I know this topic has been hashed out before i.e. ‘Adaptive Training will take care of it’, but in my specific situation I don’t see the logic, here’s my current calendar scenario of where my plan is at:
I have played around with adding/removing the 2 weeks time off in the calendar and all that happens is the workouts during the 2 weeks are deleted and one workout in the final/taper week is modified slightly.
My thinking is that it would be more beneficial to have a 3rd week of build and push everything by a week, I would still have the 3 weeks of speciaIty, then the 2 weeks off. I just don’t see the benefit of a recovery week immediately before 2 weeks off the bike.
I’m tempted to just manually ‘push’ everything by a week and add a 3rd week of build.
Yeah, adjust to make it more reasonable. Planbuilder and AT are good to get a basic structure in place, but it’s not a replacement for laying out a logical training progression when it’s not a simple run-in to an event. That current calendar you show is a great example, it would have you doing no real work (except your taper week) for almost a month leading into your event. I would restructure it to be in a pretty big hole going into that 2 week vacation. Besides nixing the rest week prior to vacation, I’d ramp up volume more than the plan dictates those last couple weeks of specialty (keep the suggested workouts, but layer on additional Z2 time). Normally, you wouldn’t want to be pushing your progression hard that close to an event, but that’s how I’d play it with 2 weeks off the bike to absorb it. All that said, this stuff is very individual. But don’t think that Planbuilder/AT is working some magic in the background with AI to determine that you need a rest week before your 2 weeks of vacation.
Thanks for the reply, it echos my thoughts. I like the idea of the volume ramp up prior to 2 weeks off.
I’m on a low volume plan and will probably have a work shutdown the 2 weeks prior to the vacation, so plenty of time for some extra hours of Z2
