- Good balance
- Serious grovelling
- What you know is right, but don’t want to admit.
- Maybe in your best of days… which probably ain’t now.
- Yeah, right! Who do you think you are fooling???
- Swing Low
- Sweet Chariot
- Swing High
Can I get a translation into English for these please ?
Low volume plus
Also low volume but a little extra
Double quarter pound cheeseburger
There’s some granularity in this. I like it.
Cheeseburger = Probably the responsible choice. Room to add whatever you like on the side. Underrated but classic.
Big mac = Bold move, but I guess you know what you’re doing. Will probably go to bed after this.
Triple cheesy bacon f*ck you burger = Tempting, but a rookie mistake. You’ll probably regret it even if you do finish it. Dave gets one every day, but he definitely doesn’t have a girlfriend.
- Nate Plan
- Jonathan Plan
- Keegan Plan
I think this is too rigid and I’d just go for a very different scheme:
Distinguish between beginner, intermediate and advanced. Beginners get the default suggestion of 2–3 workouts per week, etc. Users can then customize training times for each day (with the defaults at their current values). I’d personally like to up the time during the week to something like 1:15 or 1:30 at times, for example.
In principle, you should be able to schedule 5 1-hour workouts per week, for example, or 3 1:30 hour workouts. The training load might be similar, but for some athletes one scheme will be better than the other.
That last one should probably be Royale with Cheese for the international market.
Actually, if people burning out on Medium/High volumne plans is such a problem, why give everyone the choice?
Only let new users create a Standard/Low Volume plan and unlock Advanced/Medium or Pro/Fulltime/High plans after they’ve successfully completed a cycle or X weeks on Standard.
This would have a number of advantages… It’d stop us talking about the names, it’d add a bit of gamefication to tie in with a certain rumoured buyout (joking) and it’d create a huge social media storm that would have everyone talking about TrainerRoad (not joking)
You can already do this. I dont do 1 hour workouts. I am doing either a 1:15 or 1:30 by selecting alternate workouts.
But wouldn’t it be nice, that when you put the plan into your calender it was already defaulted to the amount that you were going to be doing, rather than having to go through 156 (3 TR workouts per week, per year) changing them from what you weren’t going to do, to what you were
I know. But I am talking about building plans that make this the default duration AT should aim for.
To give you one example, my plans are shifted by one day, because I found it best to have one day on the weekend just for the family. On the other hand, my Sunday —> Saturday workouts are long endurance rides (think 3 hours). I’d like to make that the default and currently can’t. On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind spending 1:15 minutes on the bike during the week rather than 1:00 hours.
I’m quitting TR if these plan names aren’t implemented.
I don’t think the problem is in the word “low” but actually in the mentality that less than anything less than 5 days is going to be insufficient.
I’m not sure if I’m the exception or the norm but I know I’m not terribly unique. Before starting a TR plan, I was just riding 5 days a week. I like training so doing less had no appeal to me. But eventually I realized that I needed a Low Volume plan bc I personally couldn’t keep up the intensity and still do 5 days. So IMO, the way to address the problem is to address the stigma.
Step 1: Explain in the Plan Builder that the plans “replace volume with intensity” and they “help the rider go harder on the hard days by providing more recovery.” etc.
Step 2: Add an exploratory phase (a pre-base) of 2 weeks. Similar to how riders test for FTP before beginning their plan, throw in 2 weeks of pre-base where riders just temporarily begin with 3 rides per week. Any rider who feels like the plan is kicking their ass the right amount clicks a button which fills out the base phase using 3/wk. Any rider who thinks “Thank you, sir. May I have another.” after pre-base, clicks a different button and gets Base filled out with 5/wk.
Tagging @Nate_Pearson since this is tucked away and might get missed.
I think they’re looking to be able to properly convey the volume and or intensity within each plan path using a word or few words rather than a long description as some people are currently making assumptions based on the current plan names. Especially confusing low with easy
So what you’re suggesting, IMO, makes it a larger learning experience for users
I know that’s their assumption but I’m questioning it. I think the actual problem might be a rider sees “Low Volume”, thinks “what’s that?” see’s that it’s 3 days and thinks “That won’t be enough”
I may be off base, but I think the better way to go is to convince/show new riders how hard a 3 plan can be and get them to buy-in with a brief intro before the real work begins.
Just thinking through the structure and how someone views the setup, but it may be a good idea to have someone check off sports (e.g., running and cycling) they want built into a plan, number of activities for each sport (e.g., 3 run and 4 bike), and then select a training classification/volume (e.g., standard=low, advanced=moderate, elite=high). The plan builder would then produce a recommendation for training.
The above may be a bit complex right now considering you’re asking a program to plan out a training program, but it could start with this process for cycling. One of the biggest complaints I’ve heard from friends is the lack of ability to incorporate more days into a plan and having to insert themselves. Next, is the inability to build out a cross training plan for the schedule which puts all the pressure on the athlete to determine how best to manage lifting, running, etc. Without burning themselves out. From a multi sport perspective, the current low volume plan is all intensity which limits the incorporation of intensity for other sports without altering every week’s plan and thereby limits the benefits of a plan.