CTL (Chronic Training Load for 70.3)
OK, I have a question for anyone who is a little more educated in the area of CTL. I have been using Training Peaks and have incorporated the Performance Chart feature to track my CTL, ATL, and TSB. I understand what each of these mean and I have found some interesting data on Ironman CTL totals and what is considered good (from what I can tell in the neighborhood of 130-140). However, I can not find any data on 70.3 data. I am doing to 70.3 races 12 weeks apart and my total projected CTL for them are 104.2 and 108.4. Does anyone know if this is a good range. My race day TSB ends up around 28.
I do understand there are some left and right lateral limits as far as individual results go, but after doing a few races I have never looked at it like this and that is probably why I have had between 4:42 and 6:00 finishes. This seems to be a great tool and I would like any feedback from anyone who has some experience with it. At 37 years of age it is probably time to get smarter rather than just beating myself for the benifit of doing it!
Comments
Have to agree w/ Paul but also would mentionthat it is only a metric that doesn't account for the "type" of TSS. ie: 300 TSS from a 5 hour steady ride is a lot different than an all out tongue dragging 2.5 hour ride followed by 1 hour threshold run off bike!
With EN I got up to 142 CTL max for IM Canada last year. Using another coach in 2009 I hit 165 for IM Moo w/ less intensity. I assure you the EN CTL felt just as tough if not tougher than the Z1/2 training to get the 165 CTL in 2009. Plus I'm 46 yo. but have 11 years of hard training in my body.
My SWAG is that your projected CTL is cetainly within the normal and accepted range of reasonable HIM training.
I think there might be a Google wattage forum that has info on this but I no longer follow that group. Can join them and check out archives.
I appreciate the info and I am glad to see that I am somewhat uder the same belief.
And, FYI, I raced IMLP reasonably well on a CTL lower than your current one.
The Performance Management Chart is a pretty nifty tool, but realize that its utility is limited by the fact that it's just a fancy way of adding up and averaging TSS, and plotting that on a chart. TSS is a useful metric for comparing individual workouts, but there are things like recovery and fatigue that can't be captured in that chart and also factor in to your performance. Personally, I just use the PMC to get a good long term summary of my workload and to plan a taper. Rest and recovery are real-time factors that I monitor internally, and I think those are crucial metrics in scaling training load.
As other have said, there are a lot of variables in the PMC stuff that make it more useful for some things, less useful for others:
I think the PMC "can" be useful if you use it to look at how you trained in the past -- you hit a peak at the right time and had a great race, for example -- and you want to duplicate it, but this assumes you're not training dramatically different from season to season. That is, the kind of switch that would not be caught in that 250 TSS example above.
@Shane You bet!
Very insightful and true Geo! Point well made.
I personally think there is too much room for error in the PMC system. If your FT is off, your TSS is useless. Most people don't test enough and I think their FT bounces around with fitness. Also, biking is pretty dialled in on their system, running and especially swimming, not so much. I'll watch my year over year 6 week TSS/day metric for big picture stuff, but not for a lot more.
I tend to focus on my personal fatigue levels; am I sleeping at night, am I desperate for an afternoon nap, are my power numbers dropping, am I mentally burned out, etc. When these factors start to pile up, I take a day or two off and re-assess.