Losing faith with new TR plans

I was included in the AT closed beta earlier this week. I want to add some more thoughts to my posts earlier.

New Plans vs TrainNow

Prior to being included into AT, TrainNow was giving me workouts with levels that were different to the New Plans. For example, I was getting Sweetspot Level 6-7 in TrainNow vs Level 4 in the new SSB MV plans. After letting AT adapt all my upcoming workouts, all of the sudden all sweetspot workouts in my plan were Level 6+. Therefore, I can tenatively confirm that TrainNow is not overchallenging you by prescribing higher level workouts. It’s actually using your real progression levels.

Are the New Plans under-training those without AT? Potentially, especially if you are already stronger than the prescribed level. This is what I feel is what a lot of people on this thread are experiencing. I was one of them so I can empathise.

The New Plans start at a progression level that TR has researched to be achievable by the majority of athletes. Yes, the New Plans need AT to become a complete product, however, that does not mean that the New Plans can’t be executed as they are now. In my opinion, if someone executed the New Plans to 100% compliance versus 70% compliance on the old plans, then that athlete is better off.

The solution? The temporary solution as mentioned earlier in the thread is to look at your TrainNow level and then pick a workout from the library of similar level which resembles that of the original workout you are trying to ‘manually adapt’. It sucks, yes for sure, but it’s only temporary.

TrainNow

I also want to point out that TrainNow is not just suggesting workouts that are ‘achievable’ which may have given the notion that TrainNow was good for maintenance. It’s actually suggesting workouts that are ‘productive’ so in essence it’s giving you workouts that may improve on your current progression levels. Maybe you could even use TrainNow in lieu of a plan?

1 Like

I don’t think it is confusion on my end. I’m still maintaining that the structure of these plans have been designed in anticipation of AT, i. e. these plans are the baseline from which AT adapts the plans to the athlete. And because they are the baseline, I think it is valid to say they have been designed for AT.

But it is these plans that AT is supposed to start with (as per the official TR statement that you quoted).

2 Likes

Not sure why this assumption that the new plans are gimped and only built for AT to adapt, persist.

TR have already said they’re made to be the best they can be without AT, and are meant to replace the old plans.

It also doesn’t make any sense to have plans that don’t work without adjustment.

Think about it, why create plans that will need adjusting rather than having the best plans possible? It seems like TR have looked at their ‘Bell Curve’ with the vast amounts of data that they hold, and have determined the best progression and difficulty levels for maximum gains.

Which makes more sense?
A) Have the best plans by default, and then AT can tweak UP or DOWN according to user’s survey data?

B) Have a nerfed plan, then have AT customise it mostly UP but also DOWN according to user’s survey data?

5 Likes

I have not lost faith in the new plans. I don’t yet have confidence in them and AT. That is an entirely different situation

I do wonder how large the slient community of “These plans are fine - I don’t find them too hard, and if they are hard I apply rule 5.” was? I was certainly a member. I used the LV and MV plans and added extra outside workouts. they worked for me.

The big recent piece for me was seeing how the old plans had roughly a progression of 0.4 to 0.5 in level of a workout from week to week. Mostly I did those. If I had a bad (did not hit the workout fully) session I would go back and repeat it a few days or a week later so I cracked it, and felt I could move on. If that pushed a week so be it.

The catch I have is that the new plans are plans, until AT changes them for you… Assuming AT applies, which means you have to have created your plan using plan Builder and not moved things around. That is very limiting, even when AT eventually gets wider release.

I am struggling to find a suitable plan for my events and race plans (Long Time Trials) and where I am. Plan Builder is not helping. So am resorting to picking a LV one from the Training plans and adding to that, as I have done in previous years.

I have a minor question: Why is Chad Timmerman so quiet recently? I trust him and his plan design. he seems to have taken a massive back step.

4 Likes

I remember hearing on the podcast or seeing on Instagram that Coach Chad had moved to Washington and that Nate had bought Coach Chad’s house for himself and that Coach Chad had a sweet man cave in what is now Nate’s house.

3 Likes

You didn’t hear it from from me but you can still access the old plans if you don’t mind digging through the bins…

For example SSB1 LV

Just roll your sleeves up and change up the last three digits of the URL.

14 Likes

?!

Some of them feels like flipping channels in time machine.

1 Like

Good old SSBMV2. Boy oh boy those were the days !!!

Lamarck you old son of a gun… and Mary Austin you cold hearted…

Look at that 8 min FTP test. Damn, I’m actually tearing up a bit here…

7 Likes

This is n-2 or n-3 or something. N-1 didn’t look like that.

The good news is, with a bit of url dredging, the “I want my old plans back” thing is closed. You can have your old plan, your old-old plan, and even your old-old-old plan back.

3 Likes

That was mid-volume?!? Wow, brutal.

I am loving the new plans! I’m 56 year old female training TT MV and I really like the new blend of endurance amongst the harder stuff. I sprinkle in outdoor rides and events as I feel.

1 Like

haven’t you answered your opening question???

A, with ungimped plans, as you’ve inferred is the best route for TR to follow, so it does not answer the question as to why people are assuming the plans are gimped.

So you’re not sure why the assumption persists that plans are built for AT, but the rest of the post is saying the plans need adjusting by AT :man_shrugging:

Well, you agreed that it makes the most sense for TR to have the best plan (and have AT tweak it), rather than a poor plan (and have AT tweak it), so does it not add up then that that is what TR would do?

brilliant :clap:

So I have something to add, and apologies if this has been mentioned, but it’s a long thread. I think we’re likely seeing a little bit of mismatch on workout levels in SOME cases that will take AT or some manual adjustment for a little bit as the whole workout library evolves. Here’s why I have that suspicion: these workout levels are put in place by a combination of user data and expected difficulty based on the intervals. Some of them haven’t really been tested as much in the grand scheme. With those workouts, the workout level could need adjustment as time goes on. I also think the relevance of the levels will be much more significant as AT is rolled out to everyone. I agree it can feel like it’s a weird and maybe suboptimal place to be with the product, but I do think the intention was, and still is, to get the product out and get it working on athletes. Of course there are some hurdles and imperfections, but I think they’ll smooth and improve pretty rapidly in the scheme of things. Speaking from experience as someone who overtrained more than once because I generally love the difficult training AND volume, I would much rather feel like I’m easily nailing everything than have the “I don’t know if I can keep doing this” thought creeping in weekly.

I think it’s also worth noting that just like in the gym, feeling blown up, sore, or otherwise devastated regularly is not necessarily the only indicator that you’re getting positive adaptations. The patient and longer, slower term bumps in fitness are often more lasting, more fun, and ultimately result in better performance over the long run than the 6 week pain fest and following crash (or even drop of fun and motivation) that a higher intensity plan or build/specialty blocks often bring.

1 Like

It’s the first TR plan I did. Was fun.

2 Likes

Whoa, this takes me back.

1 Like

I’m not saying that I agree with the intensity criticisms, just stating that the criticisms (both here and elsewhere with the DJ video and other online forums) was too many days of intensity in the MV/HV plans. The workouts themselves were tough but doable compared to others in the TR catalogue, and many had great results from following those plans.

Perhaps what would’ve been a better solution would’ve been to add an intensity breakout to each volume level- e.g. LV-low stress or LV high stress. The low stress could be the new plans introduced, and the high stress be the old plans (with maybe a couple tweaks in the workouts to not have such big jumps in progression level). Then AT could still work off giving shorter workouts/fewer intervals in low intensity plans, vs more in the high intensity iterations.

That doesn’t solve the lack of specificity in the build plans though- that is a big problem and probably why I will never use the new build plans even with AT (as someone who focuses on sustained power). The LV and MV SSB II plans are much better build plans than the actual build plans themselves!

4 Likes