Live
Powered by

Comparative review of Gunnar and Luca plans, May 27 to June 5, 2026

Executive verdict

This is not a clean case where one coach is obviously right and the other is obviously wrong.

My evidence-based read is:

  • Gunnar's live TrainingPeaks plan is more conservative in total metabolic density than Luca's dated calendar plan, and it appears to prioritize general conditioning, aerobic continuity, strength retention, and neuromuscular sharpness rather than a direct Ghost-specific build.
  • Luca's dated calendar plan is much more explicit, much more race-specific for Ghost of the Gravel, and much stronger in rationale, fueling detail, and day-by-day intent, but it is also too aggressive for the acute symptom picture that was already present entering the window.
  • The best-supported option is a hybrid, not Plan A or Plan B as written.

The core reason is simple: Sidney entered this block with a recent SI and back flare, earlier radiating leg pain, travel disruption, and incomplete evidence on readiness. That made Luca's original May 29 to June 5 density too assertive, but it also made Gunnar's inclusion of heavy strength and explosive sprint work too mechanically risky on several days.

My overall judgment:

  • Best race-specific design: Luca
  • Best simple fatigue containment through the window: Gunnar
  • Best fit to the actual acute symptom picture: neither plan fully; the strongest answer is a hybrid that uses Luca's caution and Ghost-specific logic, but with load density cut materially from his dated calendar version

Evidence reviewed

Athlete and planning context

  • athlete/settings.yml
  • athlete/PROFILE.md
  • athlete/context/season-goals.md
  • athlete/context/race-calendar.md
  • athlete/context/travel-schedule.md

Current Gunnar evidence, live TrainingPeaks

I fetched the live TrainingPeaks workouts for 2026-05-27 through 2026-06-05, opened the full workout detail for each item, and reviewed the current workout set in detail.

Live TP items in range:

  • 12 total items
  • 1 completed workout, May 27
  • 11 future planned items

Reviewed where available:

  • title
  • date
  • workout type
  • planned duration
  • planned TSS
  • planned IF
  • structured workout content
  • coach comments
  • workout description
  • completion status
  • completed metrics where available

Important data limitations in the live TP objects:

  • several items return sport: null
  • most future workouts have no coach comments
  • only May 27 has completed data in the reviewed window
  • completed power-based detail is limited, with no visible NP, power distribution, decoupling, efficiency factor, variability index, or athlete comment in the reviewed object

Luca planning evidence

  • athlete/rolling-7-day.md
  • athlete/rolling-3-week.md
  • athlete/calendar/2026-05-27.md through athlete/calendar/2026-06-05.md
  • athlete/logs/daily/2026-05-26.md
  • athlete/logs/daily/2026-05-27.md

Prior Gunnar assessment context

  • athlete/context/trainingpeaks-coach-planning-review-2026-04-11-to-2026-04-24.md
  • athlete/context/2026-04-21-gunnar-trainingpeaks-planning-review-apr-11-to-24.md

Important internal-plan caveat

Luca's evidence base is not perfectly clean.

The dated calendar files from May 27 to June 5 still express a more assertive Ghost-specific build. The current rolling-7-day file, updated after the May 27 evidence, already revises the near-term plan downward into a more protective staged return-to-load week.

For strict day-level comparison below, I treat the dated calendar files as Luca's definitive original day-level prescriptions, because they contain the detailed structure and rationale. I also note where the later rolling-7-day revision materially softens Luca's stance.

What Gunnar appears to be doing

The live TP plan reads like a coach who is trying to restore normal training rhythm after disruption, but without committing to a true Ghost-specific build yet.

Direct evidence

The live window contains:

  • May 27: 3.0HR Endurance, completed, about 3:10 actual, about 83.5 km, hrIF about 0.59, 838 m climbing, fueling note at 80 g per hour
  • May 28: Rest
  • May 29: Strength Sidney plus Active Recovery
  • May 30: Openers, 2 hours, structured with repeated short bursts at 110-150% FTP, planned TSS 81.8, planned IF 0.64
  • May 31: 3.0HR Endurance, with 3-4 if you feel good, fueling note at 80 g per hour
  • June 1: Active Recovery
  • June 2: ZIPP, 2 hours, 12X15s All out sprints spaced through the ride. Maximum quality. I want to see your max power
  • June 3: Strength Sidney plus 2.0HR Endurance
  • June 4: 3.0HR Endurance, with 3-4 if you feel good, fueling note at 80 g per hour
  • June 5: Rest

The strength sessions are substantial. They include heavy squat and split-squat work, trunk work, and a coach comment on the reviewed versions of those sessions, No plyo jumps today.

Strong inference

Gunnar appears to be prioritizing:

  • aerobic rebuild and basic endurance continuity
  • re-establishing normal training rhythm
  • preserving or reintroducing gym strength exposure
  • retaining neuromuscular sharpness through short bursts and all-out sprinting
  • enough recovery spacing to avoid a dense threshold-style block

This is not a highly Ghost-specific sequence. It is more consistent with a general conditioning and readiness week than with a race-specific gravel durability week.

Strategy read

My best read of Gunnar's likely strategy is:

  1. Use endurance rides as the anchor.
  2. Put real rest days back in.
  3. Keep strength in the week rather than suspending it completely.
  4. Use very short high-end work to keep snap and recruitment alive.
  5. Avoid stacking long threshold and sweet spot sessions on top of the athlete after recent disruption.

That is a coherent strategy. It is not random.

Benefits

  • Simpler weekly rhythm
  • More genuine rest than Luca's dated calendar block
  • Lower sustained metabolic cost than Luca's sweet spot, threshold, gravel-tempo, and VO2 sequence
  • Likely easier to absorb if the main limiter is general deconditioning and cumulative fatigue
  • Retains gym and neuromuscular elements that may matter for a cyclocross athlete over the longer season

Disadvantages

  • Weak Ghost specificity in this date window
  • Limited evidence of direct response to the acute SI and back flare
  • Strength and sprint work may be the wrong kind of stress for a rider with recent radiating symptoms
  • Sparse comments make the athlete-specific reasoning harder to verify
  • 3-4 if you feel good is permissive and can drift upward in a rider who already tends to do work when she feels decent

Fair rating of Gunnar's plan in this window

This looks like competent individualized coaching with a general-conditioning bias, not generic filler and not a deeply expressed race-specific gravel block.

It is more coherent than it first appears, but it does not read like a coach trying to build a direct Ghost-winning week right now.

What Luca appears to be doing

Luca's dated calendar plan is the opposite kind of week.

It is much more explicit, much more race-directed, and much more structured around the demands of Ghost of the Gravel.

Direct evidence

The dated calendar sequence is:

  • May 27: easy endurance back-check ride plus unloaded movement reset only
  • May 28: endurance support ride, 1:45-2:00
  • May 29: sweet spot, 2 x 25 min at 88-92% FTP
  • May 30: long gravel pressure ride, 4:30-5:00 with 3 x 25 min at 82-88% FTP, fueling rehearsal at 85-95 g carbohydrate per hour
  • May 31: recovery endurance with cadence resets
  • June 1: recovery day
  • June 2: threshold, 2 x 22 min at 94-99% FTP
  • June 3: endurance ride plus short strength maintenance
  • June 4: gravel tempo torque, 3 x 20 min at 82-88% FTP, mostly seated, 60-75 rpm where terrain allows
  • June 5: VO2 ceiling support, 5 x 3 min at 112-118% FTP

The rationale is explicit throughout:

  • Ghost-specific durability
  • sub-threshold pressure
  • late-ride gravel cost
  • fueling rehearsal
  • race-specific surface handling
  • preserving high-end support without making the block VO2-centered

Strong inference

Luca is prioritizing:

  • Ghost of the Gravel as a real near-term performance target
  • sustained sub-threshold and threshold durability
  • gravel-specific force and terrain handling
  • explicit fueling and sodium practice
  • a professional-density build week rather than a general reset week

Benefits

  • Much stronger alignment with the confirmed Ghost objective
  • Clear day-level rationale
  • Better specificity for long gravel pressure and fueling execution
  • Better visibility of why each session exists
  • Better connection between session design and event demands

Disadvantages

  • The dated calendar version asks too much too quickly relative to the symptom picture entering the week
  • The planned density from May 29 to June 5 is high even if Sidney were fully healthy, and more questionable given the recent SI and back flare
  • The June 4 low-cadence gravel tempo torque prescription is especially risky in an athlete whose acute issue had already involved back and SI irritation
  • The June 5 VO2 session adds still more load into an already aggressive run of days

Important correction from Luca's own current planning

Luca's current rolling-7-day plan already softens this substantially after the May 27 evidence. That later revision moves closer to a staged return-to-load model and is much more defensible clinically.

That matters because it shows Luca's current reasoning is not rigid. The problem is mainly the dated calendar plan as originally written, not the ability to revise it when new evidence appears.

Day-by-day comparison, May 27 to June 5

2026-05-27

Gunnar session: 3-hour endurance ride, actually completed in about 3:10, about 83.5 km, hrIF about 0.59, 838 m climbing, fueling note at 80 g carbohydrate per hour. Likely purpose: aerobic continuity and general endurance load.

Luca session: 60-75 min easy endurance back-check ride plus 15-20 min unloaded movement reset only. Likely purpose: symptom-led protection and confirmation that the SI and back flare was settling.

Key contrast: Gunnar coached the day as a real endurance day. Luca coached it as a clinical-protection day.

Risk and benefit: Gunnar's version produced useful positive evidence that endurance was at least possible, but it assumed more readiness than the acute symptom history justified. Luca's version was safer and more appropriate to the reported radiating-symptom context, but less informative for race progression.

Preferred option: Luca, for the decision made before the day started. Gunnar's completed result is useful evidence after the fact, but it does not make his starting assumption safer.

2026-05-28

Gunnar session: full rest. Likely purpose: absorb the May 27 endurance load.

Luca session: 1:45-2:00 endurance support ride with cadence spin-ups. Likely purpose: keep aerobic rhythm moving toward Friday sweet spot and Saturday gravel pressure.

Key contrast: Gunnar inserted true recovery. Luca kept the build moving.

Risk and benefit: After the actual May 27 load, Gunnar's rest day is the more defensible call. Luca's support ride makes sense only if May 27 had remained a short protective ride.

Preferred option: Gunnar.

2026-05-29

Gunnar session: heavy strength session plus 1 hour active recovery ride. Likely purpose: reintroduce gym load and keep frequency.

Luca session: 2 x 25 min sweet spot inside a 2:30-2:45 ride. Likely purpose: sub-threshold durability for Ghost.

Key contrast: Gunnar adds mechanical and gym stress; Luca adds metabolic and sustained aerobic stress.

Risk and benefit: Gunnar's choice is simpler in aerobic terms but risky for the back and SI because it restores heavy squat and split-squat work too soon. Luca's sweet spot is more race-relevant, but still too costly for the symptom context if May 27 was already a bigger-than-planned day.

Preferred option: Neither as written. The best choice is a hybrid easy-endurance-only day. Luca's later rolling revision effectively recognizes this.

2026-05-30

Gunnar session: Openers, 2 hours, with short bursts up to 110-150% FTP. Likely purpose: neuromuscular activation and sharpness.

Luca session: 4:30-5:00 long gravel pressure ride with 3 x 25 min at 82-88% FTP. Likely purpose: first true Ghost simulation and fueling rehearsal.

Key contrast: Gunnar uses short explosive work with low total duration. Luca uses very long race-specific load.

Risk and benefit: Gunnar's session is much shorter and lower in total cost, but the explosive nature is a poor match for recent back and SI irritation. Luca's ride is highly specific and well reasoned for Ghost, but too aggressive for the acute state and for the week that actually unfolded.

Preferred option: Neither as written. The best-supported answer is a controlled endurance progression with no openers and no long pressure blocks.

2026-05-31

Gunnar session: 3-hour endurance, with permission to extend to 4 if she feels good. Likely purpose: aerobic durability and volume.

Luca session: 1:30-2:00 recovery endurance with optional cadence resets. Likely purpose: absorb the prior long gravel day and keep rhythm.

Key contrast: Gunnar makes this the longer aerobic load day. Luca makes it an absorption day.

Risk and benefit: Gunnar's day is better for rebuilding aerobic durability if the preceding days have been low cost. Luca's day is safer if Saturday was already heavy. In the actual context, Gunnar's duration is more useful than Luca's short recovery design, but the 3-4 if you feel good instruction is too loose.

Preferred option: Hybrid leaning Gunnar, specifically about 2.5-3.0 hours steady endurance with strict fueling and no upward drift to 4 hours.

2026-06-01

Gunnar session: 1 hour active recovery ride. Likely purpose: circulation and light reset.

Luca session: full recovery day off-bike, optional gentle movement reset only. Likely purpose: recovery anchor before renewed build load.

Key contrast: Gunnar keeps frequency going. Luca uses true off-day recovery.

Risk and benefit: Gunnar's ride is low cost, but Luca's complete recovery day is the better protective choice in an athlete with Hashimoto's risk and recent back irritation.

Preferred option: Luca.

2026-06-02

Gunnar session: ZIPP, 2 hours, 12 x 15 s all-out sprints spaced through the ride. Likely purpose: max-power and neuromuscular recruitment.

Luca session: threshold, 2 x 22 min at 94-99% FTP. Likely purpose: threshold durability for long gravel pressure.

Key contrast: Gunnar chooses explosive top-end. Luca chooses sustained threshold.

Risk and benefit: Gunnar's session is less metabolically dense but much riskier mechanically for a back and SI history. Luca's threshold set is more race-specific, but the dated calendar version is too assertive unless the preceding days were exceptionally stable. Luca's later rolling revision, conditional 2 x 12-15 min at 86-90% FTP or endurance only, is much more defensible than either original option.

Preferred option: Hybrid, closer to Luca's later rolling revision, not Gunnar's all-out sprint session and not Luca's original 2 x 22 min threshold prescription.

2026-06-03

Gunnar session: heavy strength plus 2-hour endurance. Likely purpose: strength retention and aerobic continuity.

Luca session: 2:00-2:15 endurance plus 25-30 min maintenance strength. Likely purpose: support day between threshold and gravel-tempo work.

Key contrast: both include bike plus strength, but Gunnar's strength remains substantially heavier while Luca's is compact maintenance.

Risk and benefit: Gunnar's day fits a general-performance model, but the heavy strength prescription still looks aggressive for the recent symptom history. Luca's version is better calibrated if the athlete is stabilizing but not fully clear.

Preferred option: Luca, provided the strength remains truly maintenance-only and fully conditional.

2026-06-04

Gunnar session: 3-hour endurance, 3-4 if you feel good. Likely purpose: aerobic volume.

Luca session: gravel tempo torque, 3 x 20 min at 82-88% FTP, mostly seated, 60-75 rpm where terrain allows. Likely purpose: gravel-specific force and sub-threshold durability.

Key contrast: Gunnar keeps the day broad and aerobic. Luca makes it highly Ghost-specific and force-oriented.

Risk and benefit: Luca's session is much better for Ghost if the athlete is healthy and stable. Given the back and SI context, the low-cadence torque element is the most obvious technical risk in the whole Luca window. Gunnar's endurance day is safer from a torque standpoint but less specific.

Preferred option: Conditional hybrid. If symptom-free for a week, use Luca-style gravel pressure but remove the torque emphasis. If not clearly stable, Gunnar-style endurance is safer.

2026-06-05

Gunnar session: full rest. Likely purpose: fatigue containment before the next block.

Luca session: VO2 ceiling support, 5 x 3 min at 112-118% FTP. Likely purpose: preserve high-end response while keeping Saturday as the main event in the broader week design.

Key contrast: Gunnar ends with rest. Luca ends with another quality stressor.

Risk and benefit: Luca's rationale is valid in a healthy Ghost-specific build, but the accumulated density by this point is too high for the evidence set. Gunnar's rest day is more defensible in this actual context.

Preferred option: Gunnar.

Comparative strengths and weaknesses

Gunnar strengths

  • Real recovery days are built in
  • General conditioning strategy is coherent
  • Endurance volume remains present without constant threshold density
  • Gym and neuromuscular qualities are preserved rather than abandoned
  • Simplicity may make the week easier to absorb

Gunnar weaknesses

  • Limited Ghost-specific progression in this window
  • Sparse rationale and weak visibility into athlete-specific thinking
  • Heavy strength and explosive work appear too aggressive for the recent SI and back flare
  • if you feel good volume escalation can drift upward too easily

Luca strengths

  • Much stronger event specificity for Ghost of the Gravel
  • Better session purpose clarity
  • Better fueling and sodium planning
  • Better connection between session design and race demands
  • Better evidence of explicit coaching logic

Luca weaknesses

  • The dated calendar version assumes too fast a return to density
  • The block stacks sweet spot, long gravel pressure, threshold, gravel tempo torque, and VO2 too tightly for the acute symptom picture
  • Some prescriptions, especially low-cadence torque, are poorly matched to recent back and SI irritation
  • Luca's own later rolling revision implicitly admits that the original daily calendar plan was too assertive

Risk assessment

The risk profile differs by type.

Gunnar downside risk

Higher risk for:

  • back and SI aggravation from heavy strength
  • symptom provocation from explosive sprinting and opener bursts
  • underpreparation for Ghost because the plan stays too general

Luca downside risk

Higher risk for:

  • cumulative fatigue and poor recovery absorption
  • pushing intensity density too quickly after disruption and symptoms
  • aggravating symptoms through torque and prolonged pressure before stability is established

Which plan has the higher downside risk overall

If the question is mechanical and symptom-provocation risk in the acute moment, Gunnar's strength and sprint days are the sharper hazard.

If the question is cumulative training-load and block-density risk across the whole May 29 to June 5 window, Luca's dated calendar plan carries the higher downside.

That is why a hybrid is the most honest answer.

Best-supported plan, Plan A, Plan B, or hybrid

Best-supported plan: hybrid

The hybrid is best because:

  • Gunnar is more conservative in overall weekly density, which is useful here
  • Luca is much better on Ghost-specific logic, fueling detail, and clear rationale
  • neither coach's plan, as written, adequately resolves the combined problem of recent SI and back symptoms plus the need to build toward a June 27 gravel target

If hybrid, exact hybrid prescription and why

Hybrid prescription for this window

  • May 27: Luca's original caution was the better pre-session decision standard, even though Gunnar's completed 3-hour endurance ride yielded useful positive evidence afterward.
  • May 28: full rest, or 30-45 min very easy only if fully symptom-stable
  • May 29: 60-90 min easy endurance only, no loaded strength, no sweet spot
  • May 30: 2:00-2:45 controlled endurance progression, no opener bursts, no long pressure blocks
  • May 31: 2:30-3:00 steady endurance with strict fueling, no automatic extension to 4 hours
  • June 1: full recovery day
  • June 2: conditional sub-threshold re-entry only, about 2 x 12-15 min at 86-90% FTP if the previous four days are clean; otherwise endurance only
  • June 3: 1:30-2:00 endurance, optional very light maintenance strength only if clearly symptom-free
  • June 4: if stable, gravel-specific sustained pressure without low-cadence torque, for example 2-3 x 15-20 min at 82-88% FTP at normal cadence; if not stable, 3 hours endurance only
  • June 5: rest

Why this hybrid is best

It keeps:

  • Gunnar's real recovery spacing
  • Luca's Ghost-specific fuel and pressure logic
  • Luca's symptom-led guardrails from the later rolling revision

It removes:

  • Gunnar's heavy strength and all-out sprint work during a sensitive back and SI phase
  • Luca's overly dense original stack of sweet spot, long gravel pressure, threshold, torque, and VO2 inside one acute return-to-load window

Key uncertainties and missing evidence

  • The live TP objects are sparse on rationale for most Gunnar sessions.
  • The TP objects do not show sport cleanly on several items, returning sport: null.
  • Completed data in this window exists only for May 27.
  • The completed May 27 workout lacks the fuller power-analysis fields that would clarify whether it was purely easy, deceptively costly, or mechanically awkward.
  • I do not have confirmed athlete symptom response after the May 27 completed ride.
  • Luca's internal plan is split between the dated calendar files and a later rolling-7-day revision. That means Luca's plan is not one perfectly stable artifact across the full window.

Bottom line

Gunnar's plan in this window looks like a coherent general-conditioning and readiness block with endurance, rest, strength, and neuromuscular work. It is not foolish, and it is not generic filler. Its main weakness is that it is not especially well matched to either the acute SI and back symptom picture or the specific demands of Ghost of the Gravel.

Luca's dated plan is the opposite. It looks like a serious Ghost-specific build with clear purpose and strong fueling logic, but it asks for too much density too soon given the acute context.

The fairest conclusion is that Gunnar is probably coaching the athlete as someone who needs normal rhythm and broad conditioning first, while Luca was originally coaching the week as someone who needed immediate event-specific build work. The evidence supports a middle path: protect the back and SI like Luca's later revision does, keep real recovery spacing like Gunnar does, then rebuild sustained gravel pressure progressively rather than explosively or all at once.