TSs - ATL - CTL Discussion
Hi all.
I read Mikes thread and mostly agree with it. I was discussing it with a few other athletes and came across some things I am trying to understand. I am a novice at WKO and want to get a better understanding of the values I am seeing.
First off...I agree with Mikes post. But I want to make a small addition and see if people think it is correct. First some definitions....
TSS - training stress of a given workout. Can accumulate over a week/month, whatever. While this number is easy to define from a mathematical standpoint it is highly individual. By that I mean a two people doing identical workouts of TSS 150 will feel the impact differently. In that way TSS is nothing more than a guide for each individual.
ATL - acute training. Short term training load. Not needed for my discussion/questions.
CTL is your training load over time - 30 days I think. It is based on TSS, IF, and other factors. The math behind it does not matter as much as the meaning behind the number. I have heard CTL described as your fitness. I think this word choice is very poor for use within the EN haus. In fact I think that word is a primary reason for the volume whores (guilty) in the room. Chasing a number can be fun and is challenging. Everyone wants their CTL as high as possible as that indicates raceday performance. - or does it?
Often times disagreements are caused by vocabulary choice. Despite dictionaries people "feel" differently about words. In this instance the word fitness is the one I question. In the WKO world fitness equates to CTL and a number. It is an accumulation of your workouts or "work". In the EN world it is used differently. Work = speed entering the body and Fitness = speed. particularily in the OS. This creates a problem when using software like WKO as our definitions of simple words no longer align. See the problem?
I believe that is the main reason behind WKO not being a great tool for EN - OS training. While I think it is a good tracking tool, I do not think it is a good indicator of performance because volume appears to trump intensity in WKO. By that i mean this...for each individual there are different thresholds. person A might be able to do 70% ftp workouts all day but any Z4 type workouts crush them and they need a day of recovery. Person B may love z4 workouts and can handle multiple back to back without recovery. WKO fails to take this difference into account when calculating TSS...that then impacts CTL and ATL. That creates a real difference in the EN world making WKO almost useless as an indicator of fitness or guage of performance. In fact I'd say without any doubt that while following the OS my FTP is a much more accurate measure of performance than CTL.
Does that mean WKO is useless? I'm not sure.....
So...what do we do. First off we all must remember that WKO is only as powerful as we make it. It is a tool, nothing more. The phrase "garbage in, garbage out" comes to mind. The tool is based on science and that is great. But it is attempting to predict the performance of a human. Humans are not science. We are irrational, emotional, un-scientifice blobs of muscle waiting to be molded into bone-crushing athletic monsters with giant quads!! My point is this...WKO does not know YOU. YOU know you.
Here come my questions.
Assuming the above is correct, might it be a better use of WKO to create a completely new season or athlete for every OS and IM or 1/2 IM season. In this way you are re-setting all your numbers and not worrying about the difference in vocabulary.
- This gives you the ability to track your OS in a stand-alone manner. You can also review multiple OS's for trends. An OS to OS comparison is valid for trending where an OS to IM comparison might not be.
- It also gives you the ability to compare IM to IM plans, etc.
- It is my understanding that WKO gives an athlete the ability to provide a baseline value for fitness - CTL or ATL. (I can't remember the term they use for it). With this number we can approximate our fitness based on our training prior to the start of a new season.
My reasoning is this. WKO is approximating your fitness based on previous workouts. When you go through an OS it gives you low fitness due to really low volume even though that is not really accurate due to the speed you have built up during the OS. Can't we as reasonably intelligent humans do a better job of approximating our pre-season fitness coming out of an OS. In fact, couldn't I look at previous pre-seasons FTP and Vdot scores and say,
"hey...my vdot was 48 and ftp was 290 prior to my IM season starting last season. I've been biking and running consitently and am injury free, I feel great and my CTL was a 56.5. I finish this OS with a vdot of 55 and a ftp of 350. I feel great and am ready to go...but my CTL is only a 48. huh?" -- can't I simply say...no, that is not accurate based on my actual performances in training. I am going to start my CTL at say 64. (all numbers are off the top of my head.)
The reason I write and ask all this is due to a discussion with a friend. He likes the EN style workouts but is modifying the plan he purchased to add volume and workouts while leaving much of the intensity. I asked him why and my understanding of his answer had to do with fitness and CTL. And at a basic level I completely understand his reasoning. You spend a lot of time building CTL and hate watching it go down!! He specifically did not like that his CTL would be lower towards the end of his IM plan due to the lower OS CTL numbers.
that is where he lost me. Because that is where I think WKO loses a little value. It places an emphasis on volume and not intensity therefore negating its ability to predict your performance or fitness.
Does that mean my friend can't make changes to the EN plan and be successful - no. I have no doubt that he can. But I really want to understand and correctly align my understanding of WKO and the values it gives us.
As I see it the numbers in WKO are guides based on science and combined with art. They are not the word of god or the gospel. They simply give you indicators and trends. You still have to know your body and fitness. And certain tests and key workouts over time will give you a better indicator of fitness than CTL and ATL.
ok...this has gotten obnoxiously long. feedback please.
Anyway, this has gotten really long. I just wanted to start this conversation as I want to better understand the best use of WKO.
I'd also say that using CTL numbers from one year to the next might create confusion. Would it be better to at least create a fresh start from year to year. From what I can tell my friend uses WKO from year to year taking his CTL and pushing it forward as a baseline. While I understand why that is...is it really accurate? Would it be better to simply reset your value every year and treat each year as new. You can then use your FTP and Vdot as baselines. I'm not sure i'm saying that part right. ugh.
Comments
Eric,
You brought up some terrific, thoughtful points in your discussion. With a couple of seasons behind me I, however, tend to view WKO+ a bit differently. I think its value is in the long term analysis of the impact of training on my body.
When I review the season (which starts on January 1 for me) I can look back and see what my starting CTL number was in January, right in the heart of the OS. The low CTL number is a non issue, because I know that when the volume increases, that number will quickly rise.
I can also review the TSB and ATL numbers and see the impact on them as volume kicked in. Last year I experienced some over training difficulties and looking back the hole I was in TSB-wise tells me just where the problems started. As I move forward towards 2011 the previous year’s WKO+ data has helped arm me to watch out for that hole and reminds me that perhaps a cutback in training is necessary in order to maintain when I begin to reach it.
So I guess I am saying that I like the longer term WKO+ view to measure previous trends and learn from them as I start another OS and later begin half or full IM training.
I will admit that I spent much of my early time with WKO+ viewing it through a microscope and having difficulty in reaching any conclusions. Only after a season or so in the books which then allowed me to view the data from a telescope was I better able to make sense of the numbers and more importantly, the trends in a manner which makes me a smarter athlete.
I am not sure if this helps or hinders the discussion.
See this entry in the Wiki, which started as a post:
http://members.endurancenation.us/Resources/Wiki/tabid/108/Default.aspx?topic=Focusing+on+What+Matters+in+the+OS
1) what is fitness? Is it a blue line on a chart? Is it something that we let someone else define? Or is it an internal metric? Is it how fast you can do the weekly TT loop in town? Or is it how far you can go on a given day?
I write all those down because I think that it is an important question to get comfortable with. Most people in their head have some hybrid definition between fast and far. I would suggest to anyone first defining what 'getting more fit' means to them before undertaking any fitness voyage. If you want to get faster, why would you add 'far', at the expense of adding 'fast' (assuming limited time to devote to one's hobby)
2) what is the point of CTL? It's a 42-day average of the training 'dose' you've been giving yourself. That's all. In competitive athletes, training in season, it's a pretty good indicator of fitness. But not perfect. That is why folks at Physfarm (for one example) use a similar model, but alter that 42 day constant dynamically to try to predict future performance.
Which one is right? They can't both be 'right', because they're different. So, which one are you going to peg your athletic identity to? Which little blue line is going to define how you feel about yourself?
I'd suggest a different way. Forget CTL, etc, during the OS. Just do the work, and get faster. The rest is just not important. And when you get in season, you will have been training for longer than 42 days (6 weeks) before a race, so it all sorts itself out.
I'm sure that there are hacks you could come up with to SWAG where your CTL should be based in how you feel etc, but I just fail to see the value in spending that mental energy on the exercise. It doesn't make you faster. Intervals at FTP make you faster.
Just read the wiki that Mike wrote and LOVE IT!!! I am also new and new to training with power. I have been also combing through WKO and trying to make sense of it all. I also just bought the book, "Training With a Power Meter" the second addition. Great book talks about our coaches RnP, gets in debth about training with power and power meters, and a ton about vocabulary like, IS, TSS, CTL, and ATL. Also explains those bizaare graphs like a quadrant and scatter graph. Regarding the training Mike talked about I really like how he drove home, THE MAIN SETS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT!!!! The rest if you can get it done then great but training in ZONE 4 as much as possible is important. I noted my training today felt great (OS Intermediate-NOV) but towards the end of the bike got very nauseated. HR and power were within check. Very tired feeling and had to wait about an hour to do my 15 minute run with half at MP and 1/2 at HMP. I tell you this zapped me and I am not sure I will be ready for the run tomorrow. I suffer a lot from ITB and really don't want that back. I noted some minor pulling in the right posterior hip area today and that pain just sticks in my mind. Listening to my body it might be a great idea to take tomorrow off but again then you feel like you are missing and getting behind.
This last season I ran 4 marathon so I spent a lot of my time running long and easy not a lot of interval works. Did one 1/2 iron (Kansas) but no training like this, and a lot of road races and sprint tri's. I was on prednisone 5 times for my ITB and had to take 3 weeks off before I was able to run again. Just worried about the intensity. Thoughts, ideas, questions.
Thanks
You gotta keep an eye on the intensity and it's effect on you, but here are a few thoughts:
- Most of the running (especially in the FTP sections) are of the "threshold" variety, not the "run as fast as you can variety. Thus, you aren't all that likely to hurt yourself inherently... you should be alble to hold good form, etc. With the low volume, you get enough chance to heal back up between them.
- As long as your bike is well fit, the worst thing most of us do to ourselves on a trainer is fatigue.
On the specifics of ITB, I'm really not an expert. You are a good judge of that... but generally the workload should be ok if you are healthy.
And, of course... don't follow the plan into the wall!
Never get out of the boat (Apocalypse Now).
Don't follow the plan into the wall (William Jenks).
In addition, I agree that the injury risk to the Z4 type running work is lower, but that's also a highly individual thing, so it's hard to say the impact of following the plan on anyone in particular.