10 has been set as a “You can raise your FTP if you can do a 10” or “It’s time to work on something else in the case of a level 10 SS/tempo/endurance workout”.
So you could of course have a workout that is higher than 10, but you don’t really need to do those.
I had a similar observation. I have just compared the training plan I have completed (SSB HV, SusPB HV and spec) and they seem quite a bit easier in the new plans than the old?
Having had 100% compliance rate I am concerned to do the same plans next year if they have become easier (less hard!). Although will AT be able to spot this and adjust future workouts if this is the case?
I get all the concerns and don’t mean to diminish them, but it really says a lot about what an odd bunch we cyclists are that our first concern is “these aren’t hard enough”. 
We like our pain!
You’re smart! You’ve outlined part of the framework of these plans, actually. 
Each plan has unique objectives for differing Zones and Workout Profiles, and are prioritized appropriately. This is accomplished with adjusted start levels, progression rates, reset rates, etc.
I think the key here is that if you assess and follow these plans, these plans have improved progression and more specific outcomes will be reached.
Once you layer in AT, then it adds the layer of specificity that will really raise the bar, but these plans are a measurable improvement without AT as well.
I fear the same here. Seems to be quite a drop in the difficulty of the plans, which concerns me for next year.
Once again, harder is not better. I am confident you’ll have better performance with these new plans.
Thanks. I am excited by AT and the almost gamification of being able to ‘level up’ although do struggle to comprehend how it will be better when the harder workouts resulted in 100% compliance this year. Hmmm
One point that bears mentioning is the intent with recreating these plans.
If the goal was to make the plans easier, we could have just whipped out a whole plan of Baxters real quick 
The goal was not to make the plans easier or to make them harder. It was to analyze data about completion rates, difficulty, productivity, and do so at a really high resolution so we could create data-driven plans that increase the odds of making all of us athletes faster.
Another point on that: Just completing a workout doesn’t mean you get all of the intended benefit. We’ve talked about this commonly on the forum and podcast, but do the same plan with more sleep, better nutrition and lower life stress (ultimately better recovery and less stress) and you will likely get better adaptations from that work.
These plans are designed with that context in mind – not just looking at individual workouts, but how to set athletes up to get the most improvement.
So I bet 100% on the new plans will get you even further than before.
Personally I think they’re fantastic and with AT (when I get it) will be excellent for this 56 year old as I get older and continue training with TR - Thanks TR team.
If you’re doing them next year, then you’ll have AT and they will automatically get harder for you.
If you’re doing them right now and you’re not on AT beta, then you can jump ahead in levels for the same workout progression. IE if it is a level 6 threshold over-under workout, try doing a 7 or 8.
But as Jon said, harder != better. Having a little more aggressive recovery and progressive system might actually make you in a better super compensation phase and you end up being faster.
Thanks! - I knew you had to be normalizing the range based on something.
It’s arbitrary though.
Ie for threshold we do 60 mins at threshold at level 10. You most likely don’t need to try to extend that any further and you’ll get more benefit from raising your FTP and increasing the wattage.
“but you don’t really need to do those”
It seems this could go two ways.
“But my ego says I have to bag them”
or
“Thank @#%$ for that!”
Maybe ‘subjective’ is a better description than arbitrary - there is reasoning behind how hard a ‘10’ is for each category/energy system. (I’m assuming a 1-hour interval is not a 10 for all energy systems - that would be arbitrary.)
I think for threshold (and above) the limits are more readily apparent - 2 hours at 102% of FTP is likely not humanly possible for correctly set FTP. It might be useful to flag workouts that are completed but that should not be possible and suggest the user update their FTP For efforts below FTP I think the ‘humanly possible’ limits are likely more squishy.
I think normalizing things like you have done makes the levels intuitively useful - things that are close to 10 either don’t need work or my FTP needs updating. (or at least that’s my take-away of how to think about them.)
You need a hot key or AI generated auto response with this quote for quite a few posts in this thread and many more to come I am sure
That’s a lot of damage!
For some reason I can’t currently access my calendar on web. It loads for a while, but ends up on the error page “Ouch! We’ve taken a nasty spill!”…
Maybe some timeout on load or something like that?
Anyone else having this issue?
