Sequencing Workouts/Intensity - Page 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by An old Guy 

TSS claims to measure glycogen depletion. It does a poor job of that because it considers all work to be done thru the glycogen pathway.

Not true (on either point):

Quote:

Originally Posted by An old Guy 

My implementation gives 100TSS for 150%/0% intervals. And 120TSS for 160%/0% intervals. I can do those intervals for 2-3 hours

Post a file.

Quote:

Originally Posted by An old Guy 

6 hours at 70% FTP is 300TSS. [. . .] And 70% (zone 1) is recognized as producing no gain by most people who write about training.

It's called training STRESS score and not training PERFORMANCE score for a reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alienator 


With a correlation as lows that displayed in your plot, I don't think someone could claim TSS measures glycogen depletion and think that someone would take him seriously. The plot either shows that there was a lot of uncertainty in the measurement or that there's no causal relationship between TSS and glycogen used.
Do have any larger data sets that would demonstrate the low correlation?

Heh - clearly you have never measured human muscle glycogen content via the biopsy approach! That's actually a quite decent correlation when you consider that the coefficient of variation of the Y axis measurement is ~10%. (There's a very good reason that I moved on from doing muscle biopsies to relying upon other methods to quantify substrate utilization, e.g., stable isotopic tracers, imaging techniques, etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by acoggan 

Heh - clearly you have never measured human muscle glycogen content via the biopsy approach! That's actually a quite decent correlation when you consider that the coefficient of variation of the Y axis measurement is ~10%. (There's a very good reason that I moved on from doing muscle biopsies to relying upon other methods to quantify substrate utilization, e.g., stable isotopic tracers, imaging techniques, etc.)

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that TSS was not intentionally designed to predict muscle glycogen use...it does, however, because of the physiological knowledge incorporated into the algorithm (in particular, the non-linear relationship between exercise intensity and metabolic strain, as reflected by changes in blood lactate).

To put it another way: if I desired, I could probably come up with a better way of predicting muscle glycogen use from power data...of far greater interest, however, would be the ability to predict the adaptations resulting from training instead (hint, hint ).

Quote:

Originally Posted by acoggan 

The other thing to keep in mind is that TSS was not intentionally designed to predict muscle glycogen use...it does, however, because of the physiological knowledge incorporated into the algorithm (in particular, the non-linear relationship between exercise intensity and metabolic strain, as reflected by changes in blood lactate).

 

To put it another way: if I desired, I could probably come up with a better way of predicting muscle glycogen use from power data...of far greater interest, however, would be the ability to predict the adaptations resulting from training instead (hint, hint ).

OK, I'll bite.  I'm thick.  I don't get it.  Isn't that what the training zone benefits chart in the book tells you?  Or are you talking about something else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctorSpoc 

After reading my first crazy post of his, my instinct told me... this guy doesn't even own a power meter.. is this the power cranks guy? forget his puedonym..?

The power cranks guy, you're probably refering to Frank. That said, I've got a set of them too...
 

Felt,

I've sometimes wondered about whether having TSS displayed on the screen is of any actual use during the ride as I have the ride planned out prior to leaving - ie route, what levels, approximately when to do any intervals during the ride etc... and from that I take food/drink accordingly. I'm not sure whether having another set of numbers sitting there on my bars, staring back at me egging me on to "up the score" another x amount would be a good thing - because knowing me, that's exactly what will happen with less than desirable results. LOL Add to that it's just more calculations the computer has to do that eats away at the battery life...

For the most part all I ever look at is power and time. Sometimes I'll have cadence up there if a session calls for it.

But each to his/her own. If it's something that works for you and keeps you motivated and on track then the "tool" is doing what you need it to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampy1970 

Felt,

 

I've sometimes wondered about whether having TSS displayed on the screen is of any actual use during the ride as I have the ride planned out prior to leaving - ie route, what levels, approximately when to do any intervals during the ride etc... and from that I take food/drink accordingly. I'm not sure whether having another set of numbers sitting there on my bars, staring back at me egging me on to "up the score" another x amount would be a good thing - because knowing me, that's exactly what will happen with less than desirable results. LOL Add to that it's just more calculations the computer has to do that eats away at the battery life...

 

For the most part all I ever look at is power and time. Sometimes I'll have cadence up there if a session calls for it.

 

But each to his/her own. If it's something that works for you and keeps you motivated and on track then the "tool" is doing what you need it to do.

 

I know for the many of the old school cycling guys have done well with no data. I ride with several guys that have nothing that monitors metrics while they ride/train.

For me this just fits all of my past training and success in lifting of keeping very detailed training data. I love it and so far in my very limited cycling training experience. With the Garmin 800 I have about 3 screens available  with pure data output during the ride not counting the map and elevation screens. I have done 7+ hour rides with plenty of battery life so that has not been an issue.

Consistency being my main objective I have been using training session TSS to govern what I want to achieve for that day and not interrupt if training is scheduled the next day. This is something I wrote about last month forward thinking training to stay consistent. I may be way off base with how I am using this data, but it is very similar philosophy that I used for my lifting competitions.

I will say that I was hitting my TSS goals before it was available as live data on the bike, but having it on the bike just helps simplify even more. On a long endurance training ride if I am hitting huge blocks of L3, some L4 and I get close to my goal for the day I will drop back to L2 and cruise to the rest to reservemy legs for the following day. Last Saturday it worked out just like I thought on a 70 mile ride and just two of us with no drafting, no coasting and a brief stop I finished the ride with 277 TSS. I also took a mental note of what kind of TSS it was it. As experienced I can generally do a consistent steady pace 300 TSS ride and do 2 x 60's the next day at L3, but this 277 TSS had some good bouts of L4 and I had to count some exceptional L4 intervals in the weekdays leading up to the weekend. Sure enough my legs were very sore the next day. Fortunately I had already planned to have the following day off and why I pushed a little more into L4. If that makes sense. So some of it is data output and some of it is still mentally thinking about what I had done leading up to the training event and what I have coming after and then guessing at what stress load I should  do for that day.

Maybe all of that sounds crazy, but it really does fit the way I like to train and I am glad to have all of that available to study. For most people that takes the fun out of the activity, but for me it makes it more fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrumpole 

OK, I'll bite.  I'm thick.  I don't get it.  Isn't that what the training zone benefits chart in the book tells you?  Or are you talking about something else?

 

I meant in terms of quantitatively modeling the performance improvements resulting from training. The Performance Manager approach gives you some "hints and allegations" in that regard, but at its core what it (like the original impulse-response model, and almost every other approach as well) really tells you is when to train, not how/how much to train. Moreover, the input function itself (i.e., TSS) is really a predictor of the physiological strain resulting from a certain amount of applied stress, and only secondarily an indicator of adaptation (i.e., "it is called Training Stress Score and not Training Performance Score for a reason").   

Quote:

Originally Posted by LT Intolerant 

 "how/how much to train."  & "the ability to predict the adaptations resulting from training"

 

"When do we get this?", he said w credit card in hand. 

Only time will tell, but it might be sooner than you think! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by acoggan 

Only time will tell, but it might be sooner than you think! 

Well, you've been hinting at this for at least a year...  That said, one answer to this question is to get a coach.  It's not like it's rocket science.