The first two books in the Yusupov series
Build up your Chess 1
Boost Your Chess 1

first book took me 30 hours second book about 45 hours to work through. 

Half of the time was reading/studying the lessons and their examples, half was solving the problems and playing through the solutions. 

Thank you for your comments - it gives me something to think about and some good advice which was the reason I posted the plan. 

 
Lack of exercises in the plan. 
This may be a huge weaknes. I have planned solving exercises when working with tactics but not with the positional and strategic study and not when it comes to studying endgames. This  could be a mistake. I want to stick with the concept of making my own plan but don’t know exactly how to address this problem. Surely, working through a high quality middlegame- or endgame book must be of value, even if it does not contain exercises but I get the point that it is no substitute for actual training. Maybe one could say that good instructional books makes the reader understand themes and patterns while exercises makes the student able to better use the knowledge?   
Just a funny idea: If two people study through the same book simultaniously they could make exercises for each other. Maybe use the game collections on chessgames.com (or other site) which have different themes (e.g. I have found themes on IQP, hanging pawns, pawn endings, different sacrifices, bad bishops etc). We pick games from different periods to make sure we don’t use the same games. I think it would actually be a very effective way of learning. Of course having a professional coach pick exercises will give other obvious advantages but I think that constructing the exercises may in its own right be a very effective training. You would of course have to invet some kind of template for the exercises (starting position, access and describe the position, describe the dominant features of the position, outline each sides plans, show main variations, etc) and you would of course have to find games where this is already described by a master, but with the amount of annotated games available I don’t think this would be too much of a problem. 
 
Playing activity. 
I will play the exact same number of games with or without this plan. Due to other obligations my level of activity is not high but I play a weekly game in the club or for the club-team during winter and I will participate in 2-3 tournaments the coming year. This will give me 25 – 35 games. 
About the limited results from reading about swimming etc I get your point but it could also be argued that studying is more like spending time in the gym – I’m sure Usain Bolt spend more time training with weights than he does running. 
Anyway, I get the point about balancing the efford and not overdue theorizing about playing on the expence of playing however I cannot substitude study-hours for playing-hours because most of my studying/training will be late at night (enzomnia is the chessplayers best friend;-). 
 
Book on middlegame pawnstructure.
I have read reviews of sokolovs book and I picked it because I plan on playing the Tarrasch against d4 (untill now I have played KID and regular QGD but will change to Tarrasch). And I plan on playing d4. I know that d4 may not be the optimal way to improve fast but it earns me the point and I want to keep winning even if im improving;-) Anyway I will re-consider if this is the book about middlegame pawn-structure I should start with (it fits my current strength but maybe I should look for something that addresses my weaknesess). 
 
Studying my own games. 
I have not planned on spending much time on this but it could be a big mistake. I usually play them over with fritz which always shows me that the good game I just played was actually a series of mistakes from both sides. Maybe I should study my games a little differently? I once saw a book about annotating ones own games – anyone knows it or have other recommendations?
 
Studying openings vs studying other things. 
Descartes is right! I enjoy and feel good about studying for a detailed repertoire even though I will most likely not get to play much theory at my current level. I simply enjoy working with an opening – have done it the last ½ year with the french (flexible french by Moskalenko) but have not even once had the chance to enter a theoretical line because of my opponents early deviations. However, the time spend have certainly not been wasted. I have learned a lot about closed positions, positional exchange-sacrifice, open lines, timing of freeing moves in cramped positions etc., and I have played through a lot of beautifull games. And I have won at least one game because I obviously was more familiar with a french-theme than my opponent, though it was not a french opening. That’s exactly why I now want to spend “to much time” on openings and especially on the e5 response to e4. I hope that study of the e5 opening-complex will help my handling of open positions even if I don’t get to play much theory. 


That said I will consider if the distribution of time should be different (no point in asking for advice if you don’t listen;-).

I will read the articles from chesscafe and reflect a little more about your recomendations and make a more balanced plan. 

Thanks a lot,
Larsen_fan

Replace the 160 hours of opening study with playing tournaments and analysing your games, and for middlegame improvement, you can study Simple Chess by Stean, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by John Watson and The Amateur's Mind (or Reassess your Chess) by John Silman. 

Good luck with your goals.

I would be cautious about investing so much time in this way.

Yusupov's course consists of examples and exercises.  That is crucial. I don't see that many exercises in your course of study.  A related matter: when are you going to play? I wouldn't study to the exclusion of playing a lot (serious games, not blitz or rapid), for the same reason that you need exercises: you can only get limited results from reading about swimming, playing the piano, or solving math problems, and the same is true for chess.

Sokolov won't be of too much use to you unless you play certain openings, primarily 1.d4 and/or the Nimzo, QGD, QGA, Tarrasch, etc. against 1.d4. Have you looked inside that book? It is almost entirely about those openings and the positions that arise from them. Its title is misleading.  Maybe a general strategic set like Euwe and Kramer or Pachmann would do what you want.

I don't think 160 hours of opening study will help you improve much at all compared to 160 hours of analysis of, say, CT-Art positions, though you might enjoy it and feel good about having a detailed repertoire.

I don't mean to be negative. It's great that you want a personalized study course.  If you want to create a study course just for yourself, why don't you pay an instructor to help you design it after looking at some of your games? Before the kind of time investment you're talking about, it would be worth it. Or at least design your own plan around the results of Khmelnitzky's Chess Exam and Training Guide, which will give you 100 intricate and often fascinating exercises, along with a professional statistical analysis (Khmelnitsky is an actuary) of which areas you are weakest in.

Anyway, good luck.