As far as I can tell (I still don't know what the dotted green squiggle is...) the diagram isn't about Training Peaks or TSS. It's about sweet spot vs. polarized training. Am I wrong?

On a side note the graph also implies that "greater accumulated fatigue" is a bad thing, sometimes it isn't. "too much" or "more than you can handle" is bad, "greater" is sometimes greater.

Once you have:

Frequency
Consistency
Volume

Then you have a certain amount of "more" freedom to manipulate intensity and modulation. Anyways I've been reminded on here before that there are, many paths to Rome, lots of ways to fry a fish or skin a cat…plenty of books in the library etc…I find it hard to believe or possibly understand that any one model could be "individually" predictive as the best or ultimate path to performance.

My 2c,
Maurice

As an aside, "A poor craftsman blames his tools" is the usual way you find that idiom, with the meaning that a poor craftsman will find a way to screw up regardless of the (high) quality of the tools. Adding "Only" gives the idiom a very different meaning and certainly not the standard one.

I've always heard it as, "a good craftsman never blames his tools." If you assume that craftspeople only come in two types - i.e., good or bad - that's the same as "only a poor craftsman blames his tools."

Google is your friend here. Try googling "blames his tools idiom", I think you will discover that the "good craftsman" version exists, but is not the standard version. I also hope that as a tool maker, you don't really think the quality of your tool has no impact on the quality of the result. That would be a pretty sad outlook for someone who has presumably spent a fair bit of effort trying to create a tool. Why not just keep using HR monitors if tools don't matter?

My experience has been that aerobic capacity and endurance can be built with some form of low intensity long slow distance work. It's best to try and have these workouts not interfere with your more intense fitness building exercises. "Fitness" for more athletic ends, is built best with intense workouts spaced out enough to recover properly.

I like to repeat the same fitness workouts over and over so that I can tell if I am getting better or not. Really, the fitness side all boils down to that curve -- baseline, training stimulus, recovery, new baseline. If your new baseline isn't getting better then you have two potential culprits: (1) your training isn't hard enough to provoke super-compensation or (2) you haven't recovered enough.

It gets to be a very simple test: am I getting stronger or not? Most people get functionally fixated on maximizing work load. If I lived through it then I must have recovered and gotten better, right?

I believe that I am just rephrasing what Rappstar said, but who knows.

Really good thoughts

You never fail to be inappropriately dogmatic in the face of a reasoned critique.

Pissing match between internet message boards experts & experts in real life.

There is expertise in the world of science and then there is competence in the realm of social tact. The science goes further with some tact.

I would have lost all semblance of tact if my science was bludgeoned continuously, & anonymously by message board superheroes.

Yes, I believe you based on your recent posts ;)

AC and I have had some positive interactions in the past and I hope will in the future. Obviously this particular exchange was not the most fruitful discussion (aside from learning about idioms). I do appreciate that he continues to come online and discuss things, but there is no doubt that he has a mixed record on taking discussions in productive directions. I think I may need to print a shirt that says "message board superhero". I'm not exactly anonymous though; anyone who wants to check out my background for credibility is free to do so.

Hold on now - how am I the one taking things in an unproductive direction? I don't recall accusing others of uncalled-for dogmatism or misuse of common idioms in this thread. All I have done is point out that 1) the assertion that chasing CTL automatically leads you into training a particular way is incorrect, and 2) that if people make the mistake of chasing CTL while ignoring training composition, you can't blame me and/or the PMC.

Only person who seems to be pissing in any direction is kileyay. jbanks and I may not be in complete agreement, but nothing really uncivil has been said by either of us.

Tone is hard to get on the internet, especially when trying to communicate in brief snippets. I suspect we would find each other funnier in person and I think we mostly see eye to eye on the training stuff as well. Somehow though we still have managed to mainly talk by each other. Could certainly be my fault, but it did seem like you misinterpreted what I said a few times in the thread. I'm not sure why you frame my comments as "blaming you and/or the PMC". I think it is an excellent tool that has limitations and in particular was pointing out an error mode that I've seen in the use of that tool. I'd be interested in your insight into how the tool might be improved to make that class of errors less likely, but your response seemed to imply that anyone who makes that error is a poor craftsman. I'd also be interested in hearing why what I implied is a limitation isn't actually a limitation if you think that is the case.

I don't mean to piss your way any further, but only now have you actually made the above points, and they are good ones! Before, you were just throwing smugness and idioms across the thread; now, you're being direct and assertive with your thoughts/comments. More of this, please

Sorry to derail the grumbling match between the toolmakers, but isn't this very similar to the polarized model of training?

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

i spend too much time looking at my TP charts. I really want to improve (as do we all I'm sure).

With a coach's help I will be peaking for IMTX with a CTL of 150. For faster athletes, that same 150 might put them in a position to KQ. For me, landing in the top 20% of 45-49 will be an achievement.
It seems to me that since TSS is a function of time and intensity relative to thresholds that what I really need are higher thresholds. MY 350TSS bike and the guy who will win my AG in May are very different. Then the same 150ctl will get me there. Put another way, in order to get faster, I need to get faster.
My hope is that by climbing the TSS mountain over and over across sessions that those thresholds will budge.

I guess you missed here:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=5927435#p5927435

where I pointed out that TSS/the PMC are agnostic to how you train, and here:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=5927663#p5927663

where I pointed out that anyone blindly chasing CTL has only themselves to blame.

That all sounds reasonable. But you're using TSS in a prescriptive rather than descriptive manner. Just doing a lot of TSS and then "hoping" that your threshold climbs may not be the best approach. Or it may be a good approach for a while, then lead to a plateau. I think Rappstar's point may be that you if you target a few really high quality workouts on a regular basis, and push them hard, your TSS will rise naturally with your fitness level. And you should be sure to recharge between those high quality workouts with lower-intensity (but still quality) workouts. And you get more continual feedback. If you track the same workout on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, you'll know right away if things are working. And the eventual threshold test will be more of confirmation of what you already know rather than a big suspenseful test.

Aren't we playing with two variables here? Seems to muddy the waters beyond any ability to inform if you ask me.

The limitations of TSS and the PMC are well-known - in fact, when I first introduced TSS back in 2003 (http://lists.topica.com/...ort=d&start=9353) I wrote:

" the basic premise – i.e., that you can adequately describe the training load and the stress it imposes on an individual based on just one number (TSS), completely ignoring how that “score” is achieved and other factors (e.g., diet, rest) – is, on its face, ridiculous. In particular, it must be recognized that just because, e.g., two different training programs produce the same weekly TSS total, doesn’t mean that an individual will respond in exactly the same way."

However, I would submit that this part has also proven true:

"Nonetheless, I believe that TSS (and IF) should prove useful to coaches and athletes for evaluating/managing training."

(Just look at how many programs have now copied my ideas.)

OTOH, if somebody chooses to ignore my writings, there isn't much I can do to help them...

Any thoughts on the term "alactic adaptation" or response?

If for the sake of argument we generalize the forum or thread to those who are looking to raise FTP or IM power is that really the goal?

Honest question,
Maurice

Yeah there is, rewrite that TSS formula to stop awarding "points" where folks have no business training.

---

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

that's really good stuff, thanks for sharing.

---

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