Thanks for the response. Not entirely true, though (IMO, of course).
Experience not always comes with the age, I’m sure that there are older trainers with less experience and in such case the comments would be “he lacks experience”, no comment would have been made regarding his age.
I’m following the mid volume plan, and I am at the end of the build block, I’m training with a friend of mine. We are 56 and 58, and very experienced and used to high intensity training. I definitively think that there is too much intensity in the build block. I could cope with all this intensity only “downgrading” every workout to the “-1” version, and still feel very fatigued at the end of the block. My friend burned out and his FTP dropped from 220 to 208 and he had to take several days off.
In spite of that, my progression was not too bad, as my FTP increased from 230 to 241 at the end of the first SS block, from 241 to 246 at the end of the first build block . Now at the end of the second block I have to perform the test yet, but I think I’m gaining some watts, not much, around 3-5. My FTP would be more or less the same as the past year, but now obtained training 25% less.
Other criticisms in the plan in my opinion:
Now I have a question to people who already faced the “Specialty” phase: workouts seems hard but volume is decreasing, how to prevent excessive fatigue? More recovery weeks? (2:1 ratio instead of 3:1).
Substituting some workouts whit less stressful ones? Choosing -1 version?
Thank you and… greetings from Italy!
Mario
Bit off topic but Grazie! - It helps with the quarter life crisis. 
So I guess you don’t use zwift?
A few days ago I was quite excited about listening to Thursdays podcast and I looked up the time to maybe even watch it live on YouTube.
Now I think to myself, is it really such an event. TR is what it is - they are not likely to re-invent the wheel. They will probably do a good job of explaining where they are coming from and maybe critique DJ at the same time.
However not much will really change, and I don’t think it should.
The only outcomes I want to see longer term is reference made to Masters plans and a possible polarised training plan, although as many have pointed out , it is not that difficult to take a LV plan and add Seiler Z1 work to it.
At the moment I’m doing my own Masters plan.
SSLV, but only 2x SS and fill the rest of the week or whenever possible with one hour endurance rides. Saturday and/or Sunday a 1.5 hour endurance ride.
I figured out that doing 3x SS (basically every other day) was to much for me.
At the moment, I’m enjoying my “Masters Plan” and are getting better every week.
Agreed. To be honest don’t understand a lot of the fuss. If want a polarised plan then just do the tues/Thurs rides from LV plan and add in as much z2/endurance work as wish/time allows. Would take 2 mins on calender.
Exactly…
Downloaded the free trial, couldn’t get it set up, free trial expired. Made it this far into a pandemic and winter from hell and still haven’t found a good reason to try again. 
Maybe if I had a smart trainer that could increase resistance I’d feel better paying for a third subscription to ride digital hills.
Thanks for clarifying. I wasn’t sure if you were a fan from the last two posts
Any study more recent than the seventies??
Haha, opposite for me, I find VO2 easy and sweet spot hard!
Hi, what is a masters plan? Im 56 and just do HV plans. Worked for me in recent years until hurting my knee at work. All good now and back on HV and loving it!
I’m a latecomer to this thread but it did validate what I’ve said in numerous threads previously, there is too much intensity across a 6 month TrainerRoad program (SSB, Build, Speciality).
Many have said the data will back TR’s success, but the data will also so there are quite a few who don’t finish the entire program, and in many cases don’t even finish a part of the program, again, by program I mean SSB, Base, Specialty. I’ve maintained my TR sub because I’m grandfathered in at the original price, but I realize now, I haven’t done an entire 6-8 week plan in a few years, and everything about the plan is at odds with what a coach would prescribe, especially so far from my A & B events.
I’m sure my comments are nothing new in this thread, but after finally watching Dylan’s video I can say with confidence that I agree 100%.
And, I’m still a TR subscriber for the time being.
EDIT: I’ll add this… I’ve been looking at 12-18 week plans on TrainingPeaks, for $50-60 I can get a 12-18 week plan based on the two disciplines I race per year, Cyclocross and XCO (I don’t do any specific training for road races or crits), that’s 24-36 weeks of specialty training per year that aligns to my A-events. All this time I’ve been paying TR $100 year and not using it, and while the plans are somewhat tailored to an event type, they’re not specific to me, my goals, or a mixture of training types.
There is a debatable fact that when you cite any scientific paper, it doesn’t mean the paper itself is flawless or is presenting the absolutely true. Especially these studies mostly done by small size of atheletes, if this is the COVID vaccine trial, this is not going to prove anything, human body is very complicated and everyone is different. I am not saying there is no value from these studies, but it is more for reference, you got to try it out yourself ( in this case you can do both training in a period of time) and find out which way is doing better for you. Just like other say, there is no black and white, but the research gives you a chance to look into different training approaches and show you something might be working better or worst for your body! I don’t like what Dylan Johnson always presenting these studies to pretend his point is right that kind of attitude.
Legend 
No, like I said, more recent investigators seem to have become afraid of pushing subjects so hard.
Not sure what you mean by low T but if your talking about Testosterone, my prostrate cancer is not effecting it. Thanks for your concerns!
I just watched Dylan’s video last night and all of his points are valid. We all know by know that most of the TR plans are too intensity focused, but like many have said it makes indoor riding more doable, higher TSS/hr, the list goes on. I am mainly a MTBer and half the guys I ride with just go out 5 days a week for 1-2 hours and hammer. Its basically 6 month of intervals, lol.
I think the SSB MV and HV plans could be miles better if they just replaced the sunday rides with a longer lower intensity ride and in general back down on the intensity. Looking at many others TR SS rides including myself, combined with the ramp test putting users FTP’s a bit higher than other tests makes for many of the 10-20min SS intervals more of a threshold effort. Multiple threshold efforts back to back in a week are not productive.
I really like the way FasCats does sweet spot, the intervals are generally just a few % easier than TR, but longer. Combining that with a descending stress model during the week seemed to work good for me a season back. They start with say a 4x10 SS one day, then the following day is tempo, then the third is zone 1. Then a rest day and repeat sort of.
Anyone here have good luck with a FasCats plan?
We don’t have a consensus on that. Some think the plans are too intense and they are quite vocal about it. Ditto for some (eg 
) who have great success with the plans as is. Many even add to it and others again follow them as prescribed.
For what it’s worth, I rather have a too intense plan with a proper progression which I can tone down by replacing one workout rather than a too easy plan where I have to figure the progression out for myself. 