There are definitely issues with the new levels on some workouts, particularly workouts that target multiple zones. North Pack looks like a prime example here, only two of the intervals are actually Sweat Spot, the two Tempo intervals are artificially inflating the level here. This is a poor example of a 9.5, I wouldn’t judge the new plans on this.
Checkout something like Ghost for a more accurate example of a high level Sweet Spot workout. You’d spend a total of 89 minutes at 91-93%
I am not sure if I should be worried or happy that the new plan is feeling harder for me than before (Triathlon mid distance base)…
With all the modifications you have to make, where on the spectrum do you think you sit between 1 - complete use of plan as proscribed <-> 10 - complete home rolled plan? 5ish?
I stopped using TR plans after a while ago because of the lack of progression in some of the workouts. At some point 10-12min sweet spot intervals aren’t providing enough stimulus and I was looking for more challenging progression (amongst other reasons.)
I am so confused on where folks are getting this idea from. I did not hear them talk about this on the podcast - did I miss it?
They talked about the progressions being smoother and not jumping from a 4.x to a 6.x or something like that. Which the old plans did. TSS is down because of easier z2 rides. But nothing about tailoring the plans for AT.
The AT works off levels - the AT scales up and down the levels depending on performance. The plan levels start off at a low level so ‘everyone can achieve them’. AT then takes over so increase the pace of level increase - if you have AT of course. The levels are part and parcel of AT and described as one of the AT related early releases eg:
Right. But in the announcement there is is:
You don’t need access to the Adaptive Training closed beta to follow or benefit from these plans. They have been designed to maximize your training with or without Adaptive Training. If you have access to the Adaptive Training closed beta, the plans you are looking at will be individually adjusted to your Progression Levels, so they will be unique to you.
So the idea that the plans are tailored to AT is wrong. They are good to go with, or without AT.
I’d suggest you do a 20 minute test instead of a ramp test.
Maybe they know if you do a 10.0 work out, 3 weeks later you will have some failures. Rather then having you miss workouts they make all works outs achievable knowing hitting all these workouts will make you better off
how does having levels / new plans that are good to go with or without AT support a conclusion they were not originally tailored for AT?
yep, I just hoped it would turn into something I got good at by doing more of them!
Good question. I’d say with the old regime I was more likely a 2 - 3 in terms of following the plan mostly to the letter. WIth the new plans I suspect I will be closer to a 5, especially with the weekend workouts which just seem to be not providing enough volume.
I agree with the idea that the plans probably are designed to provide the most bang for your time buck but with the least amount of impact on your recovery system. Also, to a point, I am doing a MV plan so I guess if I wanted more volume in my training I could do the HV.
Because in the announcement and on the podcast they said the plans are good without AT. They did mentioned that they used ML and AT data to help set the starting point of the plans in the 4.x level region as it set up most people for success.
Where are you getting that the plans are tailored for AT from? I am really curious because there are others that are making the same connection as well. And I just do not see it.
When in comes down to this whole new plan/old plan debate I find it kinda funny because no-one has been through the new plans yet to determine that they will not work for them. Been a lot of talk lately about minimum effect dose and that harder does not always equate to better. So it’s a bit of a head scratcher to me that folks are complaining about these plans being too easy, especially with all the grief that TR was getting for plans being too intense.
But I am not coach and do not even play one on TV so it is all gibberish to me. And trying to determine what is better or worse is something that I will not be able to do until I work through a block. I am just gonna plug along with what TR loads up for me while getting on my bike and ride. Getting somewhat faster in the process.
Yep I’m not disagreeing with that comment at all - what I’m saying is you can’t conclude from that statement that they were not originally designed / tailored for AT. Ultimately that’s what they’ll be used in the context of. Only TR can answer either way and it’s a bit of an irrelevant side debate tbh 
Not sure there’s been much complaining (the title of this thread aside!!), people are asking questions and trying to work out how these new plans fit into where they are now. It’s like we’ve changed a vital piece of equipment but haven’t been given the full user manual yet. I’m not complaining at all. I updated to the new plan immediately and am very excited about the new developments.
Ditto. Apart from maybe ditching the ramp test 
No, they got lowered because analysis of user data showed a higher than desired failure rate with the current plans workout levels and ramp rates.
Seems like a lot of work to find a workout each day.
In my opinion, it’s not a good idea to run the TR plans at low progression levels. It probably means that your FTP is set to high. This happens for a lot of people using the ramp test; the objectivity of the test is great, but 75% of 1 min power is too high for many. Lowering FTP to a more appropriate level will let you run higher progression levels and give you adequate time in zone. This is especially true for the key zones of SS, Threshold, and V02. Running a too high FTP with low progression levels will make those short intervals challenging. However, it will be just as difficult and more productive to have a slightly lower FTP with higher progression levels and the necessary time in zone.
That is my conclusion and I’ve posted some of my multi-year data to support it. Comes with some caveats in terms of my age, years training, etc. Before TR I also gained a lot of fitness by doing more threshold (TR style) training and consistency suffered due to recovery but not a slave to a plan and super compensation works. More than one way to get fast. YMMV.
Yeah, I mean…I wasn’t exactly stoked about the changes.
Really? We’re probably talking a minute or two, or perhaps less. 
Historically, I’ve commonly replaced TR workouts when I didn’t think the scheduled one was best suited to me on any given day, and didn’t consider that a massive deal, although the task became easier and faster as my knowledge of the library improved.
Today (ie. ignoring AT adaptive plans), with the introduction of Workout Levels and the library now searchable (and sortable) by level, and the granularity of interval type within each zone, plus with TrainNow making suggestions automatically, this task of selecting alternative workouts has been has been made much easier and faster, without really requiring prior library knowledge. Looks a doddle to me.