TSS and IF for crosstraining

[daveryanwyoming]

This time of year I'm running to support cyclocross racing, later in the winter I'll do a fair amount of XC skiing and a few skate races. That's in addition to plenty of erg and indoor trainer time and I've been working on ways to incorporate those forms of cross training into my TSS and TSB results.

Here's what I've come up with to date using the relationship TSS = IF^2*hours*100

• Estimate an IF for the cross training activity based on RPE for instance forty minutes of steady running with deep but controllable breathing with a few hills might be RPE 5-6 (on the 1-10 scale) and and IF of ~0.8.
• Use a modified form of the TSS score that accounts for sports specific stress: TSS = IF^2*S-coeff*hours*100
  where S-coeff accounts for the additional bodily stress created by different activities, for instance from past experience running is harder on my body and my recovery than cycling or XC skiing so I'm currently using 1.2 for my running S-coeff since the resulting TSS seems to reflect the overall load
• Assign a different S-coeff for each activity
• Calculate the daily cross training TSS based on overal RPE, sport and time
• Include cross training TSS in CTL, ATL and TSB rollups

I've googled this topic and searched the CyclingPeaks site but haven't found anything on cross training TSS. Has anyone worked in this area? So far my approach suits my purposes of rolling my other activities into my overall TSS and TSB but I'm customizing both my RPE interpretation and S-coeff value over time as I monitor my overall stress and recovery. It seems to me that an approach like this could be real useful for cross trainers including triatheletes.

Any thoughts on this approach or monitoring cross training in general? Has this work already been done in a more rigorous manner and did I miss it in my searches?

-Dave

 

[TMD]

This time of year I'm running to support cyclocross racing, later in the winter I'll do a fair amount of XC skiing and a few skate races. That's in addition to plenty of erg and indoor trainer time and I've been working on ways to incorporate those forms of cross training into my TSS and TSB results.

Here's what I've come up with to date using the relationship TSS = IF^2*hours*100

• Estimate an IF for the cross training activity based on RPE for instance forty minutes of steady running with deep but controllable breathing with a few hills might be RPE 5-6 (on the 1-10 scale) and and IF of ~0.8.
• Use a modified form of the TSS score that accounts for sports specific stress: TSS = IF^2*S-coeff*hours*100
  where S-coeff accounts for the additional bodily stress created by different activities, for instance from past experience running is harder on my body and my recovery than cycling or XC skiing so I'm currently using 1.2 for my running S-coeff since the resulting TSS seems to reflect the overall load
• Assign a different S-coeff for each activity
• Calculate the daily cross training TSS based on overal RPE, sport and time
• Include cross training TSS in CTL, ATL and TSB rollups

I've googled this topic and searched the CyclingPeaks site but haven't found anything on cross training TSS. Has anyone worked in this area? So far my approach suits my purposes of rolling my other activities into my overall TSS and TSB but I'm customizing both my RPE interpretation and S-coeff value over time as I monitor my overall stress and recovery. It seems to me that an approach like this could be real useful for cross trainers including triatheletes.

Any thoughts on this approach or monitoring cross training in general? Has this work already been done in a more rigorous manner and did I miss it in my searches?

-Dave

My understanding is that CyclingPeaks is currently working on a rTSS (running TSS) score. My own inexact running TSS calc is below:
Assumption: Kj = Kcal (approximately)

Functional Threshold Power (from Powertap cycling data) x 3.6 = Functional Threshold KJ

Running TSS Calc:

(Heart Rate Monitor Calorie Calculation x 100) / FT Kj = running TSS

I've been testing this formula and for a 10k run @ 39 min I generally come up with a TSS of approx 70. Intuitively it seems to hang together as 10k @ 39 min is roughly "Functional Threshold pace" for me. The above will do a poor job of capturing interval efforts, but most of my running at this time of the year is more of a "tempo" or steady state pace.

 

[beerco]

[*]Include cross training TSS in CTL, ATL and TSB rollups

Any thoughts on this approach or monitoring cross training in general? Has this work already been done in a more rigorous manner and did I miss it in my searches?

-Dave

I don't think it makes sense to add cross training TSS to CTL, only ATL. e.g. running doesn't help your cycling performance, so don't include it in cycling CTL. However, running stress does additionally hinder your cycling performance so it should be included in ATL and reflected in TSB.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

I don't think it makes sense to add cross training TSS to CTL, only ATL. e.g. running doesn't help your cycling performance, so don't include it in cycling CTL.

I'd agree that running isn't the optimal way to increase cycling performance, but I'm not aware of any studies that would indicate that it simply does not contribute to cycling performance at all. It's hard for me to understand how an activity that stresses the cardiovascular system and relies primarily on the legs wouldn't result in positive adaptations. Do you really think there is actually no training benefit in running and can you point me to some papers that support this view?

 

[beerco]

I'd agree that running isn't the optimal way to increase cycling performance, but I'm not aware of any studies that would indicate that it simply does not contribute to cycling performance at all.

But by giving running tss equal weight in your CTL calculation, you'd be saying that 100tss points of running is equally good as 100tss of cycling.

Do you really think there is actually no training benefit in running and can you point me to some papers that support this view?

I think that it depends on how trained you are to begin with. I.e. if you're totally un-trained it will benefite you more than if you are trained.

I don't have papers to point to but I'm sure there will be a bunch of people chiming in with references shortly (probably )

 

[TMD]

I don't think it makes sense to add cross training TSS to CTL, only ATL. e.g. running doesn't help your cycling performance, so don't include it in cycling CTL. However, running stress does additionally hinder your cycling performance so it should be included in ATL and reflected in TSB.

If your discpline is multisport activities as opposed to only cycling (I realize that that was not the original question), doesn't it make sense to capture the training stress over time via CTL?

 

[beerco]

If your discpline is multisport activities as opposed to only cycling (I realize that that was not the original question), doesn't it make sense to capture the training stress over time via CTL?

I'm not a multi sport guy so I haven't thought about it much, but my first thoughts are that no, it doesn't make sense.

As I understand it, the multi sports basically interfere with each other so to me, it makes sense to have independant CTLs for each sport but aggregate the ATLs to account for the interference from one sport to another.

 

[jbvcoaching]

If your discpline is multisport activities as opposed to only cycling (I realize that that was not the original question), doesn't it make sense to capture the training stress over time via CTL?

I think it makes sense to track CTL per each sport, then manage overall load using an additive (and perhaps weighted) composite of all of them.

You can then determine the sport-specific ranges that are tolerable, and that result in the desired training effect, while still managing overall load using a single score.

 

[tbowren]

Dave -
I have been dealing with similar issues lately in estimating my TSS from mountain bike rides. I don't have a powertap on my MTB because they don't make a disk hub, but half of my bike time is spent on the mountain.

Even if I had a PT on there however it would show that I put out 0 power on the downhills. This has been a problem for me becuase after many of my 15 - 30 minute downhill runs I am exhausted. My legs are burning from standing on the pedals and my upper body is tired from maneuvering the bicycle.

I have to assume that this time on the bike is causing stress to my body AND is effecting my bike fitness. Usually I look at my heart rate times in different zones to 'guesstimate" and have tried a bunch of formulas but the TSS number always seems too low. (especially when I try to compare it to a PowerMetered road ride with the same technique for "control")

I think your system is good and would also like to know how other people deal with this issue.

 

[amartinez]

This reference would seem interesting but I don't have access to the full article
Anyone can comment something about it ?

Modelling the Transfers of Training Effects on Performance in Elite Triathletes



G. P. Millet1, R. B. Candau1, B. Barbier2, T. Busso3, J. D. Rouillon2, J. C. Chatard3

1 Laboratoire UPRES-EA “Sport, Performance, Santé”, Faculté des Sciences du Sport, Montpellier, France
2 Laboratoire des Sciences du Sport, Besançon, France
3 Laboratoire de Physiologie, GIP Exercice, Université de St-Etienne, France



Abstract

This study investigated the effects of 40-weeks training in swimming, cycling and running on performances in swimming, running and triathlon competitions in four elite triathletes. The training stimulus was calculated using the exercise heart rate. The level of performance was measured in running by a submaximal 30 min run, in swimming by a 5 × 400 m all-out test and subjectively in triathlon competitions. A mathematical model using one to three first order transfer functions linked actual and modelled performances by minimizing the residual sum of squares between them. The relationships between training and performances were significant in running (τ1 = 20; τ2 = 10; r = 0.74; p < 0.001) and in swimming (τ1 = 31; r = 0.37; p = 0.03), supporting the principle of specificity of the training loads. Cross-transfer training effects were identified between cycling and running (τ1 = 42; r = 0.56; p < 0.001), but not with swimming performances. In addition, the training loads completed in running were shown to have a major effect on performances in triathlon competition (τ1 = 52; τ2 = 4; r = 0.52; p < 0.001), indicating that running training is an essential part of triathlon performance. Swimming appears to be a highly specific activity, which does not gain nor provide benefits from/to other activities (i. e. cycling and running). The present study shows that cross-transfer training effects occur between cycling training and running performance in elite triathletes. A similar cross-training effect does not seem to occur for swimming performance.

Key Words

Heart rate - cross-training - specificity - training amount

 

[jbvcoaching]

I think your system is good and would also like to know how other people deal with this issue.

For mtb and 'cross rides, I track duration and estimate an IF.

 

[tbowren]

For mtb and 'cross rides, I track duration and estimate an IF.

Do you estimate IF based on any sort of HR data or is it more based on how you felt ?

For example I know my Threshold HR is right around 150-155 from my L4 intervals, so I have a very good idea when I see that I spent 17 min in the 170-185 bmp range that it was above L4. And when I rest the elevated HR drops back into the 150's within 10 or 15 seconds. I just don't always know how many were L5 vs L6 vs L7. This is almost definitely why I think my "formulas" underestimate the TSS.

 

[jbvcoaching]

Do you estimate IF based on any sort of HR data or is it more based on how you felt ?

It's based completely on how I felt. I gave away the last of my recordable HRMs years ago (although I still wear the strap with powermeters). Having used power since 2001, HR since 1989 (earlier if you count my running career), and PE since I was born...if I don't have power, I'll take PE any day as better reflection of "how hard".

I should say though, that I'm very good at playing "guess the IF". That is, I often guess at the IF of a ride before I download it, and I'm nearly always within .03. That's for widely disparate rides too, races, group rides, tempo, etc.

My HR has always been pretty variable from day to day. Others I've worked with were more stable. If you're one of those latter, and you've got the ability to download and manipulate HR data, I would run it through TRIMPS. You can even test that method for rides you have both power and HR data. Guess the IF before you download and see how close you come, then run the HR data through TRIMPS and see which comes closer to the actual IF.

 

[amartinez]

I tried both methods based on HR data (kCal and Trimps), with my data (~100 workouts with HR from Polar 810i and Power from PT) the Trimps method seems slightly better:

Tss = 0.097 * kCal with R^2=0.82, SEE=21.4

Tss = 0.878 * Trimps with R^2=0.85, SEE=19.9

NB: I do long distance triathlon and my training do not have many L6/L7 sessions and only a few L5, YMMV.

Ale Martinez.

 

[SolarEnergy]

In addition, the training loads completed in running were shown to have a major effect on performances in triathlon competition (τ1 = 52; τ2 = 4; r = 0.52; p < 0.001), indicating that running training is an essential part of triathlon performance.

I agree with this of course. Especially for elite athletes performing the Olympic distance (cycling drafting allowed).

Swimming appears to be a highly specific activity

This is also true. Even a great level of fitness doesn't garantee decent swimming performances due to the technical aspect of the discipline.

which does not gain nor provide benefits from/to other activities (i. e. cycling and running).

But here, a doubt remains in my mind. Even though the technical skills of my triathletes were fairly similar to those of my "competitive" master swimmers, performances of the former have always been much higher (most of them capable of descending the 1500 under 20) than those of the latter, often with less swimming volume.