Rappstar wrote:
In economic terms, people respond to incentives, and if you express the idea that CTL is basically proxy for "fitness," then obvious people will seek to maximize CTL.I would tend to agree, which is why when I introduced the PMC (http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...-performance-manager) I wrote things like:
"CTL is a relative indicator of changes in performance ability due to changes in fitness, not an absolute predictor"
"within the logical constructs of the Performance Manager, performance depends not only on TSB, but also on CTL (in keeping with saying that “form equals fitness plus freshness”). The “art” in applying the Performance Manager therefore lies in determining the precise combination of TSB and CTL that results in maximum performance. "
"in the Performance Manager concept, an individual’s CTL (and the “composition” of the training resulting in that CTL – see more below) determines their performance potential (at least within limits), but their TSB influences their ability to fully express that potential."
Rappstar wrote:
To continue to discuss, one thing that I've been toying with has been ignoring CTL and instead looking solely at the slope of CTL over given periods of time. The idea being that your body responds to change. So the slope of the CTL curve matters more than its absolute value. This was/is reinforced by the paper modeling injury risk as a function of ATL/CTL. A ratio of ATL/CTL of >1.5 seems to dramatically increase risk of injury. http://bjsm.bmj.com/...rts-2015-095788.fullDespite some people seeming to have suddenly discovered the idea, the notion that the rate of change in training load is indicative of both training risk and training reward has been around as long as the PMC has...longer, in fact (e.g., the 10% rule for runners).
I also find it amusing how much attention Gabbett has received for simply "dumbing down" my already "dumbed down" (by necessity) version of Banister's impulse-response model. Kudos to him, however, for applying the concepts of CTL, ATL, and ramp rate to other sports.
Rappstar wrote:
What's interesting is that Paulo has been able to replicate these findings with his athletes, only Paulo uses longitudinal RPE tracking (with a separate constant for each sport). So he tracks A*RPE*duration where A is a constant that varies by sport. And that gives him a training load score for that workout. He then tracks that over time, using some basic math - similar, I believe, to Dr. Coggan - to represent ATL as roughly 7-day load and CTL to be 6 weeks plus.As I said above, there is really nothing new in this - in particular, Carl Foster first came up with "session RPE" as a simplified way of scoring training, and I have repeatedly suggested that people may wish to apply it to triathlon or team sports, e.g., soccer.
Last edited by:
Andrew Coggan: Apr 26, 16 4:15