Live
Powered by

Plan comparison: Gunnar (Plan A) vs Luca (Plan B), May 27 to June 1, 2026

  • Athlete: Sidney McGill
  • Review date: 2026-05-27
  • Reviewer role: independent, neutral comparative analyst
  • Window under review: 2026-05-27 through 2026-06-01 inclusive
  • Primary deliverable: evidence-based comparison and a justified verdict

Executive summary

This is a comparison between two coaching plans for one athlete during a single six-day window that sits at an unusually high-stakes intersection: the first real Ghost-of-the-Gravel build week after Shanghai travel, the first days following a multi-day SI/back flare with reported radiating leg pain, and roughly one month before the only confirmed June race priority.

Bottom-line verdict, with the caveats below: a justified hybrid that takes Plan B's symptom-led front half (May 27 to May 28) and Plan B's rolling-7-day conservative posture for May 29 to June 1, while using Plan A's structured-aerobic backbone if and only if independent verification of Gunnar's actual prescription confirms it is appropriately scaled to the post-flare state. Plan B's intent is better aligned with the athlete's confirmed clinical picture. Plan B's published calendar files, however, are internally inconsistent and read more aggressively on May 29 and May 30 than the rolling-7-day intent warrants, which is itself a real planning quality problem.

The single largest caveat is an evidence gap: live TrainingPeaks data is not directly accessible in this workspace runtime, and the local TrainingPeaks archive stops at 2026-04-02. That means Plan A cannot be inspected from the live workout objects for this window. The Plan A assessment below is therefore an evidence-grounded inference built from the most recent direct Gunnar evidence on file, the April 11 to April 24 TP block, plus the structural cues that Gunnar's planning style has produced in prior windows. Where the inference is strong, it is labelled strong. Where it is speculative, it is labelled speculation.

Evidence base and limits

What is directly available

  • Athlete profile and confirmed goals: profile, season goals, race calendar, travel schedule
  • Plan B planning files: athlete/rolling-7-day.md, athlete/rolling-3-week.md, and the dated athlete/calendar/2026-05-27.md through athlete/calendar/2026-06-01.md
  • Prior independent reviews of Gunnar: athlete/context/trainingpeaks-coach-planning-review-2026-04-11-to-2026-04-24.md and athlete/context/2026-04-21-gunnar-trainingpeaks-planning-review-apr-11-to-24.md
  • Recent daily logs that document the SI/back flare and the planning pivot on May 25
  • Power-zone reference: athlete/context/power-zones.md

What is not available in this runtime

  • Live TrainingPeaks API or MCP access. The May 21 daily log confirms: "no same-day TrainingPeaks confirmation path available in this workspace, legacy TP scripts are absent, the local TP archive stops at 2026-04-02." Multiple recent nutrition reviews echo the same gap. This is the same constraint that has been visible in workspace pipelines for at least the last week.
  • Direct inspection of Gunnar's planned workouts, structured-workout content, coach comments, planned TSS or IF values, or any completed-workout files for the May 27 to June 1 window.
  • Direct visibility of whether the TP IDs listed in the dated Plan B calendar files are Luca-published objects, Gunnar-published objects, or a coexistence of both. Without TP read, that cannot be confirmed.

How this gap is handled below

  • Plan B is assessed directly from the workspace files.
  • Plan A is assessed by structured inference from the most recent direct Gunnar evidence on file (the April 11 to April 24 TP window), plus broad continuity assumptions. Inference strength is labelled at every step.
  • Where the comparison turns on a Plan A detail that the available evidence cannot resolve, the verdict is given conditionally and the open question is stated explicitly.

What each coach appears to be trying to do

Plan A, Gunnar Holmgren, likely intent

Inference strength: strong on coaching style, moderate on specific session shapes for this window, weak on whether anything was modified for the May 25 SI/back flare.

Based on the April 11 to April 24 review, the most accurate prior on Gunnar is:

  • Phase model: aerobic rebuild and durability first, intensity reintroduced cautiously, one weekly higher-intensity session as a maintenance dose rather than a development centerpiece
  • Preferred session archetypes: long road endurance rides (3 to 4 hours), repeated 10-minute tempo blocks (70 to 85% FTP) with long valleys, one 30/30 or similar short-intensity session, and one strength day
  • Recovery handling: present but permissive, with "easy ride or rest" instructions that can drift; Apr 18 drift to 1.48 hours and 57.83 TSS at IF 0.59 is the canonical example
  • Communication style: generic titles, sparse coach comments, with occasional more thoughtful notes on the intensity days
  • Specificity: limited cyclocross or gravel race-specific session design in the April window; no starts, stochastic surges, or gravel torque present in TP
  • Athlete context integration: light. Hashimoto's, recent downtime, and travel context were not visibly expressed in TP language during April

Applied to the May 27 to June 1 window, the most probable Gunnar plan, given his April pattern, would look something like:

  • 1 or 2 long endurance rides (3 to 4 hours, broad endurance)
  • 1 repeated-tempo session, likely 4 to 5 x 10 min at 75 to 85% FTP with long recoveries
  • 1 short higher-intensity session, possibly 30/30 or similar
  • 1 active recovery day, instruction permissive
  • 1 strength day, with possible same-day modification
  • A coffee-ride or short easy ride to round out the week

This is inference, not direct evidence. It is unsafe to assume Gunnar's plan is precisely this without TP read. But it is a defensible prior from the most recent on-file pattern.

Two follow-on questions that must be answered to firm the Plan A read

  1. Did Gunnar receive the May 25 SI/back flare report, and did he revise the live TP plan in response? Plan B's clinical update was triggered same-day by Sidney's check-in. If Gunnar was not looped in or did not modify the plan, his live TP for May 27 to June 1 is by default still the unmodified pre-flare block, which would now be inappropriate.
  2. How aggressive was Gunnar's planned ramp into Ghost specifically? The April window was rebuild, not Ghost-specific. If May 27 to June 1 is when Gunnar shifted into a more event-targeted block, the inference from April becomes weaker.

Plan B, Luca, intent

Direct evidence, high confidence.

Plan B's stated purpose, from the rolling-7-day file last updated 2026-05-25:

  • This week is no longer an assertive build week. It is a modified recovery and return-to-load week
  • Symptom-led aerobic only on May 26 and May 27
  • May 28 as an endurance-support day, no hidden intensity
  • May 29 sweet spot is deferred to a Thursday decision; only proceeds with reduced 1 x 20 min or 2 x 10 to 12 min at 88 to 92% FTP, and only if symptoms are clearly stable
  • May 30 is conditional, with the original 4:30 to 5:00 long gravel pressure ride no longer the default; defaults to 1:30 to 2:30 easy or to a shorter fueling-rehearsal endurance if the week is clean
  • May 31 recovery endurance with cadence resets
  • June 1 full recovery day, off-bike except optional reset

The block intent in athlete/rolling-3-week.md (Week 1, May 26 to June 1) was the pre-flare plan, oriented around threshold extension, seated torque, sweet spot density, and a first cornerstone gravel ride. The rolling-3-week document was last touched 2026-05-25 but reflects the pre-pivot ambition; the rolling-7-day was updated the same day, after the athlete check-in, to the conservative posture above.

Internal Plan B inconsistency: must be flagged

The dated athlete/calendar/2026-05-29.md and athlete/calendar/2026-05-30.md files still carry the pre-flare prescriptions:

  • May 29 calendar: Sweet spot with 2 x 25 min at 88 to 92% FTP, total 2:30 to 2:45, priority "key"
  • May 30 calendar: Long gravel pressure ride, 4:30 to 5:00, 3 x 25 min at 82 to 88% FTP, priority "key", including the 85 to 95 g carbohydrate per hour full fueling rehearsal

The May 27 and May 28 dated calendars were updated to match the rolling-7-day pivot. May 29, May 30, May 31, and June 1 were not fully reconciled. May 31 and June 1 still happen to align with the rolling-7-day on their own (recovery endurance and recovery day). The hard inconsistency is on May 29 and May 30.

Per the operator's framing rule, the dated calendar files are the definitive day-level prescription. That means Plan B as it would actually be executed if no further pivot happens reads as: easy May 27, support May 28, full sweet spot 2 x 25 min on May 29, full 4:30 to 5:00 gravel pressure ride on May 30, recovery May 31, recovery June 1. That is materially more aggressive than the rolling-7-day intent.

This is itself a planning quality problem worth surfacing. The rolling-7-day is where Luca's current thinking sits; the dated files have not been updated to match. A coach who pivots intent but leaves the executable prescription unchanged risks the athlete reading the wrong file at the wrong time, especially on May 29 morning.

For the rest of this comparison, I use the dated calendar files when discussing Plan B as it would be executed, and the rolling-7-day when discussing Plan B as intended. The honest read is that those are not the same plan.

Comparison against the framework

1. Alignment with the athlete's confirmed goals

Confirmed goal hierarchy: Pan Ams (A, 2026-11-07), Worlds (A, 2027-01-29), Charm City (B, 2026-10-03/04), Nationals (B, 2026-10-31), World Cup rounds (B), and Ghost of the Gravel as B on 2026-06-27 with an explicit working target around 4:35:00.

  • Plan A (inferred): Likely structured for general aerobic durability rather than Ghost-specific demands. Aligned with the broader cyclocross season indirectly through aerobic depth, but not visibly tailored to the gravel-race target.
  • Plan B as executable per dated calendars: Explicitly Ghost-focused. May 29 sweet spot and May 30 long gravel pressure ride with full fueling rehearsal are textbook Ghost-build sessions.
  • Plan B as intended per rolling-7-day: Still Ghost-oriented in framing, but protective. Forgoes Ghost-specific work this week in exchange for not losing the month.

Edge: Plan B is more goal-aligned, both versions. Plan A is plausibly aligned to the broader cyclocross season but not visibly to the Ghost target in particular.

2. Fit with the athlete's health and recovery context

Sidney has Hashimoto's thyroiditis with documented recovery sensitivity and elevated overtraining risk, six weeks off the bike after Worlds (Feb 1), a Shanghai trip with no bike access (May 2 to 16), travel back via Edmonton then Toronto, and a multi-day SI/back flare from approximately Wednesday May 20 through Monday May 25 with reported shooting pain down the leg.

  • Plan A (inferred): If unmodified, would be roughly the right load shape for a healthy rider returning from travel disruption, but not specifically responsive to the SI/back flare. The April pattern shows light Hashimoto's expression in TP planning. The single weekly intensity session and conservative tempo progressions are not bad for a recovery-sensitive athlete, but the absence of visible flare-aware modification is the concern.
  • Plan B per rolling-7-day: Directly responsive. Cancels threshold, torque, and loaded lower-body strength. Defers sweet spot to a Thursday decision. Removes the long gravel default. Adds explicit clinical guardrails (radiating symptom criteria, medical-assessment triggers).
  • Plan B per dated calendars: Inconsistent. May 27 and May 28 reflect the conservative posture. May 29 and May 30 are pre-flare and would re-impose threshold-adjacent load and 4:30 to 5:00 gravel pressure on a back that produced shooting leg pain four days prior.

Edge: Plan B per rolling-7-day. Plan B per dated calendars is worse on this criterion than its own intent because of the inconsistency.

3. Fit with the short-term SI/back symptom picture

The clinical picture matters: SI joint flare with stiffness, mid-back spread under load, ride-shortening pain, and shooting leg pain. The first symptom-free day was May 25. May 26 was the first protective day with the morning gym circuit that Luca then flagged. May 27 is the second symptom-stable day if it stays that way.

  • Plan A: Direct evidence absent. If Gunnar is acting on the unmodified pre-flare plan, the sequencing is unsafe. If he has been informed and has modified, that would be the strongest counter-evidence and would substantially change this section. Open question.
  • Plan B per rolling-7-day: Strong fit. The rolling-7-day explicitly enumerates abort criteria, removes loaded hinge, split squat, and torque work, and gates the Friday sweet spot on Thursday symptom reassessment.
  • Plan B per dated calendars: Mixed. May 27 and May 28 are good. May 29 and May 30 are aggressive enough that, if executed as written, they would represent a return to load that the rolling-7-day flagged as inappropriate without explicit clearance.

Edge: Plan B per rolling-7-day, decisively. Plan A is unclear pending verification. Plan B per dated calendars is mid-tier on this criterion.

4. Periodization logic and weekly block construction

  • Plan A (inferred): Probably coherent as a controlled return-to-build week, with one intensity day, one or two long aerobic days, recovery, and strength. The April block was clearly the work of an experienced endurance coach with a coherent if conservative model. The likely current-window structure would be a competent generalized build.
  • Plan B per rolling-7-day: Coherent as a modified recovery and return-to-load week. The decision gates (Thursday reassessment for Friday intensity, Friday execution determining Saturday duration and pressure) form a reasonable adaptive structure rather than a fixed prescription.
  • Plan B per dated calendars: Periodization is internally tense. The week opens conservative (May 27 to May 28) and then steps into a heavy two-day stack on May 29 to May 30 (sweet spot, then 4.5 to 5 hour gravel pressure) without an intermediate transition day. This stack would be defensible for a healthy rider; it is questionable as the executable prescription for a rider four days clear of radiating leg pain.

Edge: Plan B per rolling-7-day for periodization logic; Plan A probably a clean second; Plan B per dated calendars third because of the internal mismatch.

5. Session sequencing

  • Plan A: Inference would suggest a typical week shape: easy, endurance, recovery, intensity or tempo, endurance, long. The April block showed sensible sequencing with recovery valleys, just not always tightly guarded.
  • Plan B per rolling-7-day: Sequencing is appropriately gated, with each day's plan partly contingent on the previous day's symptom response. That is a strength when symptoms are the active constraint.
  • Plan B per dated calendars: Sequencing as written places the two highest-cost sessions (May 29 sweet spot 2 x 25 min, May 30 long gravel pressure with 3 x 25 min race pressure) back-to-back. That is a hard double for a rider in the middle of a return-to-load arc.

Edge: Plan B per rolling-7-day. Plan A probably acceptable. Plan B per dated calendars contains a meaningfully sharp two-day stack.

6. Load placement and density

  • Plan A: Probable density is moderate, in line with April. A 4-hour endurance ride and a tempo session sit somewhere in the mid-130s to mid-170s planned TSS based on the April examples. One short-intensity session is likely sub-110 TSS. Total weekly load probably 600 to 750 TSS-equivalent for the bike. This is reasonable for a rider in rebuild, not specifically tuned for Ghost.
  • Plan B per rolling-7-day: Density is intentionally light to moderate, with optional intensity gated. Total weekly load would land considerably lower if symptoms force easy-only.
  • Plan B per dated calendars: Density on May 29 and May 30 is high. The 4:30 to 5:00 gravel ride at the prescribed intensity is at or above the load Luca's own block plan called "the first full Ghost-specific long ride," and is placed back-to-back with the 2 x 25 min sweet spot. The combined two-day stack would be a marquee training week for a healthy elite, never mind the post-flare context.

Edge: Plan A probably acceptable for a non-Ghost build. Plan B per rolling-7-day appropriate. Plan B per dated calendars represents a load that is harder to defend.

7. Specificity for Ghost of the Gravel

The race demand: 118 km elite gravel, target around 4:35:00. The hard problem is fueling 85 to 100 g carbohydrate per hour without GI failure for 4.5 hours over imperfect surface, with the ability to race the final hour. That requires gut training and surface-specific durability, both of which have to be rehearsed before the taper.

  • Plan A (inferred): No visible Ghost-specific structure in the April window. Long endurance rides build durability generically but do not rehearse gravel fueling at race-day load. If the May 27 to June 1 plan continues the April pattern, Plan A is materially under-specific for Ghost.
  • Plan B per rolling-7-day: Defers Ghost specificity this week in favor of symptom protection. Acknowledged trade-off; the rolling-3-week plan was meant to compensate in Week 2 (June 2 to June 8) and Week 3 (June 9 to June 15).
  • Plan B per dated calendars: Strongly Ghost-specific. May 30 is explicitly a fueling-rehearsal ride at 85 to 95 g CHO per hour, plus sodium, with written GI-response logging. This is the textbook session for the target race.

Edge: For maximum Ghost-specific stimulus this week, Plan B per dated calendars is unambiguously best. The cost is that it sits poorly with the SI flare picture. Specificity and safety are in direct tension here, and Plan B per dated calendars resolves that tension by ignoring safety.

8. Compatibility with longer-term cyclocross goals

The bigger season is Pan Ams (November 7), the European World Cup tour through December and January, and Worlds (January 29). Ghost is a B race. Losing the month of June to a worsened SI/back flare would damage the September cyclocross campaign run-up.

  • Plan A: Conservative aerobic build is broadly compatible with the longer cyclocross season. The likely lack of gravel specificity is a small cost. The bigger risk would be a heavy session that aggravates the back, but the April pattern suggests Gunnar's default style is restrained.
  • Plan B per rolling-7-day: Most protective of the season. Explicitly prioritizes not losing the month over forcing Ghost specificity this week.
  • Plan B per dated calendars: Highest risk to the season among the three. A 4:30 to 5:00 gravel ride four days after radiating leg pain has a non-trivial probability of re-flaring the back, especially with the prescribed 82 to 88% FTP pressure work in the second half.

Edge: Plan B per rolling-7-day. Plan A probably safe. Plan B per dated calendars carries the highest tail risk.

9. Intensity distribution

  • Plan A: Probable distribution is heavily endurance plus tempo, with one short higher-intensity day. Sub-threshold tempo is the centerpiece. This is reasonable for the time of year.
  • Plan B per rolling-7-day: Endurance-heavy with gated optional sweet spot. Closest to a true polarized or pyramidal distribution.
  • Plan B per dated calendars: Distribution is high-intensity-light but high in sustained sweet-spot and sub-threshold density (May 29 sweet spot, May 30 race-pressure blocks). Functionally close to a sweet-spot density week.

Edge: All three are reasonable in principle. Distribution is not the deciding factor; load placement is.

10. Recovery and adaptation logic

  • Plan A: April pattern showed permissive recovery instructions that can drift. Apr 18 active recovery completed at 1.48 hours and IF 0.59 is the standing concern. If the May 27 to June 1 plan uses similar language, recovery quality will depend on athlete self-regulation. Not bad, not tight.
  • Plan B per rolling-7-day: Recovery is explicit, with abort criteria, fueling targets, and a clear Monday recovery anchor. The intended structure protects adaptation.
  • Plan B per dated calendars: May 31 recovery endurance and June 1 full rest are good. But the recovery cost of executing the May 29 to May 30 stack on a flare-affected back could exceed what Sunday and Monday can absorb. Recovery design alone is fine; recovery design relative to load is the issue.

Edge: Plan B per rolling-7-day. Plan A acceptable but loose. Plan B per dated calendars adequate in form, poor in fit.

Risk assessment

Plan A downside risk

  • If unmodified for the SI/back flare: same-day re-aggravation if the plan includes hard tempo, sweet spot, or long-duration sustained pressure within the first three or four days
  • If modified: low-to-moderate risk in line with April pattern, with recovery drift as the most likely failure mode rather than acute injury
  • Worst case: Plan A is competent but generic and quietly under-prepares Sidney for Ghost while a stronger Ghost-specific build was possible without compromising the longer season

Plan B per rolling-7-day downside risk

  • The largest risk is under-stimulus. Forgoing Ghost-specific load this week may concede Ghost performance if the back continues to limit subsequent weeks
  • Defensible trade-off given the symptom picture, but it does depend on Week 2 (June 2 to 8) and Week 3 (June 9 to 15) actually happening as written
  • Lowest acute-injury risk among the three

Plan B per dated calendars downside risk

  • Highest acute risk among the three
  • A 2 x 25 min sweet spot at 88 to 92% FTP followed by a 4.5 to 5 hour gravel ride with 3 x 25 min race pressure at 82 to 88% FTP is the most aggressive 48-hour stack of any version
  • Combined with seated pressure and sustained pelvic load over gravel terrain, this is the version most likely to re-trigger the SI/back flare
  • It is also the version that, if absorbed cleanly, produces the most Ghost-specific gain

The asymmetry matters. The downside of Plan B per dated calendars is losing the month. The upside is one excellent specificity week. Given Ghost is a B race and Pan Ams plus Worlds are A races, that asymmetry is unfavorable.

Specific Gunnar-side assessment, with the evidence gap acknowledged

The task asks for a strong assessment of Gunnar's plan and an attempt to infer his coaching intention from the evidence. Without live TP access, the most honest answer is:

  • What Gunnar appears to believe about Sidney's readiness, based on the latest direct evidence on file (April 11 to 24): that she is in a controlled rebuild phase and that the right priority is broad aerobic durability, with one intensity session per week and limited race-specific design. There was no visible Hashimoto's-specific modification, no visible cyclocross discipline specificity, and no visible reference to ongoing or planned travel disruption.
  • What that implies for May 27 to June 1, if continuity is assumed: Gunnar is most likely planning a normal build week. Probable session shapes: long endurance rides, one or two repeated 10-minute tempo block sessions, one short higher-intensity session, one strength day, one recovery day. Workload reasonable, comments sparse.
  • What it does not show: any visible adjustment for the May 25 SI/back flare with radiating leg pain. This is the open question. Either Gunnar was informed and revised the live plan, or he was not informed and the live plan is the unmodified pre-flare default. The answer to that question is binary and changes the assessment substantially. If Gunnar has revised the plan in response to the flare, Plan A is the most defensible plan in the room; if he has not, Plan A is the riskiest plan in the room.
  • Whether the work looks like high-performance individualized coaching: based on April evidence, it looks like strong but conservative endurance coaching, not elite individualized programming. That assessment was made independently in two prior reviews of the same window. It is unlikely to have changed materially within one month unless this window is a step-change.
  • Coherence as a block versus isolated sessions: April showed real weekly rhythm and progression, not isolated sessions. The most likely outcome is that May 27 to June 1 is a coherent week with the same archetype repetition.

Direct answers to the operator's primary questions

  1. What is Gunnar likely trying to do this week? Continue an aerobic-rebuild and durability-protection week with one intensity session and one strength day. Strong inference. He is probably not specifically tuning this week for Ghost.
  2. What is Luca trying to do this week? Protect the SI/back recovery first, restore symptom-stable training, and defer Ghost-specific load to a Thursday-onward decision. Direct evidence.
  3. Which plan is more aligned with Sidney's actual short-term condition entering the week? Plan B per rolling-7-day. Plan A is unclear without confirmation. Plan B per dated calendars is misaligned with the rolling-7-day intent.
  4. Which plan is more aligned with the near-term Ghost of the Gravel objective? Plan B per dated calendars, by a meaningful margin. Plan B per rolling-7-day defers Ghost-specific stimulus. Plan A is probably not Ghost-specific at all.
  5. Which plan better protects the larger cyclocross season? Plan B per rolling-7-day. Plan A is probably safe but under-specific for Ghost. Plan B per dated calendars carries the highest tail risk to the season.
  6. Which plan is better justified by physiology, recovery logic, and sequencing? Plan B per rolling-7-day. The decision gates align with the symptom-led nature of the situation. Plan A is competent but not symptom-aware. Plan B per dated calendars is internally inconsistent with its own rationale.
  7. Which plan carries the higher downside risk? Plan B per dated calendars. The 48-hour May 29 to May 30 stack is the most likely vector for re-flaring the back.
  8. What does Gunnar appear to believe about Sidney's readiness? Without live TP read, the most defensible answer is that he probably believes she is ready for a normal continued-build week. Whether he has incorporated the flare is unknown from the available evidence.
  9. What does Luca appear to believe about Sidney's readiness? That she is just past the most acute phase of an SI/back flare with radiating leg pain, that the next 24 to 72 hours determine whether Friday and Saturday can carry intensity, and that the cost of forcing Ghost work through symptoms is losing the month.
  10. If Gunnar's written rationale is sparse, what do the session designs and sequencing imply? A coach with a clear, conservative, repeatable model. Not race-specific in the April window. Coherent at the week level. The implied intention is durability over specificity.

Verdict

Recommended approach: a justified hybrid, with the components below.

  1. Use Plan B's rolling-7-day for May 27 to May 28. Easy endurance back-check ride plus movement reset on May 27; endurance support ride 1:45 to 2:00 with cadence spin-ups on May 28. These match both clinical caution and aerobic continuity.
  2. For May 29, defer the intensity decision to Thursday based on symptom status, exactly as rolling-7-day specifies. If cleared, use the rolling-7-day's reduced sweet spot, not the dated calendar's full 2 x 25 min. Do not execute the dated calendar's full sweet spot prescription.
  3. For May 30, do not execute the full 4:30 to 5:00 long gravel pressure ride from the dated calendar. Use the rolling-7-day's conditional shorter ride. Preserve the fueling rehearsal intent at a 2:00 to 2:30 duration even if intensity is light. The fueling work is high-value and is the part of the Ghost build that does not require back-load.
  4. For May 31 and June 1, both plan files converge. Use Plan B as written.
  5. For Plan A's role: if independent verification confirms Gunnar has revised the live TP plan with awareness of the SI/back flare, Plan A becomes an acceptable parallel; Sidney does not need two plans, and the question becomes which coach holds primary authority for this window. If Gunnar has not revised, his plan should not be executed for May 27 to June 1 without modification and his attention should be drawn to the clinical update.
  6. Independent of either plan: reconcile the rolling-7-day and the dated calendar files for May 29 and May 30 immediately. The current state, where Luca's executable prescription disagrees with Luca's own intent, is a planning quality problem worth fixing today.

The hybrid above is not a softening of either plan. It chooses Plan B per rolling-7-day for symptom-led safety, preserves Plan B per dated calendars' Ghost-specific fueling rehearsal at a safer duration, and defers to Plan A's likely structure only where the comparison is moot. It also explicitly flags that Plan B's published calendar files need to be brought into alignment with Plan B's actual current thinking.

What would change this verdict

  • If TP fetch becomes available and Gunnar's actual May 27 to June 1 plan is materially different from the April pattern, the Plan A side of this analysis needs to be redone from the actual workouts. Specifically: if Gunnar has built a Ghost-specific gravel block with flare-aware modification, Plan A could plausibly become the preferred plan, especially if its recovery prescriptions are tighter than the April defaults.
  • If Sidney reports any return of radiating leg pain, mid-back spread, or SI pain on May 27 or May 28, both Plan B versions and any Plan A intensity have to step back further. The hybrid above already accommodates that.
  • If symptoms remain clean Tuesday and Wednesday and the rolling-7-day Thursday reassessment is cleanly positive, the Friday sweet spot and a longer Saturday fueling ride can move up to the dated calendar's intensity, but in a stepped way (for example, 2 x 18 min at 88 to 92% FTP and a 3:00 to 3:30 fueling ride rather than the full prescriptions). This is the path that recaptures the most Ghost specificity without taking the full tail-risk hit.

Confidence and limits

  • Plan B assessment confidence: high. Direct evidence, full calendar files, full rolling files, full athlete context.
  • Plan A assessment confidence: low to moderate. Inference only. Strong on coaching style continuity; weak on whether Gunnar has incorporated the May 25 flare; weak on whether this window is a step-change from the April pattern.
  • Comparison confidence: moderate. The Plan B side is firm. The Plan A side is the limiting factor. The verdict above is robust to most plausible Plan A shapes, but a TP read would materially sharpen the conclusion.

The single most useful next action, if it is feasible in this workspace, is to restore TrainingPeaks read access or otherwise obtain the live Plan A workout objects for 2026-05-27 through 2026-06-01 so the Gunnar side of this comparison can be assessed from direct evidence rather than from inference.