FWIW I have used my coffee break time last week to work out the total hours, TSS, IF and 4DP totals for 2:1 Vs 3:1 and represented this both numerically and graphically over the Criterium 12 week programmes and represented in a spreadsheep(t). 
It would be great if Wahoo Systm X could include these to give a better overview of the programmes as it could help with tweeking the programmes to individuals who either cannot afford the Phone a Friend (Coach) option or want to work it out on their own.
I may at some point, see how the 2:1 Crit compares to the 2:1 All Purpose Road as no one seems to know much about the Crit programme and how it compares to the APR, especially as the APR plan seems to have changed quite significantly post Sufferfest, as well as the Crit plan appearing to change significantly post Sufferfest too, but in different directions.
Yes I know we are in a post FTP world and TSS and IF are less use in this Brave New World of 4DP, however, as referenced in " IF and TSS with 4DP: Everything you need to know" it does state that āEven though itās not an accurate representation of training stress, they can still give you a very rough idea at a glance of how intense a workout isā, and therefore training loads.
I thought it would be interesting to compare the 2:1 and 3:1 as many here have asked how the loads compared. I compared all the 4DP metrics of NM, AC, MAP and FTP with a total blob score, for want of anything else, as the load of the 4DP metric is very simplistically given a number of blobs for each session. I also wanted to see the progression over the programme as well as a trend line.
I wonder if there is a more scientific way of scoring the individual load based on a riderās 4DP metric so we can see in detail how much NM, AC, MAP, 4DP we have done based on our own unique 4DP profile, or indeed, how much we will do on an upcoming training plan.
Maybe that could pave the way for the wonderful coaches to build a programme builder so riders could have more control over building plans within the parameters of what makes a successful progressive training plan in a way that I think maybe Training Peaks or Trainer Road might do (but not having used these I would not actually know).
The progression of the plans are also nice to see as a graphic representation to visibly see how high the peaks are and how low the troughs are to show the training load and recovery, as well as adding trend lines to see where the load is going over the full period.
I have only done the 11 weeks as the last weeks in the programmes are taper weeks and an unspecified event/load so for comparison, the last week wasnāt useful.
Lots of interesting things can be seen from the charts such as both plans start with a higher FTP training load which decreases over the plans, whereas MAP starts lower and increases, which makes sense in the pyramid style of training. NM starts higher on both and only decreases gradually. AC slightly increases for the 2:1 over the plan where 3:1 it is the opposite.
Not sure how useful it is to anyone, but I wanted to now how they compared out of interest as being 54 now, I very much favour 2:1 plans.
What does appear to be the case is whilst both plans have quite similar hours (Ā±3hrs) and AC, MAP and FTP (Ā± 2 to 6) (AC bigger difference), the 2:1 will therefore have more intense training in the hard weeks than the 3:1, which is obvious as the load is spread over a longer period of time. The peaks are therefore higher in the 2:1 than 3:1, although the troughs are also generally slightly higher for the 2:1, which must mean more active recovery and a greater āloadā on the recovery weeks (if I read it correctly)
I couple of caveats. I have checked the data, but as in the case, unless someone else checks, it may be open to human error, but the data seems ok. And apologies for the colourings. I was trying to make it 4DP coloured but gave in in the end.
