TL;DR: Custom Training Plans’ planning output varies by window length — shorter windows (1-2 months) lead me to consecutive Build phases, while longer ones (3+ months) follow the Base, Build, Specialty cycle. That raises questions about its optimization. I’d also like CTP to adapt outside of the B, B, S cycle when it better suits training goals, especially as a newer cyclist focused on building FTP without need for specialization.
–
Aside from the bug I mentioned in a previous post above, I’ve been testing plans with different durations. There’s a big change in how Custom Training Plans (CTP) directs training based on how long I ask it to plan ahead. If I keep planning for one or two months at a time, I end up with more back-to-back build phases. But if I plan for three months or more, I’m on the Base, Build, Specialty cycle.
To give some context, I’m currently completing a Build phase. Using the one and two month planning windows with CTP, I get more Build. If I give it three months, I get Base next. I don’t know enough about planning to know the best approach, but it seems like there are some big differences between the Base, Build, Specialty structure and the two different recommendations depending on how long I plan for. This makes it hard to say how CTP’s optimization is working overall.
Since I’m avoiding Specialty right now, I can use this to my advantage and plan in a way that works for me. But I’m curious about if the length of the planning window should be affecting the planning approach, and why it affects CTP’s optimization of the next steps in the training plan.
I’ve read that there will be some new functionality where AT will check in on training volume each month, and CTP will look at what the previous phasing was and keep going from there. Those two things sound like they might help address this - and ideally, we’d see the month-to-month vs. 3-month plus planning outputs converge. Will they?
Also, will CTP always adhere to the Base, Build, Specialty training cycles? I’ve heard and read on the forum and podcast that for someone starting out with cycling (like me) who’s not training for an event and is mainly focused on improving fitness and FTP, cycles of just Base & Build might be more useful. Will CTP be able to recognize that and adjust accordingly, or should I be building a plan manually?
As a new cyclist who’s getting a lot out structured training, this update is exactly what I hope for. I like to know that my training is being analyzed and the suggested plan ahead is tailored to my goals based on my commitment level (availability and training intensity). I’d also appreciate it if CTP/AT could explain why the choices and adaptations are being made so I can learn and trust that the optimization is happening in the way that aligns best with my intentions. I’m excited about any progress TR makes in this direction. Thanks for building something that feels like a great step forward. JT