Over reaching???

[RapDaddyo]

You know, I've somehow gotten the ever so subtle impression you are working on more than just one person and that you might get the very slightest, almost immeasurable really, satisfaction from it all....

Yes, I do. Something I learned from my original mentor, a super-human cyclist by the name of John Allis.

Woah, a 3-day stage race for a first time? That seems rather ambitious - what is the makeup of the race?

No big deal. A short TT (20K IIRC), a crit and a 36 mile RR (with a measly 5K' of climbing). Not much more than a couple of club rides.

 

[Lucy_Aspenwind]

No big deal. A short TT (20K IIRC), a crit and a 36 mile RR (with a measly 5K' of climbing). Not much more than a couple of club rides.

<reads post>

Wait, what's this? Yes, it is true, I'm yet again having thoughts of heated velodromes, sprinting, and creme custard....

I really ought to be a bit more observant and find out what triggers these minor bouts of woolgathering

 

[Alex Simmons]

Here you go. I just looked back to my last year off season training. This past 6 weeks I have logged 2x as much training at 80% to 85% FT than I did last year for 2 months. Legs are feeling normal again and really want to ride though. Still having this nagging cough. Been off the bike for 7 days now. Looks like a trainer time tomorrow since it will rain. Not sure if I want to go hardcore and riding at high tempo for 2+ hours tomorrow.

Chart doesn't look that bad, esp since you are starting from a low CTL in the 30s. However you commented on upping the intensity/volume mix substantially from previous experience, so perhaps your season to season training goal needs moderating. Still, I'd say you were just unlucky in getting sick.

There is another possibility... have you over estimated your FTP?

I did that at one stage and when I reset it - I realised my CTL ramp was much steeper than I first thought. My body was telling me I was training as hard as I could stand even though I apparently had only a moderate ramp rate.

 

[NomadVW]

Yes but not at liberty to share. Search "Homebrew tstwkt" - pretty sure some guys there worked on something like this already.

Agree CP is primarily designed as a post analysis tool. Forward planning may become another tool in the Training Peaks quiver at some stage.

After an afternoon and evening of reading wealth of posts on this topic, I finally found said spreadsheet. I played with it tonight as a planning guide. All of these numbers are blending together for me, but I'm slowly making sense of where they all go. With the CP glossary handy and my training plan in front of me, I estimated TSS's per workout for the next couple months. I worked this through to what I understand would be a "TSB/CTL based peak"

My CTL looks to increase by up at most by 5-5 1/2 per week.

So... this is now more or less completely off topic of over-reaching, but am I reading these charts essentially correct?


So much to learn, so much to learn....

 

[NomadVW]

As an aside, I understand that a lot of other things can play into this fitness/peaking besides the numbers. But all these charts all over the place are making my eyes buggy, and it sure would be nice to see the peak coming instead of hoping it arrives.

 

[frenchyge]

Anyway, I'm thinking a ramp rate of 3 CTL/week is what I'd like to aim for. While I think cyclingpeaks is excellent for analysis of files, I tend to not think of it as useful for planning training in advance.

Do you know a spreadsheet or something along those lines for planning a CTL ramp? I've heard of them, but haven't seen any in actuality.

Thread on CTL ramp planning: http://www.cyclingforums.com/t370856.html

 

[BlueJersey]

I think last year I was using something like 240w but in reality it was more like 220w or so. Also, last year my weekly TSS was high but that was the reason of commuting to work 3x or more a week at endurance pace. Right now, I am using my May FT value for these numbers. I am sure my FT is more than 250w now because the last couple of end of seaons races I did my 1 hour NP was 245w to 250w.

Chart doesn't look that bad, esp since you are starting from a low CTL in the 30s. However you commented on upping the intensity/volume mix substantially from previous experience, so perhaps your season to season training goal needs moderating. Still, I'd say you were just unlucky in getting sick.

There is another possibility... have you over estimated your FTP?

I did that at one stage and when I reset it - I realised my CTL ramp was much steeper than I first thought. My body was telling me I was training as hard as I could stand even though I apparently had only a moderate ramp rate.

 

[Lucy_Aspenwind]

Thread on CTL ramp planning: http://www.cyclingforums.com/t370856.html

Thanks - I had read that one actually, and is actually where I got the idea of using a ramp of 3 CTL/week. Seeing as it was mentioned as a modest increase but one that would still produce real gains.

 

[frenchyge]

Thanks - I had read that one actually, and is actually where I got the idea of using a ramp of 3 CTL/week. Seeing as it was mentioned as a modest increase but one that would still produce real gains.

That's an interesting comment, since I'm not sure there are any build rates that are too low to produce real gains. Have you seen a discussion indicating otherwise? A slower build rate means that many more weeks of moderate training stress have been accumulating, and the body has had much longer to adapt. The only difference is that ATL (fatigue) is maintained at a sensible level, close to, but slightly above CTL, during the entire ramp.

It seems that one could build to the same level of fitness over 8 weeks or 24 weeks, with only the build rate being different. In reality, each of us probably has an upper CTL limit based on our training time available and physical recovery rate. One planning approach might be to determine what that individual's practical CTL limit is and set the ramp rate such that CTL reaches that point just a few weeks before the target event, to leave room for peaking and tapering.

 

[RapDaddyo]

In reality, each of us probably has an upper CTL limit based on our training time available and physical recovery rate. One planning approach might be to determine what that individual's practical CTL limit is and set the ramp rate such that CTL reaches that point just a few weeks before the target event, to leave room for peaking and tapering.

And I think it probably matters (untested hypothesis) whether the rider has "been there, done that" or not. I am much less cautious about building rapidly to a CTL that I have been at in the last 12 months than if the CTL is a new high for me (at least in the last 12 months). My CTL ramp rate from May 15th to end of July this year looks like a profile view of Mt. Everest and not one I would recommend to anybody else. But, I had been to the summit of Mt. Everest 6 months earlier and I wasn't worried about ramping up so dramatically.

 

[Lucy_Aspenwind]

That's an interesting comment, since I'm not sure there are any build rates that are too low to produce real gains. Have you seen a discussion indicating otherwise? A slower build rate means that many more weeks of moderate training stress have been accumulating, and the body has had much longer to adapt. The only difference is that ATL (fatigue) is maintained at a sensible level, close to, but slightly above CTL, during the entire ramp.

It seems that one could build to the same level of fitness over 8 weeks or 24 weeks, with only the build rate being different. In reality, each of us probably has an upper CTL limit based on our training time available and physical recovery rate. One planning approach might be to determine what that individual's practical CTL limit is and set the ramp rate such that CTL reaches that point just a few weeks before the target event, to leave room for peaking and tapering.

Well considering I was building at a 10+ CTL/wk rate with TSB reaching -79 at one point - clearly that is not in my future plans. I chose 3/wk as a target, as by comparison, it seems far more reasonable to me. Moreover, relating to what you said in the second half, I haven't really established what my practical CTL and/or ramp rate limits are (though I clearly exceeded the second one). So those are two things I will no doubt gain more insight on with time - while avoiding the whole overreaching scenario I just experienced.

 

[frenchyge]

Well considering I was building at a 10+ CTL/wk rate with TSB reaching -79 at one point - clearly that is not in my future plans. I chose 3/wk as a target, as by comparison, it seems far more reasonable to me.

Without question. I agree that your decision is a good one, and was only wondering if you'd seen anything that indicated <3/wk is 'too low'.

Moreover, relating to what you said in the second half, I haven't really established what my practical CTL and/or ramp rate limits are (though I clearly exceeded the second one). So those are two things I will no doubt gain more insight on with time - while avoiding the whole overreaching scenario I just experienced.

I don't think what I suggested necessitates trial and error -- it can be done mathematically pretty easily. Over the long term, most people's training routines (including warmups, cooldowns, etc) tends to generate an average IF between .75-.80 (maybe up to .9 if one's workouts are very efficient (ie, trainer) and they're really pushing the intensity). In terms of weekly TSS that means that we're looking at between 56 and 64 times the number of hours that the person has available to train. If that person has 10 hr/wk to train, then their upper TSS/wk is 560-640 and their upper limit for CTL is (divide by 7) 80-91. That's the highest they'll likely ever get unless they figure out how to train more hours. Lucy, since you've already found your limit and overstepped it, you can just look at your average daily TSS over the past month or two -- that value is probably somewhat higher than the peak CTL you will ever see.

Now, my previous point was that there may not be any additional benefit to ramping quickly up to a CTL of 80 and letting it 'hang' there for months before the target event, as opposed to just ramping it slower so that it reaches 80 just in time to peak and taper. Additionally, the stress of the latter method is lower.

Some people may have unlimited training time available, and they become recovery limited instead. Those people will have to use trial and error as they creep out further on the limb, but again, the lower CTL build rates are going to help them there as well.

 

[normZurawski]

That's an interesting comment, since I'm not sure there are any build rates that are too low to produce real gains.

Anything less than 0 comes to mind

In reality, each of us probably has an upper CTL limit based on our training time available and physical recovery rate. One planning approach might be to determine what that individual's practical CTL limit is and set the ramp rate such that CTL reaches that point just a few weeks before the target event, to leave room for peaking and tapering.

I do wonder about this. Obviously time is an issue. But in terms of being able to handle it, it would seem like CTL ceiling is another variable you can train. I wonder if one of the ways you can train it is by maintaining a higher "base" CTL through the winter - say 50 instead of 20. So when you ramp up to 80 it's much less of a stress jump to get there.

 

[frenchyge]

Anything less than 0 comes to mind

Really?? I've gained significantly this fall using that approach, and expect to do even more over the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.

I do wonder about this. Obviously time is an issue. But in terms of being able to handle it, it would seem like CTL ceiling is another variable you can train.

You're talking about the recovery limited case, and I would agree that it'd be difficult to estimate one's proverbial limit as I did with the time limited case because of the "more you train, more you can train" theory. Additionally, we're probably looking at CTL numbers in the 120+ range, which means ramp rates are going to be pretty low already since the daily TSS requirements become pretty hefty in order to produce higher ramp rates.

[ Weekly Ramp Rate = (Daily Avg TSS - Current CTL) / 6 ]

If you've seen Dave Harris' PMC chart, you won't find any CTLs as low as 20, 50, or even 80 in the last 3 years. Very few months show even < 100. Do I think that contributes to his ability to maintain CTL > 130? Yes.

 

[tk_bike]

I find all this very interesting, I have only had my powermeter for about a month now so i had to estimate my starting ctl and atl from previous hours like hunter suggests in the CP website. this included 2 weeks completely off and prior to that a big winding down in volume as the season ended. is this enough data for the pmc to give good figures, considering i have the decays set to 42 and 7 days and i don't yet have 42 days data? i guess after 42 days the starting values are less important as the 'real' data takes over.

Looking at my ctl increase now it has increased by 10, 4 and 9 TSS/week for the data i have.

As this did not include the stress from the weights sessions i have been doing i was a bit concerned when i see people talking of a max increase in ctl being 8tss/week.

I am pretty sure my estimated ftp is about right, i estimated from a critical power curve and it matches up with the normalised power from a 1hr crit, i started off my ctl and atl at 44 from the hours in the preceding 6 weeks but like i said that included a 2 week off period and it is now up to 68 and a pretty consistantly high -ve tsb.

It doesn't feel like i am over stressing myself too much, especially now i am getting used to the weights and as i'm not working at the moment i have time to look after myself and recover right, i will keep an eye on things though, especially as i had one more 'hard' week planned before an easy week (though none of them seem too hard so far, last week was ~15hrs (+gym), 881tss points which sounds lot harder than it felt!).

at the moment the majority of my time is spent in 'sweetspot' endurance training or easy rides of 1h15 to and from the gym 3x weekly, i gave 2x20's a go but the day after a gym session was not the best time to try it! maybe now i'm adjusted to/less sore from my gym sessions another go would be appropriate.

Would i be advised to cut back my progression, or since i have time and youth on my side in the recovery side of things and i am not feeling over-tired go ahead with my planned week which i think would give a tss of around 940 and a further 10tss/week increase in ctl before an easier week which would likely just maintain current ctl and bring tsb up nearer to though still below 0.

I am thinking more that i will continue as planned, i certainly don't think it will dig myself into too much of a hole if any at all.

Right sorry for the long post just finding this discussion pretty interesting and relavent to myself!

Tom (taking a day off tomorrow )

 

[BlueJersey]

Man, he must be racking up 200TSS to 250TSS a day for 4 days+ a week, at least.

Really?? I've gained significantly this fall using that[ Weekly Ramp Rate = (Daily Avg TSS - Current CTL) / 6 ]

If you've seen Dave Harris' PMC chart, you won't find any CTLs as low as 20, 50, or even 80 in the last 3 years. Very few months show even < 100. Do I think that contributes to his ability to maintain CTL > 130? Yes.

 

[Alex Simmons]

I think last year I was using something like 240w but in reality it was more like 220w or so. Also, last year my weekly TSS was high but that was the reason of commuting to work 3x or more a week at endurance pace. Right now, I am using my May FT value for these numbers. I am sure my FT is more than 250w now because the last couple of end of seaons races I did my 1 hour NP was 245w to 250w.

When were those races? A 20W difference can have a sizeable impact on your PMC chart, enough to show vastly different ramp rates (depending on your training).

I'd strongly suggest you do some testing ASAP and get a better estimate of FTP. If a 1hr TT is not feasible, then two maximal efforts of around 6 min and 25 min each would be sufficient and is a good day's outing in itself. Plug the results into monod critical power model and you'll have a solid marker to start with.

 

[BlueJersey]

They were around late August to mid September. Those park races broke some local cat4 average speed record too. I putted in 3 massive attacks almost each race and 1 hour NP can be greatly inflated by them. I see if I am motivated enough to do them this week. My motivation right now is to increase my 2 hours power though.

When were those races? A 20W difference can have a sizeable impact on your PMC chart, enough to show vastly different ramp rates (depending on your training).

I'd strongly suggest you do some testing ASAP and get a better estimate of FTP. If a 1hr TT is not feasible, then two maximal efforts of around 6 min and 25 min each would be sufficient and is a good day's outing in itself. Plug the results into monod critical power model and you'll have a solid marker to start with.

 

[normZurawski]

Really?? I've gained significantly this fall using that approach, and expect to do even more over the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.

LOL! Well done!

Dave Harris is off the charts. I was reading his blog this weekend in which he said this weekend was the first time he's been below 100 in 2 years.

I wonder what that chart looks like to the left. IOW, I wonder how long he had to train to be able to hold his CTL that high. Train hard to train hard...sounds familiar.

He has an interesting situation since he's an endurance guy. In any taper his CTL drops like a brick for 1-2 weeks. But when you add the CTL from a 100 mile race or a 24 hour event, that's quite a boost.

 

[acoggan]

If you've seen Dave Harris' PMC chart, you won't find any CTLs as low as 20, 50, or even 80 in the last 3 years. Very few months show even < 100. Do I think that contributes to his ability to maintain CTL > 130? Yes.

"The more you train the more you can train." - A. Coggan