In part we have this with the alternates function.
I guess the challenge for TR here is that the progression logic (ramp rate etc) is tied to the pre defined plans and not a flexible generic day by day logic. This is also eminent in plan builder putting plans together (and in some edge cases leading to suboptimal results).
So with TR you lose a bit flexibility but you are put in a solid progression and can use alternates to change duration (while keeping the progression intent like “productive” etc).
I’m pretty sure TR will evolve like this:
- offer time flexibility by weekday when setting up a plan and then automatically/internally just use the alternates function to match the user defined duration of each workout.
You’d think that would be pretty easy and quick to implement and I think that’s on the roadmap (based on some old comments of Nate). - skip the dependency on pre defined plans and use a more general, dynamic day by day progression and ramp rate approach
Does that speculation seem valid @Nate_Pearson @Jonathan ?
The problem with too much flexibility might be (take that as a personal anecdote) to prefer volume whenever possible (time slots available) over linear continuous progression.
Obviously both are important but if only one criteria can be met in some situations then which to prefer over the other…? Seems individual and not easy to pick.