If TSS is equal for two rides, how much does IF effect NP?

[tomUK]

two quick examples...

- Last week I rode a route of 20 miles in 1hr 16mins. My NP was 171 and my ave. Pwr was 154. Kjolues 692. TSS 88.3.

- I rode the same route today in 1hr 21min. My NP was 116 and my ave Pwe was 113. Kjolues 534. TSS 44.2

if I rode at NP 116 till I got a TSS of 88.4 (I'm roughly guess it would take 2hrs 40 minutes) and I would burn 1064 Kjoules then is the training effect much different to my first example listed? (I know my IF is different assuming my FTP is 200).

Here is my question:

If I were to train 5 times a week at my first example (1hr 16mins NP 171 TSS 88.4) or 5 times a week like my second ride only twice at long (40miles, 2 hrs 42min @ NP 116 TSS 88.4) and then do a FTP test, would it actually differ much and if so but a lot?

Hope the question makes sense.

 

[DAL1955]

Here is my question:

If I were to train 5 times a week at my first example (1hr 16mins NP 171 TSS 88.4) or 5 times a week like my second ride only twice at long (40miles, 2 hrs 42min @ NP 116 TSS 88.4) and then do a FTP test, would it actually differ much and if so but a lot?

Hopefully someone a lot more experience than I will respond. Also, I'm not sure that your ride examples make sense to me, but anyway. Your second example is about 60% FTP, which isn't going to do much and would by most standards be a recovery or a JRA (just riding around) scenario. The first example is about 85% FTP which is closer to the training standard for FTP development.

As I understand it... equal TSS would imply roughly equal recovery requirements, though recovery from a 88 TSS effort should not require more than a few hours. Training benefit is another thing. Power is developed by intensity, endurance by duration. Endurance at high intensity is built by duration at high intensity. To answer the question, in a week, you probably wouldn't see much change in your FTP, but 2-3 weeks of similar efforts as you describe would more likely result in FTP improvements. If you read the "Its killing me thread", the benchmark for FTP improvement would be 20 minute intervals at 90+% of FTP. Given all the data in that thread, I would suggest that scenario 1 would be the best route to FTP improvements. However, you probably should not try do this kind of intensity 5x per week. Once or twice per week with 48 hours recovery between efforts is what I recall the recommendation to be. You could mix in other efforts like muscle tension intervals, short intense intervals (3min 100%) and a group ride effort to round out your week.. The goal would be to spend more and more time at or near threshold effort over a 4 week block, Take an easy week and repeat. When you see your IF approaching .90+ routinely and the efforts leave you wanting to do more, test your FTP again. Reset your benchmarks and repeat the cycle over with increasingly higher target power levels.

DAL

 

[An old Guy]

tomUK ---

TSS is a measure of glycogen depletion or it is not. Mr. Coggan has made the contradicting claims. TSS is a fraudulant idea. So is NP, IF and all of the other related concepts

If one wants to get answers to the questions you ask, you need to ignore those metrics.

Can a low effort high duration workout be equivalent to a high effort low duration workout? Certainly. But NP and TSS are the wrong measures to use to determine if the workouts are equivalent.

Do high duration workouts and high effort workouts develop different processes? If that is what you want, they can. On the other hand high duration workouts can develop the same processes as high effort workouts. And vice versa.

 

[tomUK]

Interesting stuff. I often here 2 x 20 minutes at 'sweet-spot' is the best training you can do to improve fitness; however, I'm a great believer in the fact that everyone acts differently to different types of training. And what works for one won't always work for another.

Rides like 2 x 20 ftp leave me feeling dead and irritable. Yes, I'm well hydrated, fed and rested. My body just develops a deep malaise. There is no deeper issue from what I can tell - my bloodwork comes back checkbox perfect (HCT 58% to boot).

My body just seems to cope better with lower intensity. I'm just trying to get some answers and some good training ideas from people who've not had great success from the NP, IF, TSS route.

Thanks.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by tomUK .

Rides like 2 x 20 ftp leave me feeling dead and irritable. Yes, I'm well hydrated, fed and rested. My body just develops a deep malaise. There is no deeper issue from what I can tell - my bloodwork comes back checkbox perfect (HCT 58% to boot).

A HCT of 58% is more than just a tad on the highside and could be suggestive of dehydration at the time your bloodwork was done - or a poorly done test. If you're feeling dead and irritable that could be suggestive of dehydration too... Unless you live at altitude I might be inclined to look into that further. Most males fall into the mid to high 40% range. 50% is (or at least was) the cut off by the UCI and Pro riders and top amateurs had to prove that they had a naturally elevated HCT count.

Rides at threshold aren't meant to be smile inducing rides - especially if your threshold has been verified as what you can do when pulling your guts out for an hour under race conditions with lots of motivation. Rides done in the "sweet spot" shouldn't be killing you in training though.

 

[tomUK]

typo - sorry I meant 48%. Seems to be consistent on all the blood work I've had done over the last 5 years. (once every 6-12 months).

I sure understand what you are saying - 'sweet spot' training shouldn't be all grins and the likes. While I don't think I'm dehydrated and I drink 10+ cups a day, i'm not discounting it.

my big issue is that the 'sweet spot' rides and also long rides in excess of 35+ miles leave me just feeling out of it - brain fog, irritable, etc.

I just wonder if my body doesn't like all the lactate or something? It's not that i'm unfit either - resting heart rate of 35, body weight 147lbs. Ride 5 times a week (about 100 miles).

 

[SteveI]

Two rides with the same TSS will cause approximately the same magnitude of fatigue and approximately the same magnitude of adaptation, but the nature of both the fatigue and adaptation will be different if the TSS was achieved with significantly different combinations of duration and intensity.

To see how the TSS for your two examples could give a rough measure of glycogen use, consider that the lower intensity ride is more kJ of work, but a greater % of those kJ will come from fat because it was at lower intensity. So it's not implausible that the kJ obtained from glycogen would indeed be roughly similar for the two rides.

The best way to answer your question is to try training both ways for a long enough period to get a good grasp of the effect it is having on you. What you describe is totally the opposite to what I find, for example, where long slow rides leave me feeling terrible the next day, whereas I feel great the day after shorter more intense rides, so there's no point me advising you which of the two options will improve your FTP the most based on my experience. However, I suggest also considering that doing the same thing every day is generally not a good idea, you may well get better results trying to place different demands on your body, so that one part can recover while you train the next. E.g. some people believe that you should alternate days where you subject your fast twitch fibres to a lot of stress with days where you completely rest them.

 

[tomUK]

Thanks for the input Stevel. I'm not sure what you mean by the use of nature of fatigue/adaptation.

Based on the theory that the glycogen use is similar is it possible this being the reason I feel so bad after the intense rides -- my glycogen stores are low and therefore once depleted you open yourself up to a whole host of issues such as the brain fog, irritability, etc?

 

[SteveI]

What I mean by the nature of fatigue and adaptation is that different types of training stress different aspects of the body, causing different types of fatigue and adaptation. You can train one part of the body while another recovers if you do different types of training on different days.

E.g. for an extreme example, look at table 2 here and compare training in zones 4 and 7:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-training-levels,-by-andrew-coggan.aspx
There are no adaptations at all in common between the two types of training.

It's hard to say why you feel so bad after the intense rides, but people do seem to respond very differently to different types of training, which is why nobody will ever be able to answer the question of whether volume or intensity is best. Some people will always rave about how intensity is what gives the best results for them, while others will always rave about how it's a high volume of low intensity that really moves their performance on. It all comes down to how your body responds to each type of stimulus, you need to go with what works best for you.

 

[tomUK]

thank you for the info. that makes sense to me now.

I guess - like all things in life - its a fine balance. No point in spending the majority or your training time in L4 if it means your mood is negatively affected by it 70% of the time.

It's nice to hear (for a change) someone say that it's not a case of one size fits all. I often wonder how useful these zones are. I mean is it possible that one individual may increase their FTP *more* by doing their lactate workout in zone 3? who knows, i guess that is the hardest part to training - working out what works for you.

 

[DAL1955]

How long have you been cycling and training specifically for cycling, and how old are you?

 

[swampy1970]

I believe that too many people look too much into what training they should be doing and looking for some "trick" or mystical secret to sucess. For most folks a balanced program including endurance rides (but not soft pedalling all day Sunday clubrun jaunts), threshold work and some L5+ will do the job nicely. If you want something more specific then figure out what you want to (or need to) get better at and train accordingly. In the Coggan/Allen book there's a section on figuring out in quite some detail your 'power profile' beyond just the basic power profile chart...

If you want to go faster for a period of time greater than 40 something seconds then L3/L4/L5 is where you need to be. Pick a block of a couple of months where you're mostly in L3 and some L4 (L2 also if you have the time). Then go through a block of L4 and L5 work for a similar time period.

If all you want to do is ride faster and better than you did before just for fun then go out and ride for fun and incorporate elements that you enjoy most about cycling.

 

[tomUK]

Originally Posted by DAL1955 .

How long have you been cycling and training specifically for cycling, and how old are you?

I've been cycling for 15 years. 'seriously' for 8-10 years. I'm 37. back about 9 years ago I had an FTP of 280. These days I probably am somewhere between 200-220. however, I actually train more and seem to get less results. Sure, I hear you say 'do what you did before' but it doesn't work like that for me. If I do the same type of rides like I used to I'm left feeling emotionally drained and irritable. what gives? maybe our bodies just change as we get older.

I *tend* to find club runs to be useless. Most of those folk don't ride all week and then they do60-70 miles on Saturday and that's it. I prefer to do 100 miles per week split over 4 days - something like 20, 20, 20, 40 (long ride). While I could do the 60-70 miler, it leaves me miserable for a day or two after.

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .

TSS is a measure of glycogen depletion or it is not. Mr. Coggan has made the contradicting claims.

Wrong (again). What I have said is that TSS is predictive of glycogen utilization, even though it was not deliberately designed to be. There's nothing contradictory about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy .

TSS is a fraudulant idea. So is NP, IF and all of the other related concepts


Nothing fraudulent about it in the least.

 

[tomUK]

Originally Posted by acoggan .


Wrong (again). What I have said is that TSS is predictive of glycogen utilization, even though it was not deliberately designed to be. There's nothing contradictory about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy .

TSS is a fraudulant idea. So is NP, IF and all of the other related concepts


Nothing fraudulent about it in the least.

I'm not sure how this helps answer my initial question. I read somewhere the TSS might be best viewed as a predictor of the amount of glycogen utilized in each workout. If TSS contributes to CTL and ATL then does it follow (or not) that the more points you total the fitter you become no matter how those points are composed?

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by tomUK .

I'm not sure how this helps answer my initial question.

It wasn't intended to answer your question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomUK .

If TSS contributes to CTL and ATL then does it follow (or not) that the more points you total the fitter you become no matter how those points are composed?


[COLOR= rgb(51, 51, 51)]"While the Performance Manager is an extremely valuable tool for analyzing training on a macro scale, it is important to also consider things on a micro scale as well, i.e., the nature and demands of the individual training sessions that pr[/COLOR]oduce the daily TSS values. That is, the “composition” of training is just as important as the overall “dose”, and the usefulness and predictive ability of the Performance Manager obviously depends on the individual workouts being appropriately chosen and executed in light of the individual’s competition goals."

(See point #8 here:http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/the-science-of-the-performance-manager.aspx)

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by tomUK .

I'm not sure how this helps answer my initial question. I read somewhere the TSS might be best viewed as a predictor of the amount of glycogen utilized in each workout. If TSS contributes to CTL and ATL then does it follow (or not) that the more points you total the fitter you become no matter how those points are composed?

While TSS may predict glycogen that's not where the strength of TSS lies. Going out an riding for x miles at y% intensity and bonking/not bonking is a much easier method to understand as far as glycogen useage goes. Strangely, this seems to happen to you even on sessions where you shouldn't be bonking.

Consider this somewhat extreme example, taken from a 600km ride I did this past weekend.

[SIZE= xx-small]Duration: 22:33:50 (25:44:47)[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Work: 9145 kJ[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]TSS: 651.2 (intensity factor 0.537)[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Norm Power: 145[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]VI: 1.29[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Pw:HR: n/a[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Pa:HR: n/a[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Distance: 374.678 mi[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Min Max Avg[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Power: 0 456 113 watts[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Cadence: 29 174 72 rpm[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Speed: 0 43 16.7 mph[/SIZE]

A huge TSS - however, as the IF was low, as you'd somewhat expect for 22hours on a bike that wasn't a race. I'm sure that a fair amount of energy came from glycogen but fat would likely be the fuel of choice. I don't think I ate anywhere near 500Kcals per hour and energy wise I felt good at the finish. Im not sure where trying to use TSS (or a pre-guestimated TSS) to estimate glycogen useage would help given that I'd already found a method that seems to work in training. However, I'm always open to hearing about ideas....

If you're using WKO+ become familiar with the basic concepts of TSS, CTL, ATL and TSB - the big hint of what they're best for monitoring is in their respective names.

It's not a question of totalling more TSS points and having the CTL line skyrocket upwards over time. If that was the case I'd go out and spend 4 to 5 hours on the bike each Saturday and Sunday, roll around a 20mph and rack up some nice numbers - but it really wouldn't help me if I needed to smash out a good 10 mile TT or honk out of the saddle up a 4 minute hill at warp speed with the fast lads. The key is taking the amount of time that you have, say 12 hours per week, figuring out what you want to do, do the required training and monitor it using the above variables.

As you progress through your training program if things are progressing nicely you should be able to increase your TSS per ride which inturn will effect CTL, ATL and TSB. Note your progress (watts for a given duration) and whether you can handle your training load - does TSB reflect how you feel? If you are running into a situation where TSB isn't negative but your legs are stuffed or where your TSB is starting to look like the National Debt and you're feeling fresh - then somethings afoot.

If training is progressing well you will also need to keep an eye on IF - if that starts getting close to 1 for regular training sessions you might consider re-testing your FTP. When you adjust FTP then TSS for a given ride will change and so will CTL, ATL and TSB over time.

The really cool thing about all of that, if you keep things "honest" (ie set your FTP where your FTP where it really is) is that you have a bunch of data to refer back too. Add comments and you end up with a training diary on EPO...

 

[tomUK]

[SIZE= xx-small]Duration: 22:33:50 (25:44:47)[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Work: 9145 kJ[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]TSS: 651.2 (intensity factor 0.537)[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Norm Power: 145[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]VI: 1.29[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Pw:HR: n/a[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Pa:HR: n/a[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Distance: 374.678 mi[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Min Max Avg[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Power: 0 456 113 watts[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Cadence: 29 174 72 rpm[/SIZE]
[SIZE= xx-small]Speed: 0 43 16.7 mph[/SIZE]

w

Wow - Those are some impressive numbers! I assume this was spread over two (or three days) and not a case of start riding at 6 am in the morning and finish at 3am the following day?

I guess I want to taylor my plan to finishing a ride of 60 miles (ish), feeling good. If that means holding someone else's wheel, I'm fine with that. I don't want to make a TT out of 60 miles. I guess what I would like to do is suck someones wheel doing 20mph (about 150W I'm guessing) for 60 miles. What sort of training schedule would you suggest for this assuming you have 4-5 days a week to throw at this?

 

[DAL1955]

Originally Posted by tomUK .

I've been cycling for 15 years. 'seriously' for 8-10 years. I'm 37. back about 9 years ago I had an FTP of 280. These days I probably am somewhere between 200-220. however, I actually train more and seem to get less results. Sure, I hear you say 'do what you did before' but it doesn't work like that for me. If I do the same type of rides like I used to I'm left feeling emotionally drained and irritable. what gives? maybe our bodies just change as we get older.

I *tend* to find club runs to be useless. Most of those folk don't ride all week and then they do60-70 miles on Saturday and that's it. I prefer to do 100 miles per week split over 4 days - something like 20, 20, 20, 40 (long ride). While I could do the 60-70 miler, it leaves me miserable for a day or two after.

I guess it really depends on what you want to accomplish with your training. You've been at it long enough to know what works for you and what it took to develop an FTP of 280. IF you want an FTP of that caliber again, it will likely take more work than it did originally. I am 57, and i can attest that things do change as you get older. Changes take longer, fitness is slower to come, and we have a likely have a lot more on our plate from a "life" perspective than we did at 28. The bad news; It only gets worse, that age thing. Most of the training you read about these days is based on the concept of more efficient use of training time as that is the limiter for most cyclists except for the pros, so what you hear and read is based on the author's perception of the most efficient use of training time, hence the recommendations for more threshold work than you are probably doing now.

However, if you don't have or want to have a goal, just ride because you enjoy the scenery, don't sweat it. Ditch the computer, the HR strap, send me your power meter and just enjoy riding your bike.

 

[DAL1955]

Originally Posted by tomUK .

Wow - Those are some impressive numbers! I assume this was spread over two (or three days) and not a case of start riding at 6 am in the morning and finish at 3am the following day?

I guess I want to taylor my plan to finishing a ride of 60 miles (ish), feeling good. If that means holding someone else's wheel, I'm fine with that. I don't want to make a TT out of 60 miles. I guess what I would like to do is suck someones wheel doing 20mph (about 150W I'm guessing) for 60 miles. What sort of training schedule would you suggest for this assuming you have 4-5 days a week to throw at this?

Actually, I think he started at 3am or something like that and rode continuously. Impressive by any definition. To your point though, 60 miles at 20 is about 3 hours steady effort at approximately 75% of your current FTP. You can train for this several ways - spend hours in the saddle at 75% of FTP and eventually 60 miles will seem like just another ride as you will have built endurance for sustaining 75% FTP level efforts. That will work fine unless the ride has lots of surges, hills or wind. Alternatively, you can do a mix of hard days, easy days and long days and probably get there faster. The hard days will increase your FTP, making the 150W efforts less intense, prepare you for surges, hills, and wind, the easy days let you recover from the hard days and you can work on other training aspects, and the long days develop your endurance for sustaining these efforts. As you lay out your training program, figure out how much time each week you are spending at or near threshold levels. In a 4 week block, try to increase that time by 10%-15% each week. After 4 weeks, do a week where every ride is easy and then start over with a slightly higher(+5-10W) wattage target for your sessions.

DAL