For me this is not any critique of TSS/PCM itself - the tool is what it is and I´ve never seen anyone claim that it can do something it can´t. The issue - again from my perspective - is that when training multisport it´s harder to measure total training load no matter how you try to express it (be it TSS, RPE or any other metric). I think that leaves us (at least me) towards a tendancy to train more "in the middle" than what is perhaps appropriate. I.e - havent had any quality runs this week and do one even though I´m a bit fatigued from cycling. End up doing a half-ass quality run because I can´t really muster the strenght to go all out for one quality run. For us mere amateurs - adding more volume could trend away from polarization when more polarization could be (and this is where the qualified people should chime in...) the correct answer.

 
The issue - again from my perspective - is that when training multisport it´s harder to measure total training load no matter how you try to express it (be it TSS, RPE or any other metric). I think that leaves us (at least me) towards a tendency to train more "in the middle" than what is perhaps appropriate.



I totally agree. I've been on TP for about 18 months now so I've got lots of data to look at and see how I performed relative to the build and taper. It's a fantastic tool and I kick myself for not jumping on it earlier. I train with power and HR.


However, I've noticed a few things that skew my data, and as a result, TSS, CTL, etc. I make an effort to watch my mix. For example:


- Lots trail running underestimates my rTSS, especially long and technical runs on the trails. Hill repeats and hilly routes too.

- Treadmill workouts when using less than 2% grade and track workouts overestimate my rTSS.


- Road bike versus Tri bike power. A watt is not a watt for me. A 300W effort on the road bike hurts less and has less load than 300W in aero on the tri bike. My FTP is the same so TP does not care which bike I was on that day.

All good points trail.cguess I should keep my day job, let my coach coach and just keep doing the work. :)

I like how this is broken down, which may be "too simplified for most triathletes", but overall it does the trick. If you take into account your perceived exertion on key interval sets, some testing in the pool, track and trainer and race results you pretty well have most of what you need. But I think the 60-80% HR is too wide a range. I'd like to see a bit more granularity on what is 70-80% and what is sub 70 percent.

Thanks for posting both graphs in this thread. Too much common sense in those though. Also keep in mind that skier spend a lot of time in the summer running, so their training distribution would be more like a duathlete than a triathlete who has the non weight bearing aspect of swimming to pile on a bit more intensity with less of a recovery penalty. My guess is that the skiers can handle much more intensity once they are on snow than during the summer (at which point their total intensity in training would become very much like ITU guys)

Just look at your hours each of swim, bike and run. Next look at your mileage in running and in the pool along with your TSS for the bike. You don't need to roll it up into a single metric. Then look at how you are feeling and performance in key workout and races. This should tell you all you need to know. Why do you want a single metric that rolls it up. You don't need that. If you do the above you can get a very accurate snapshot in approximately 2 minutes. I need Fleck here to tell you guys to stop overthinking it.

In general the Norwegian skiers have the same numbers of intervals year around (except from right after the season is over).
Best way to show this is from Stephen Seiler's video
Go to 15 minutes

you really need to meet more triathletes. That's ALL they do. :-p

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

Maybe this is an oversimplification? But the take away I see in the graphic is the circles are of equal diameter to the period of the wave. If the circles overlap, you have not recovered and the accumulation of fatigue will have detrimental impact on the form. This is also shown with proper analysis ofthe PMC graphs... Maybe another way to explain effort, fatigue, etc.

I'd say I wasn't conflating two things; I was discussing two things under the same general concept, which is that ANY model is going to be biased to overvalue certain behaviors and undervalue others. That, in turn, necessarily influences the inputs which the model receives. If it didn't, then the model would be of no actual use. This has received - I think - the most extensive research (models influencing themselves) in finance, where of course the models are generally designed to be autonomous.

Anyway, thought this was pertinent, from the quite well known paper by Robert Merton on financial models for HBS:

http://www.people.hbs.edu/...s%20in%20finance.pdf

I suppose that I'd echo MarkyV's sentiment that ALL triathletes are pretty extreme. Or, at least I guess I'd say, anyone diligent enough to attempt to make use of an advanced model like the PMC is also then probably precisely the type of person who will then be influenced by such a model's output. I realize this ventures into social science quite a bit, but I think - again, looking at finance (Robert Shiller's classic "Animal Spirits" is as applicable to training as economics, IMO) for precedence, I think that's not at all unreasonable...

So, if you want to say that I've conflated them, go ahead (not that you need my permission). But I'd contend that they are not things to be conflated. They are just different facets of the exact same issue... The same people who will chase CTL are also the same people who desire to merge sTSS/bTSS/rTSS in order to arrive at an overall measure of their training load. It is - generally speaking - the same thing driving behavior in both cases. I'm actually surprised that you don't seem to view those as being pretty much intrinsically related problems...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

devashish_paul wrote:

Just look at your hours each of swim, bike and run. Next look at your mileage in running and in the pool along with your TSS for the bike. You don't need to roll it up into a single metric. Then look at how you are feeling and performance in key workout and races. This should tell you all you need to know. Why do you want a single metric that rolls it up. You don't need that. If you do the above you can get a very accurate snapshot in approximately 2 minutes. I need Fleck here to tell you guys to stop overthinking it.

Quoted for sensibleness.

That said, there is a single metric for me which is the perfect, optimal measure of how well my training is going. I call it "The Wife Aggression Threshold".

(1) The wife is generally happy, quite pleased that I did the gardening and I get the odd kiss and cuddle. Probability of having a fumble between the sheets is pretty good (meaning about 20%). She laughs at my jokes and appreciates how hard I work in my job, and the contribution I make to family life at home.
(2) I'm getting the odd sideways look. Passive aggressiveness creeping in, eg "you going on your bike tonight? Oh, ok then. I've just got all this ironing to do, see you in a bit". Jokes are being met by blank stares and if I get a kiss it is more likely to be on my cheek and a little bit like the ones I used to get from my auntie. Fumble between the sheets probability is low, trending towards zero. No open criticism yet, but there is a tangible threat of danger in the air.
(3) Constant, undiluted rage. She hates my bike, my hobby, the amount of laundry I create, and I do NOTHING to help around here. Violence likely. The fumble probability is high again, just not with me. No amounts of gardening or her favourite risotto will get me out of this.

I try and work a polarized model of about 80% (1) and varying the remaining 20% between (2) and (3) depending on where I am in the mesocycle. During base it is mainly (2)s but I try and bring in more (3)s during build. I move out the house when I'm peaking for my 'A' race.

I'm happy for folk to adopt this model, it works really well and is a good indicator of performance. But just remember that this is only a tool, and to use it properly you need a good coach.

(edited to take out the swear word as I gather it is a bit naughty in the US...sorry!)

Nice! Do you have a "WAT" chart? If so, is it for sale?

That is very true. However without overthinking 95% of the business-model geared towards AG athletes goes away! :-) (Do I need a new bike? How much faster will I be with a disc? Will the new Garmin-GPS make me faster?)

On a more serious note I agree - and once you cut away all the technology and apps it's quite easy to measure fatige - just walk up a flight of stairs and pay attention to if/how much your legs burn :) I dont really have a need to quantify everything in a single metric, ref the discussion on PCM/TSS. The discussion - however - comes from the part of my (our/triathletes?) brain that wants to analyze everything and express it in a chart! (which is a neat thing - untill the inevitable overthinker comes along!)

I've never known a new cyclist who didn't get overly fixated on clocking miles or besting their time on their favorite loop. Some never get past that. Is it motivating? You bet. Do they improve? Sure. Is it necessarily the best way to train? Not at all.

Most discussions I have about training get bogged down with the metrics of measuring it rather than exploring the actual methods involved. That's a shame.

So far neither TSB, CTL, ATL or any other measure accurately reflect the three times I get up each night to feed the baby or deal with my 2 year old who thinks 4.45 is porridge time. No measure really captures how completely wrecked I can feel day to day

If perhaps it could be updated to account for the baby factor and encompass all other things that might make it tired it might useful as a single metric ;)

Sounds like a potential development for Knighty76's WAT above.

Guys before we let the acronym "WAT" settle in, can we please note that I intentionally put the word "The" in the speechmarks too...

Ok, I'll say it. "TWAT"

No, you were conflating things.

Specifically, the fact that people want to add TSS, rTSS, and sTSS and TrainingPeaks allows you to do it has nothing to do with my comment that the PMC is "agnostic" to how you train. Yet, you offered it as a counter-argument.

I'd say that we have differing opinions about the meaning of the word "agnostic" then. I would say that it is absolutely not agnostic if TrainingPeaks says TSS=sTSS+bTSS+rTSS.

You have said that you do not encourage people to do that. Is that because you do not *believe* it to be true that you can represent total training stress in a simple, additive way using single activity stress scores from different sports?

By combining various training stress scores into a single one, TrainingPeaks is - whether tacitly or explicitly (I'd say it's solely a matter of opinion on which it is) - clearly stating that they *believe* that to be true.

I'm emphasizing the use of the word "believe" here because I think that runs pretty counter to your claim of "agnosticism." This isn't algebra. TSS=sTSS+bTSS+rTSS is not simple algebra. It is a belief in something which is unproven and which is largely a matter of faith. Ergo, TrainingPeaks is not agnostic. At least according to what I accept as the definition of agnostic, "(in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something."

Even with regards to a single sport, TrainingPeaks gives absolutely no weight to time between multiple workouts in a given day.

When it comes to training load response, the idea that A+B=C is not "agnostic." And yet that is exactly what the PMC says. Doesn't matter what your workouts are, how many there are in a day, etc, etc. You can simply add the numbers together. And again, it's not just that TP allows this. It's that this is the default, with absolutely no way to change it in certain settings (eg, the mobile app).

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Isn't that what sweet spot training is all about? Squeezing in as much training stress as possible? Certainly that's how everyone talks about it...

Your original post was clearly based on the mistaken belief that TSS/the PMC favors/encourages/rewards a less "polarized" approach to training. This has nothing to do with the fact that TSS, rTSS, and sTSS are not additive.

It has a lot to do with it given that my original post was focused on the limitations of the TSS-model/PMC for triathletes, who are the target audience of this forum.


Implicit - to me, anyway, and, based off how I read several of the replies in this thread - is the acknowledgement that - by default and with no way of changing it in certain settings (mobile) - the PMC presents you with a composite score for CTL/TSS/ATL/TSB.

That composite score (as well as both the swim and run scores) tends to reward a less polarized approach to training in my opinion for two reasons:
1) it says that TSS is simply additive across sports, which rewards "middle" work.
AND
2) it does an especially shitty job of calculating TSS for swim and run. And it does so in a way that rewards "middle" work.

The combination of these two factors is complementary in a negative way.

The example of the problems that rTSS has with hills is a prime example of this. Hill training is a prime example of how runners incorporate polarized training into their schedules. And the rTSS model does a shitty job of accounting for this. It does an even shittier job of accounting for this for triathletes, because it doesn't calculate the impact of swim/bike training on the hill workouts and vice versa.

Your early replies were exclusively focused on bike TSS as evidence that TSS was agnostic. But my original post was not about bike TSS. Your post showing that TSS rewards volume over intensity was based on a paper written by a cyclist. About bike training. Only.

Both sTSS and rTSS are based around a "threshold pace" value. That model - based off my own experience and the experience of numerous other posters - is absolutely not agnostic as to how you train. And the model for triathletes is simply additive, again not agnostic as to how you train. As several people pointed out, rTSS is especially inaccurate on a treadmill and can be "gamed" by setting incline at 0% instead of 1%.

Continually citing the effectiveness and limitations of the TSS model for cyclists does nothing to address its limitations for triathletes. The subject of my original post.

So, yes, the fact that TSS, rTSS, and sTSS are not additive has a lot to do with the fact that the PMC encourages a less polarized approach to TRIATHLON training.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

You wrote:Hill training is a prime example of how runners incorporate polarized training into their schedules.

Can you explain what you mean with incorporate polarized training?

With stock market earnings season in full swing I was thinking about this concept of rolling things up in a single metric. There is a reason in a the stock market that we have a variety of metrics to evaluate company performance by and they all have value depending on what you are trying to glean about the health of a company. Individual metrics on their own may tell you nothing if you are mid term vs long term investor vs a supercomputer trying to squeeze out as much as you can from a stock in the next 20 minutes. If you want the next 20 min performance who cares about the longer term metrics. The investor has to do what they want with the metrics depending on what type of investor they are. Same with coach and athlete and the metrics floating around....use them to one's advantage. Realistically endurance sport is pretty simple.

If it was really complex guys like Mark Allen and Dave Scott who had none of today's tools would have gone 8:0x in Kona. Watch those two guys pacing the first miles in Alii from the Kona 1989 videos. The pacing is much better than when Crowie set the new Kona record in 2011. Ralaert headed out at 2:32 marathon pace and I said it right at that instant that he was clueless and no one has ever run that fast and he did not need to run that fast that early if he wanted to catch Crowie. But he did. Why I don't know. Dave and Mark had things dialed in with fairly rudimentary metrics. They both ran faster in Kona in 89 than Crowie and Ralaert did in 2011.

Make sure there is a patent filed at the USPO on this before it gets out into the public domain and becomes freeware!!!