Originally Posted by chinarider

I think this article is the opposite of what you've been saying. Your thesis has been that structured training plans are pseudo science and that you do just as well riding how you feel. The author you cite acknowledges that structured training would make him faster and a better racer, but states that these benefits are just not worth the loss of enjoyment he gets from less structured riding ("For the little bit closer that training would nudge me toward my middling limits, I’d rather go ahead and day-by-day decide to ride my bike when I want to, and where, and with whom, and on which roads.").

There is nothing wrong with this position and it is pretty much how I feel. Whether the marginal gains to be realized from structured training are worth adhering to the structure is a legitimate question that can only be answered by each individual; the issue of whether a well designed training program works and is necessary for a rider to reach his or her potential is not a legitimate question. It does and is.