Slowtwitch Forums: Edit Log

In Reply To:

"All the more reason why I'm not interested in attempting to do for triathletes what I've done for cyclists!"

nevertheless, here we are, with triathletes storming the gates of sport ;-) and, of course, if you're training peaks (or slowtwitch, for that matter) there is a vested interest in quantifying training loads, and normalizing those in each constituent sport.

Just for the record: I'm not TrainingPeaks (PeaksWare LLC, actually), and my interest in quantifying training load is really purely avocational in nature (i.e., it helps me scratch that intellectual itch).

In Reply To:

i guess, bringing it full circle, the clash between new and old school is the smooshing together of your excellent approach to cycling and the *at best* imprecise and *at worst* unreliable ways of integrating this into triathlon training programs.

Sorry, but I don't see it that way. That is, even if I believed you could, in fact, label someone as "old school" or "new school" with reasonable accuracy, I don't think the distinction could or should be made on whether they use my ideas or not.

In Reply To:

if you're a triathlon coach, and the cycling part of your training has as its hallmarks attention paid to FT, TSS, ATL, CTL, TSB, NP, are you cutting a rock with a razor blade? i don't mean in any way to denigrate your excellent system for measuring stress and performance and adaptation in cycling, but it reminds me of peter reid keeping roch frey as his triathlon coach while simultaneously going to chris carmichael for his cycling. the result was one of triathlon's most spectacular meltdowns.

I'm afraid that I don't see the connection (in part because I'm completely unfamiliar with Roch Frey), but I'll still say this: you could be as "new school" as you want and use all of my ideas, and still cause someone to have a spectacular meltdown. That's true because all I have done is try to provide cogent ways of describing and quantifying training (of cyclists/for cycling) - it's still up to the individual and/or coach to decide how they should train.

In Reply To:

so, is the adherence by triathlon coaches to your framework for cycling, at the expense of a similarly-precise way to integrate this into an overall swim/bike/run program, too new school for its own good?

Again, I think you're conflating the issue of how you describe and quantify training with how you actually train. With respect to the latter, the only recommendations that I've really made or conclusions that I have drawn in connection with the various calculations are:

1) a CTL between 100-150 seems to represent an "optimal" training load, i.e., those that train less than this generally realize that they are time-limited, not tolerance-limited, whereas few, if any, seem to be able to push their CTL significantly above 150 w/o breaking down;

2) ramping up your CTL at more than 5-8 TSS/d/wk is often flirting with danger, and

3) performance at shorter durations (i.e., 5 min or less) tends to be best when you've tapered/rested enough to allow your TSB to ride to >+10, whereas performance at longer durations tends to be best when your TSB is more "neutral" (i.e., TSB = -10 to +10).

Even if one were foolish enough to slavishly follow these recommendations while ignoring everything else, there's still an infinite number of training programs that could be devised...which is why I said that it's still up to the individual and/or coach to decide how they should actually train.

Edit Log

Edit Log:

Our Partners

Edit Log

Edit Log:

Our Partners

Newsletter