My key takeaway from Jack Daniels’ “Running Formula” book:
“Understand why you’re doing what you’re doing.” Only when a firm grasp of these concepts is achieved can the runner get the most out of their training.
Same goes for cooking. Until you understand why you’re doing what you’re doing in a recipe, you will remain a slave to the recipes. Only when a firm grasp of the concepts is achieved can the cook get the most out of the kitchen.
That’s funny… he coached the marathoners on the post collegiate team I was on. His training plans were literally following the “recipe” (aka running formula).
The plan / formula was built specifically to hit a time standard. There were not many races building up to your race. Maybe a 10k on the track and a half marathon. Maybe.
No modifications for time constraints… you were trying to hit the Olympic standard and practice was at a specific time. You were on a sponsored team, if you couldn’t make practice you weren’t on the team.
The “formula” did not take injuries into consideration. If you got hurt you took care of it. If you were one of the top guys (Olympian/World Champ level) there was more modification and individualized coaching. For the B group you just were happy to be there.
You recovered on days labeled “training runs.” There were no scheduled days off during the season. If you needed a day off you would do it on a Sunday when the team did not meet up. (Long runs were Saturday). There were not many days off in the sense of not doing something.
Modifications did occur on the day. I can remember one workout where I was struggling with 8 x 1k repeat @ 2:45 with a 200 jog recovery, I was tired. We changed it to 400’s… still felt crappy so cut the workout. Did a cool down and went home.
All this is to say it was likely a different experience for the full time / pro runners. I was a “B” team guy (second tier and working a full time job). I am thankful for the experience as it showed me that there are no “secret workouts” or formula. The magic was in the training group… 60-ish people all dedicated to being better. Those who survived got really fast.
Got a real job. Met a girl. Bought a mountain bike. 
People attacking the metaphor are the protagonist in the metaphor.
“Oh my god, man. You’re using canned tomatoes? Don’t even get me started on the premade noodles. Real chefs know how to make their own fresh pasta from decades of experimentation and family tradition, not some time-crunched Ina Garten recipe. Here, watch this YouTube video.”
“whatever, dude. The kids are screaming because they wanted spaghetti, and this is what I had.”
It probably belonged in the jokes and memes thread.
I thought it was quite a good analogy in so far as you do see an awful lot of people complaining about their training plan (not just TR) and then you find they actually haven’t followed half the plan anyway. I think people on here are reading way too much into it… But that’s what internet forums are for I guess.
Some of us just want to eat good food and not be a chef 
I can’t believe this caused such a debate. If you don’t follow a recipe you can’t complain it is a bad recipe. If you don’t follow a training plan you can’t complain it is a bad training plan. This is the basis of how reviews work. If you don’t follow instructions or finish something as intended, your review is baseless. Full stop.
If you are an expert and can make better recipes, that is a different discussion. Whether the recipe is right for you is completely different discussion. Whether the recipe is a good baseline to start from and make some changes to fit your preferences is a different discussion. Whether it is a recipe for beginners, experts, or other is a different discussion.
This argument seems to be that if a TR plan only works for 1 person, then it is a good training plan…for 1 person. I agree that’s true, but I think ignoring the fact TR told every other person who was on it that it was the right plan for them…when it wasn’t…is kind of missing the point.
This is like when there were lots of people saying “the Polarized Plan isn’t really a Polarized plan and therefore it doesn’t work for someone who wants to do Polarized”…and the reply was “if you didn’t go through the entire plan, how can you say it’s not a good Polarized plan and we are choosing to ignore all this feedback until you complete the plan”.
This thread is making me hungry… haha!
That is not what I intended to argue at all. The OP was about the validity of reviews. A proper review should have the intended audience/user in mind. One should also have used the item as intended for the review to be valid. I don’t think that’s controversial.
To be a bit ridiculous, imagine reviewing a children’s book without the context of who the intended audience is. “There was too much rhyming, and the ending was too predictable. 1 star”
Got ya. To me, it read more like “if you started the book, but didn’t finish it because it said it was for 2nd grade readers but was aimed at a 6th grade reading level, then your feedback that it was a bad book for your reading level is baseless”.
FWW then I believe you can’t have it both ways. A plan can only be “tested” to the extent you follow the plan exactly. Doing low volume plans and riding 10-15 hours a week doesn’t allow someone to claim the plan is either:
Right?
For example if somebody claims the LV plans work, but they are averaging 12 hours/week, it also means the review is baseless. Right? Just like the opposite outcome of claiming LV plans don’t work, and they are averaging 12 hours/week.
Either outcome, not following the plan is not following the plan.
Any plan, not just TR. I hired a coach to help with making adjustments on the fly. Which means some weeks I followed the plan, and other weeks I didn’t. Forcing him to adapt downstream workouts and ask me to accommodate his requests. A bit of quid pro quo. Learned a lot. And yet over 3 years we continuously increased my vo2max and FTP and actual performance on the bike. So my conclusion (right or wrong) is that for myself, plans are overrated, and like I’ve heard on various podcasts, consistency and volume are the major drivers for myself.
I think you’re taking that argument too far. The OP is clearly and pointedly about the people who blatantly change everything about the recipe, including in ways that are toxic and counterproductive, and then claim that the recipe and the chef who made it are both worthless and that no recipe is good unless it can stand up to the abuse this user heaped on it.
The OP is satire based on extremes. Anyone who takes it personally because they asked for help recently, or feels shitty about asking a “dumb” question, is totally missing the point and/or needs to lighten up. It’s one thing for a post not to be intentionally or substantially offensive (which I support), but it’s another to try to “tone down” anything that anyone might find offensive in any way, however ridiculous that might be. No hate speech… but also, some common sense and some reasonable interpretations when reading/listening are required for polite society too.
“I followed the recipe, but little did I know… it was a recipe for disaster.”
None of what you mention fits within the scope of the kind of user depicted in the article, and of course I wouldn’t criticize the users you are describing either! They are acting rationally and reasonably.
The article addresses the kind of user who knows nothing but has decided they’re now an expert, who would substitute raw chicken breast for sugar, and expired Vaseline for cocoa powder, and who says the recipe had better STILL turn out delicious, otherwise she’ll leave one-star reviews, hunt down the author and destroy their reputation. The ignorance, arrogance, and entitlement of that user are very extreme and NOT representative of most TR users (or most people).
I, too, would argue that I’ve encountered a handful of people like that on this forum… but just a handful. And they are not the people you are talking about. I may be wrong, but it looks to me like maybe you’ve sort of missed the essence of what the linked article is saying or whom it’s roasting.
Trolling actual users with legit questions? Again, you’re taking the argument too far, and/or reading too much into the OP’s comment. Still, that’s your prerogative. If you either have not understood my point yet, or do understand but still disagree with me, God bless you… but I see no benefit to anyone in pursuing this conversation further. You may wish to ask the OP what he/she meant or what they referred to if you like.
I’ve never seen a recipe that told me “why” for the amounts, or the process
You might wanna read everything Kenji Lopez-Alt wrote on Serious Eats or the “how to cook perfect XYZ” stuff from Felicity Cloaked on the Guardian, to give a few examples. Essentially a combination of deep-dives into the why, what, and how, and a step-by-step recipe.