In Reply To:
when you decided on your algorithms used for determining TSS, you depended heavily on your blood lactate tests taken from cyclists exercising at various submaximal efforts, as i recall. in so doing, you basically generated a TRIMPs using power instead of HR as the metric.
That is correct.
In Reply To:
from what i understand, and i'm somewhat behind the curve on this, i think you've created a TSS analog for running, no?
You are behind the curve: GOVSS is Dr. Phil Skiba's baby, whereas Dr. Steve McGregor is responsible for rTSS. While I've discussed these ideas with Phil and (to a much lesser extent) Steve, I haven't contributed anything to their development (except perhaps inspiration).
In Reply To:
this would be helpful for those who're using training peaks for triathletes,
Perhaps, but I don't believe that runners (or swimmers) are likely to benefit as much from such a metric as cyclists, since 1) the effort of a runner (or swimmer) is far steadier than that of a cyclist, and 2) environmental factors (e.g., wind, air density) have far much less of an impact on the speed of a runner vs. a cyclist, making pace a much more reliable metric than for a cyclist.
In Reply To:
and this sort of sportswide extrapolation of what you've helped them develop for cycling is the direction i think they're going.
It is (although personally I wish it weren't).
In Reply To:
so, what remains is to develop this same sort of thing for swimming. but, you're sort of back to something TRIMPs-like for those other two sports, are you not, because you can't really measure power, you're left with some other metric on which to rely (like HR)?
What's wrong with a pace-based measurement (or heart rate, i.e., TRIMP, if you prefer)?
In Reply To:
let me know where i've gone wrong on my assumptions of how you're going about this.
See above (and also note that I'm not the one "going about anything").
In Reply To:
now, what must happen is this:
- you've got to pretty much nail down a swim-TRIMPs or swim-TSS that's analogous to the bike and the run versions, in order for coaches and athletes to measure stress.
- then you've got to decide whether you just add the two TRIMPs or TSS scores together for a triathlete's double workout in two sports on a given day. if not, you need to determine whether the stress score X 2 is then modified by the fact that it's a brick (back to back) or separated by several hours (and of course, how is it modified? is a run and a later swim worth more, or less, than simply the two scores added?)
- then you need to ask whether you've got to adjust for distance. for example, let's stipulate for a moment that at, oh, Zone 3, a ride is worth about the same as a run a fourth of that distance (a 5mi run = a 20mi ride, a 10mi run = a 40mi ride). but i don't think we can extrapolate this forever. few coaches would agree that 5 days of riding 500 mi equals 5 days of running 125mi, at least not for a triathlete, because of the stress of a weight-bearing exercise.
All the more reason why I'm not interested in attempting to do for triathletes what I've done for cyclists!
In Reply To:
so, then, what do you do when analyzing blood lactate of swimmers or runners, or whatever your methodology, generates TSS or TRIMPs algorithms that don't match the expectations of those who've been coaching and racing at high levels for 15 or 20 years? maybe a paul huddle or a dave scott might say that you've got to add body weight to the calculations, because elite triathletes are 160lb on average and elite runners are 125lb on average, and that's why elite runners can do 160mi weeks and that
IS analogous to 640mi cycling weeks, but only for them, not for elite triathletes.
or maybe huddle says, pshaw, the swimming scores are coming out too high versus those in cycling and running, they just don't match the real world.
accordingly, i think this is where science might have to have its come to jesus with tradition and myth and lore. what do you do when the data determines the way it
should be, and a panel of top athletes and coaches disagree?
I think that before this discussion can really go any further, you need to think some more about the difference between quantifying the "dose" of training, and how you actually
use that information. Consider, for example, Foster's session RPE approach...even though it is quite simple and it isn't exactly clear what it measures, it may still be possible to apply this imperfect metric in a productive manner to guide training. Conversely, one could, at least theoretically, develop a method that always perfectly reflects the acute physiological strain, but if this metric were misapplied there still could be a "disconnect" between the results it yielded and what empirical evidence suggests is true.
EDIT: Perhaps the following may help flesh out my perspective:
1) as I told my hosts at UK Sport when they invited me to give a talk, I don't believe that there's much progress to be made by attempting to develop ever-better means of quantifying the training load. Rather, the most productive direction (IMHO) to go lies in trying to improve our quantitative understanding of the relationship between the training load and performance; and
2) as I stated during a recent webinar, I would like to see WKO+ calculate/accept TRIMP and session RPE as inputs to the Performance Manager chart.