When I add my training plans/workouts for upcoming weeks, based on the workouts included in the plan there are load, duration and sometimes distance value targets. Since these are my targets for the week, I’m wondering why these values couldn’t auto-populate the target buttons? It seems like unnecessary manual work to click on these buttons and essentially copy/re-enter the values that are in the header.
Since the header values reflect the training plan and therefore the targets, it would be great if these can auto-populate.
Thanks.
I actually use it the opposite; i.e., I put my targets in first, then I start building my training plan to try and hit those metrics. This allows me to manipulate the various types of workouts.
I can see how using it the way @Mark_Benyak and @Cooper might work, it’s an interesting approach, but that said, even if you first add the targets, I think if you use the Training Plan function where you’re adding workouts with a specific load, duration, distance etc. then it would be helpful to see the effect those workouts have towards meeting the targets. Right now, the “wheel” visual shows the actual against the target. In the attached screenshot at the top is the summary from my training plan for the week of Feb 12th, the bottom shows the actuals, but I needed to manually add for example the 267 load for cycling. IMHO, I think there’s a disconnect between the Training Plan functionality and the Target functionality. Here’s my proposal: link the Training Plan to the Target, so you would first add the target, then as you add workouts to the training plan the number to the left of the forward slash increments and the circle color wheel fills in clockwise say in blue, when left/right numbers are equal you have a complete blue circle meaning the load/duraction etc. on your training plan match your target. Then as you complete your workouts, a green line slowly starts overlaying the blue line and a new “completed” number increments below the 142/267. Or something along those lines
I use the 4-week rhythm, with the fourth week being a regeneration week. For this I use the load increase. I check the effects during planning using the diagram in the calendar. Your suggestion is of course also a possibility
I would love a setting which I could switch on the use target load of workouts to get the target load total.
My goal is to plot my target load against my actual load. As I use a training plan app (Join Cycling) I would prefer the same way like @Wayne_Hadley does. I add all workouts for the week and to weekly target load comes from these workouts so I would make sense to have a setting for auto calculation. I totally get the point of all other people that´s why I would suggest to make it a setting to choose instead of one way.
Hi just started playing with the training plan features and I realized I was missing something quite important for me : defining weekly targets for each sport from that planning tool itself.
What if these target circles had a different behavior depending whether you use them in the calendar view and the training plan view (in which they’re not available at the moment)?
I prepare my training plans as @Mark_Benyak described : first I define load and time targets for each week, then I add workouts in the training plan tool to match these targets. In order to ease things up, here’s what I’d like to be able to do when clicking on a week summary from the training plan view :
adding time and load targets for my main sports (the ones listed on my settings page)
checking how the time and load from the added workouts of that week compare to these targets (that could be by means of similar circles found from the calendar view)
Ideally, when adding a plan to the calendar view, the targets from each week of that plan (if they have been manually defined as written above) would be transferred to the week’s summary of the calendar view. The circles would then have a different behavior/function as they would display how the completed workouts compare to these targets…
@david , do you think this could be a satisfying solution for everyone? Hopefully that’s clear enough, otherwise I’ll be happy to elaborate my point of view… Thanks in advance!
Seems like we have some slightly different planning approaches I’m happy to follow the approach @Mark_Benyak , @Cooper and @MTreys propose, but I would like to see something like I proposed in my 20 Feb post specific to the way the circle colours fill-in.
