out of Dylan’s quick fire videos. That said, if you take away his less-than-amazing marketing style (it’s click bait) he does have something of value to add. I still take issue with some of the users here who have taking to smearing him personally.
This sounds like a good idea, but realistically anyone signing up for a program isn’t going to have enough self-awareness to correctly put themselves in the right “motivation level bucket”. Most cyclists are pretty type A, and will almost always select the “I’m super competitive” option as soon as they see it.
There’s been ideas flying around about AI training coming to TR eventually - a good use of AI in my opinion would be to determine future plans based on compliance to previously completed plans, and customize future plan options based on those findings.
Train whatever system you’re training as hard as you can, as often as you can sustainably. If you’re working FTP, you’ll probably fall into PYR. If you’re focusing on VO2 max, you’ll probably fall into POL.
Train agile, don’t follow dogma.
Let’s turn this into a why-intervals.icu-is-an-awesome-tool thread 
This has to be a record…1250 posts in 2 days
Obviously i haven’t read it all.
Good job Dylan on wielding interwebs powers
It’s going to come out that DJ’s on the TR payroll as a professional “heel.”
So, anyone checked out the sweet spot progression thread lately? 
- Why did you fire your coach?
- Wow that are some impressive numbers. Are you still at 95 kg?
Do you watch / listen to the TR podcast? They have said the same thing multiple times. While the presentation is different they are both trying to appeal to an audience with a huge range in their understanding of training concepts, research literature, etc. I listen to podcasts / videos from as many trainers and coaches as I can and then figure out what makes sense for me and my situation. I’ve found his content useful for that, and at least gets me to think about my current approach and not be stuck in ‘training dogma.’
Anyway, I have no dog in this fight. Have a great day.