As mentioned on AACC pod episode 361 @ time 22:05, I might suggest the following three plan designations:
Intermediate Low
Intermediate Mid
Advanced High
Low, Mid volume plans would share an “Intermediate” designation, allowing the individual to feel that each are adequate plans, regardless of Low/Mid classification. High volume plan would receive an “Advanced” designation, which would be a mental queue that this plan is aimed at those individuals who have both significant time to contribute as well as the fitness to handle the load.
I don’t think that would get away from the problem that people see selecting a plan with ‘low’ in the name as too easy, or too light, which is what currently happens, from what they said.
This reminds me of a discussion I once had with a senior business leader. We had an enhancement list of about 30 items. He marked 20 of them High priority, 8 Medium, and 2 Low. I told him we needed to know what was truly High priority in the short term so we could use the list to direct our limited resources and prioritize delivery. He said all 20 were still High priority. I then asked for more money, which was rejected. We then went to a list where we designated:
High-High
High-Medium
High-Low
Medium
Low
Is it? I thought the key difference was HOURS per week. I don’t know what exactly the number are, but maybe the hours expressed as a range would work. 4-7, 6-9, 9-12?
i just looked it up and for SS base it’s (averages)
3.4 hrs per week
5.9 hrs per week
8.65 hrs per week
I feel like hours is more informative
Sure, in the final nuts & bolts, time gets added. Usually 60-90 min workouts in the week, with 90-whatever on the weekend. So the simple days I had, multiplied by the rough workout times in the defaults all add up. I chose just Days to keep it simple. But as ever, the “best” answer is probably both.
Adding for reference, this info is right on the traditional plan options (ad hoc addtion):
Plan Builder takes a different approach and doesn’t show it the same way.
If we head down this rabbit hole, we end up quickly at what most people want and asked for, and what Nate acknowledged he wants too. That is to allow people to set the individual days AND allowable time for each of those days to more accurately meet their true needs. Right now, people have to adjust using the Alternates to find workouts with longer or shorter versions to suit their needs.
As we’ve talked about, I think something of a table that allows the same controls we have in Plan Builder, with the addition of time allowance per day, would be ideal overall. This may be possible to adapt to ad hoc plan addition or TR might do something else entirely. Here is just a rough concept I came up with thinking about this right now.
The screenshot of what Nate shared a while ago about the time per day to go is something that I have been looking forward to since seeing it. That would be awesome to have that type of control over scheduling.
This is awesome. I especially like your last row - prefer endurance over sweet spot. That would be huge. Not sure how hard or feasible it really is though.
The current issue is the plans equate volume and maturity and ability to recover. And most plans (there are exceptions) treat endurance work as filler or an afterthought rather than the foundation to support more intensity (one of several endurance training benefits). If I have 8-10 hours the current plan names equate that to “high volume” comprised of 4 days/week of intervals and some token endurance. My way of thinking is to specify the number of interval days, total and daily hours available because Mon-Fri is often time limited, and then AT will take care of maturity/fitness. Just off the cuff.
Yeah, I got started adding an “Intensity” row that would be aimed in a way I think you mean. Potentially set a High/Low toggle for each day. In a way, that might be leveraged not only to align the default plan intentions to the appropriate days for the athlete, but might also refine the actual plan selection.
Someone picking 2 High days could get a different plan than one with 3 or 4 and so on.
I like this idea. For me, I would like to be able to clarify how many structured days of training I would like per week. I almost always ride five days per week. I only want prescribed workouts for two or three of those.
That is essentially my goal between the “Train Inside”, “Train Outside”, and “Group Ride” options. It is likely better that I change “Group Ride” to a more generic “Free Ride” or other title meaning it’s option to athlete preference (Unstructured could work too).
True. I included the difference as a way to capture that option which is part of the current Plan Builder process (choosing default of In or Out for a given day).
I reviewed the entire workflow and am hitting far more in my proposal than the simple “Volume” question. To a degree, I am seeing if this can be a one stop shop for the setup process to pick a plan.
Descriptions:
Standard: recommended for athletes that aim for 3 structured workouts per week. 2 week workouts and 1 longer weekend workout. Additional workouts can be added using TrainNow.
Advanced: recommended for athletes that aim for 5 structured workouts per week. 3 week workouts and 2 longer weekend workouts.
Elite: recommended for elite athletes that aim for 6 structured workouts per week. 4 week workouts and 2 longer weekend workouts.
Obviously my descriptions are not the best, but I think they convey the main idea.
