I think I am missing your point - AT is personalised to each athlete, so much so that TR staff said it would be unlikely for people to be doing the same workouts. If you were referring to the new training plans being the same for everybody, the old plans were too no?
2 Likes
^This.
I presume this will ultimately be adjusted based on your progression levels, e.g., an almost fully customised plan. Just my conjecture however.
This was also my worry on first sight of the plans. However based on their huge workout library and data I think I have to trust TR. (for 1 block anyway…)
Could it be that just because you can manage 600TSS week after week that you should? Maybe less TSS increases FTP ramp rate?
I would like to see some very general data from TR surrounding this subect and the logc behind the plan change. (they haven’t just done it for fun)
1 Like
Are the polarized plans also under the 100 modified plans? As you mention “all” training plans?
Pretty sure POL was NOT changed, since they are still in the “Experimental” stage.
“All” as in all “official / standard” plans is how I take it.
I agree that I don’t think that the current plans alone (as they are) will give the same benefits as the old plans. I haven’t and won’t be swapping over to the new plan until AT is released.
I’m repeating pretty much an identical cycle to my previous one. So I know that I can get through those workouts. If I moved to the updated plans it would be a pretty significant step down. The new plans are just a base, I don’t think they’re that useful without AT to increase the progressions to an appropriate level for each individual.
Once AT kicks in the plans will update to an appropriate level for everyone. And then I would guess will give an improvement over the original plans. I wouldn’t think they’d need solely to experiment on us (though I’m sure they will 
). They have data from members from before the beta opened, plus the data from the beta itself (which should be enough for at least one cycle for many users).
Why the push to get sign up to the new plans otherwise? Getting everyone onto the plans, plus getting everyone onto AT is surely twice the workload (and complexity) if it’s simultaneous. When the beta was announced the site crashed just from the rush to sign on 
.
1 Like
Does anyone in the AT beta have a “rough” idea of what an achievable/breakthrough/etc. workout is, numerically speaking?
For sure. I’d be very surprised if they could flesh that out.
The fact of the matter is that while there is a likely average rate everyone sits pretty close to, the starting fitness in each individual system is highly individual. So having everyone start at a hard coded workout level is not a great idea.
I really wanted to see workout levels to plan out my own rates. Now I don’t need to do that, but I likely need to adjust every workout to scale it to a productive workout level. It’s just really hard to tell for sure what that is.
I’ll adjust. Just frustrating to have to spend time on it after coming to a decent steady state understanding already.
Hopefully very soon we get a static version of AT that uses these static ramps rates with technology used in TrainNow that will initialize levels of each system for each user. That’s what I’m going to do by hand at least.
It’s at least partly dependent on your current Progression Level, for a given level.
Let’s looks at my VO2 Max since it is mid-range and 4.3 currently:
Achievable: Ranges from 1.0 to 4.3 (Current PL)
Productive: Ranges from 4.3 to 5.3
Stretch: Ranges from 5.3 to 6.8
Breakthrough: Ranges from 6.8 to 8.8
That may give some frame of reference, but I would be cautious about pushing that too far. It may well have different relative ranges for other progression levels and/or values of PL.
4 Likes
Ah, heartbreaking. I’m trying to stick to a structured-ish plan while racing 1-2x a week. Guess it’s continuing to wing it based on feel for me and mine.
Depends if ‘2 hours’ is also ‘about an hour’ or not 
2 Likes
Now that we all have the workout levels, will we get to see what progression levels each of the plans is optimizing for? Or is that visible only to athletes on AT beta?
Do we have any idea as to when Progression Levels will made public?
There is a lot of “AT will adjust the new plans as needed” and “You may need to tinker it with the new plans to make them a better fit” Having access to the Progression levels would at least give us some educated information as to how better tinker which in itself seems problematic
2 Likes
I would also like to have access to the legacy plans.
Most of the workouts in the old training plans have instructions on them, which I find really motivating. Most of the workouts on the new plan do not.
Also, sweet spot HV 2 no longer has 2 hours work-outs mid week. I miss the structure of the old general build HV.
I am excited about ML, but I still want to have access to the old plans.
7 Likes
So you don’t want access to the old plans, you want plans that have workout text on them.
Many of us on this thread have requested access the Legacy Plans.
Puzzles me why anyone would question or object to that request.
3 Likes
If anyone here wants a “legacy plan”
and they’re doing a similar plan to what you’ve done in the past. You can Always go back on your calendar and see all the workouts that you have done for that plan. Well. -as long as you went through the whole plan!
Sweet spot base one and two pretty much everyone has done, I’d imagine. that’s what I would do.
3 Likes
Too much work for what it worth.
Although i dont care about the old plans, I can see how some people might still like the old stuff better than the new… I think legacy plans should still be a thing… not everyone want use the AT on their training…
2 Likes
Because the way the request is phrased is basically demanding that they cease improving their product. They believe that the new plans will give better results than the old plans. You giving feedback of ‘I think it falls short in this specific way’ allows them to adjust and solve your problem.
You saying ‘I want the old thing and will be angry if you ever touch it’ puts them in an impossible position. Why would they present a plan that they ‘know’ is worse than an alternative? How do they communicate that to the user?
‘The new workouts don’t have coaching text’. Cool, they can prioritize getting text into those workouts. ‘The new plans don’t have enough x’. Cool, they can build a system to adjust it to fit that demand. ‘The product is different’. Not cool, if they consider that valid feedback then they would need to fire all their developers and give up the market to the first people that improve beyond where they were yesterday.
8 Likes