TRIMP's have been around a long time. Personally, I think it's pretty crude compared to CTL (which I'm still not a big fan of). It's somewhat mind-boggling to someone who uses a HRM and has never thought about the topic before, but then the novelty wears off.
CTL is the best we have (though flawed), and at some point in the future, we will figure out how to combine that with Restwise-like metrics to create a better picture of fatigue, form, and 'fitness'.
All that said, unless I'm training for HIM / IM, I don't use any of the above, and rely on Vdot and FTP as a gauge of my fitness, which is all I really care about. In fact, I prefer to minimize my training dose as much as possible until I stop seeing improvements, then add just a little back. In that way, I can keep myself from burning the candle out at both ends...
Interesting article. I think each metric of training load as its own merits, caveats, and set of exceptions, and it's important that we don't read too much into these numbers. After all, training is a complicated process with a lot of knowns and unknowns that go into it. The net is that no matter what you use to measure training stress, a single number just won't catch all the details and subtleties involved. I don't think these metrics are completely useless though. They do provide at least a ballpark estimate of what we're doing to our bodies, but I always keep in mind to interpret these numbers with a grain of salt.
One big issue that I can see is the variability of recorded RPE. What I mean by this is that the memory of RPE has a high initial rapid decay (i.e. the curve is asymptotic). The sooner you record something, the higher the number will be --- in general.
Think of your hardest race. Now think of its Overall RPE. If you were able to ask your past-self, at the moment of finishing (!) what the RPE was, I posit that it would be a higher number. The further something recedes in the past, the 'less difficult' we remember it.
Otherwise, I don't think many of us would do HIM/IM races repeatedly.
I am not a WSM, but answer anyway ... I use TRIMP now over a year now ... i think the article is sub-par, but have no current alternative.
I agree that FTP/VDot/T-Pace are better indicators for seeing improvements, but I guess you need to see TRIMP (Esp the TRIMP Zone approach) more like TSS, what "training stress" did a work-out cause. it is just that the stress is gauged by what your Heart needed to do, vs what you actually did do.
There are options to do charts with CTL/ATL/TSB based on TRIMP, the absolute numbers are a bit different, but they work the same way.
I uses this as a base to oversee my overall season and how i am peaking / tapering into races, and if I am getting back into the training after being sick. (see below)
FWIW, I train with Power and Pace where I can, but I travel a lot and I have no real-time power on outdoor bike .
Comments
CTL is the best we have (though flawed), and at some point in the future, we will figure out how to combine that with Restwise-like metrics to create a better picture of fatigue, form, and 'fitness'.
All that said, unless I'm training for HIM / IM, I don't use any of the above, and rely on Vdot and FTP as a gauge of my fitness, which is all I really care about. In fact, I prefer to minimize my training dose as much as possible until I stop seeing improvements, then add just a little back. In that way, I can keep myself from burning the candle out at both ends...
Think of your hardest race. Now think of its Overall RPE. If you were able to ask your past-self, at the moment of finishing (!) what the RPE was, I posit that it would be a higher number. The further something recedes in the past, the 'less difficult' we remember it.
Otherwise, I don't think many of us would do HIM/IM races repeatedly.
I am not a WSM, but answer anyway ... I use TRIMP now over a year now ... i think the article is sub-par, but have no current alternative.
.
I agree that FTP/VDot/T-Pace are better indicators for seeing improvements, but I guess you need to see TRIMP (Esp the TRIMP Zone approach) more like TSS, what "training stress" did a work-out cause. it is just that the stress is gauged by what your Heart needed to do, vs what you actually did do.
There are options to do charts with CTL/ATL/TSB based on TRIMP, the absolute numbers are a bit different, but they work the same way.
I uses this as a base to oversee my overall season and how i am peaking / tapering into races, and if I am getting back into the training after being sick. (see below)
FWIW, I train with Power and Pace where I can, but I travel a lot and I have no real-time power on outdoor bike