CTL is often referred to as 'how long you can go hard'. Maybe IF would have been a better measure.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

Don't entice him mort he's the power nonbeliever troll

Oh, I didnt know that lol

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

I could probably get Mr Ferguson to chime in here himself, but what he is saying in the conclusion is that race performances to not always extract the max possible performance out of a rider, and hence are not useful to asses whether the PMC metrics are doing their job. For instance you might be in the best shape of your life, but during the race you sit in until the last 5 seconds. There will be no indication of whether your 60 minute power was at a new high or not.

I would expect TT events to be so however, I will ask him if he looked at TTs only. Perhaps there are not enough of them per cyclist to draw any conclusions.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

As I understand it yes he did.

"analysis after submitting the abstract the main finding is that max mean powers from competition are highly variable even if we remove the bottom half the competition data, separate into RR and TT and adjust for TT differences. "

Somewhat surprising?

Edit: his comments can be found here

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20109&page=107


Post #1066

Maybe, I might expect this result from athletes who were holding pretty consistent CTL over the test period. Like if people did the same 40k TT power at a CTL of 70 as they did at 120 I would be astounded. But if it is impossible to extract any performance difference from CTLs of 110 vs 120, that would not be surprising at all. Too many confounding factors unless you had a huge data set.

I like what he is doing though, if you collected enough clean data and refined this approach well it would make a nice system for validating different approaches.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Is there a link to the full paper?

And to the OP...so power is no good...what is your suggestion for a better way to track fitness and fatigue? I can poke holes in just about anything, but that is worthless unless I have a suggestion for something better.

Here : http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=5014504;#5014504

The post summarizes things nicely. The thread provides some context
The OPs methods are documented.

Trev the Rev's "thing" isn't that power is no good. It is that Coggan's metrics are no good. Which might even be true. It is worth investigating.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Now that I have read up on his feelings I can understand where he is coming from. I just wish that he had laid out his system as clearly as Andrew has laid out his. He might have a better system, he might not, but I can't compare the two systems for myself because one is very clearly laid out, and been implemented for me in multiple places, and one has been insinuated. It is easy to poke holes, it is hard to come up with solutions that fix problems and to lay them out for other people to use them effectively.

Ultimately people are trying to quantify a very very noisy thing (human fitness and training load), and it is very possible that of the various approaches (hours, kilojoules, TSS, complex combinations of heart rate and power) all do exactly as well as one another, or, to the extent that one is better than another it would be extremely hard to measure the difference, as you would need large sets of carefully collected, accurate data across many years. Very few people collect their data accurately and carefully enough to begin with.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I don't think that's quite correct. AFAIK, TRIMP for instance (maybe TSS) has been validated, which is not the case of other measures.
The accuracy of the data now is an other issue.

>I don't think that's quite correct. AFAIK, TRIMP for instance (maybe TSS) has been validated, which is not the case of other measures.
>The accuracy of the data now is an other issue.

The only TSS validation I can seem to find is:

Skiba PF. Evaluation of a novel training metric in trained cyclists
(Abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc Suppl 39: S448, 2007.
But unfortunately I can't seem to find the raw text easily available (for free) to see how he validated it.

There's a difference between things that measure stress / training loads and those that measure adaptation response / training outcomes. People are confusing the two.

One can believe that power is a useful tool without giving credence to the predictive capabilities of virtual metrics.

I think the problem is how do you compare TTs of different durations? Clearly of the durations studied, only 20 mins is going to be relevant for most TTs. But what if I perform really well in one TT and it only takes me 19 minutes, and my 20 minute power includes a minute of trundling along after the finish? Another time, I'm less fit and it takes me 20 minutes, but this time my 20 minute power is higher because it doesn't include the minute after the finish. And what if I ride a 100 mile TT and I'm in the form of my life but of course my 20 minute power will not be impressive.

The thing is, if we take the argument that CTL has no predictive power to its extreme, we would have to believe that training has no effect, i.e. someone with a CTL of 0 performs the same as a trained athlete. As I'm not aware that there are any untrained athletes winning Olympic gold medals in aerobic endurance events, this argument seems rather implausible.

If you are looking at ones in the 20 minute to 1.5 hour range you can do a pretty good job of figuring that out with various power duration models.

Thinking about this stuff today I stumbled on this article which was really interesting:

http://physfarm.com/new/?page_id=995

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Yes, what I meant was within the stated framework where only 20 minute duration was looked at. I don't see how you can just blindly pick a duration and try to gauge level of performance from it.

As an example, one of the durations I have on my PMC is 38 minute power. That is a carefully chosen number that picks up most of my max effort performances in the range 38 minutes to 50 minutes. 3 laps of the local park takes around 46 minutes. A fast 25 mile TT takes 49-50 minutes. A local "sporting" TT takes around 42 minutes. But the reason it has to go down to 38 minutes is because the 25 mile TT course in Wales has a downhill section and it takes me 38 minutes to get from the bottom of that to the finish. So if I use any longer than 38 minutes on my PMC, the freewheeling down the hill would be included, and I would never produce good power from those TTs when in fact they are major target events for me. So for me, 38 minutes is a good duration to pick, and does tend to result in a reasonable indicator of my level of performance. But it's still not perfect, I can do a PB for 2 x 20 on the turbo, for example, and it won't show up on my PMC at all.

Other people might ride different courses and tend to do max efforts over different durations, so one set of durations isn't going to work for everyone. I also use 15 minute power rather than 20 minute power, again because it picks up one lap max efforts of the local park as well as 10 mile TTs.

Shorter, Watt Matters: it is called training stress score and not training performance score for a reason.*

*A point I have been making on various web fora for ~10 y now.

There is nothing "virtual" about CTL, ATL, or TSB. For that matter, there is nothing "virtual" about TSS itself.

You (and Phil) are late to the party, Jack.

You stopped using Gizmo Power <TM> to calculate TSS? Sorry, I missed that--hadn't been paying attention! Anyway, I don't have the time or inclination for (another) 300 response thread. Carry on!

I guess the 'virtual' here equals to a virtual representation of the physological status. I guess it would be possible to create a PMC by taking biopsies and other tests every day and thus have a 'real' chart, in tune with what is actually going on, but that would be crazy. Thus 'virtual'.

PS pls gief WKO4.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

You can't just have a secret party at home, not invite anyone, and then declare us late =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Nail on the head. So many things impact on human performance that trying to predict it based on only one measure, power output in isolation, will always be more art than science.

That said, those who strive to improve the science should be encouraged.

Nothing secret about it, as I've been talking about the relevant issues* for years and years. Most people apparently just haven't been paying close enough attention to put two plus two together. Then I do a series of webinars in which I lay out my ideas in a bit more detail, and people fall all over rushing down the same path while pretending their thoughts and ideas are completely novel.

*E.g., "it is called training stress score and not training performance score for a reason", "the impulse response model tells you when to train, not how/how much to train", etc., etc., etc.

That's not it. Roady objects to the smoothing/weighting/averaging/unweighting approach that I pioneered in coming up with TSS since it can be expressed as a theoretical power, either not realizing or overlooking the fact that that was just a side effect of the real goal, which was to predict the overall physiological strain resulting from a workout based on the intensity and the duration.

IOW, while the approach has proved accurate enough for it to have other uses - e.g., for estimation of FTP, as a global constraint in developing pacing strategies (e.g., as implemented by, although not original to, Best Bike Splits), for predicting whether a novel interval workout is "doable" or not - was simply fortuitous.

Nonetheless, many people find it just fine in those ways. I don't use it to tell me when to train, because I generally train every day, but I do use it to inform my decision about how much to train each day. And it seems to work fine as a performance score / adaptation score, indeed it puzzles me why a study would be unable to detect a relationship like the one below, which shows my performance vs CTL since resuming training last November after 3 months off:

I was expecting that, once the road race data was removed, leaving the time trial data, the study would detect a relationship.

It works for you as you have illustrated, perhaps not for others?

Perhaps the problem is due to the data being collected outdoors, rather than indoors?

Also your training is very highly structured and tailored to time trials. Perhaps those who are training for other events and or outdoors, cause more noise in the data?

Here is another really big hint, in a graph I posted to FB the other day...if somebody were smart enough, they could reverse-engineer the WKO4 model from this:

This is a niggling detail, but that's not actually the impulse-response model, or even a watered-down version thereof (i.e., the Performance Manager). Instead, you've plotted FTP against the equivalent of the "fitness" term, leaving out the "fatigue" (or "freshness") aspect.

Anyway, yes, if you keep training composition relatively constant then CTL provides a measure of adaptation as well as strain...it just wasn't designed, nor is it ideal, for that purpose.

Yes, I've yet to find a way to incorporate TSB into an improved numerical predictor of performance compared to just using CTL. I've even devised my own TSB2 to address one of the main issues I've found with TSB, but while it helps in terms of the general trend, I've yet to come up with something that can accurately predict day to day variations in performance. CTL seems to be a good predictor of my performance provided I'm not "excessively fatigued", but a metric to accurately predict whether or not I am excessively fatigued on any given day has eluded me so far. One fairly major issue is that TSS doesn't work well for me as a stress score, i.e. whether or not I am excessively fatigued on a particular day depends a lot more strongly on what I've done in recent days than on how much (as measured by TSS) I've done in recent days.

I didn't read the study.... but i wonder if the relationship is broken because numerical models focused on physical performance may struggle to quantify psychological factors. For example, I'm pretty deep into a IM build and while my TSB isn't that low overall, because my overall CTL is high, and because I ramped up so much higher in my training thsi year vs. last year, I'm up against phycological limits (burnout) and general overreaching. It's not a bad thing, as I'm testing my limits. But how I feel isn't perfectly represented in the model. IF I were to race today, I'd perform far worse than the PMC would predict. Btu a couple more light training days and I'll be OK.

I think this become part of the art of coaching where science can struggle. It also cannot measure other outside inputs like stress at home, work, family, time spent standing vs. sitting, volume of sleep, quality of sleep. It makes some assumptions on that , or you need to adjust some of the constants.


That brings an intesting point. I wonder if the time constants need to change for recovery rate as a CTL is sustained after increasing rapidly early in a season and held at a certain level. I.e... peaking too early, or not resting enough after an early season peak then building back up. The model assumes you can sustain a training load indefinitely.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

In part, that could be because you're focused on TT power, whereas it is short-term power that it really impacted by how "fresh" you are. For example, there's a study soon to be published in Med Sci Sports Exerc showing that even doing intervals the morning before followed by 2 h of tempo the afternoon before only slowed cyclists by 1 min in a simulated 40 km TT compared to when they were fully rested. When you consider studies like this one (or frequency distributions of TSB at time of a power PB for shorter vs. longer durations), it really becomes rather worrisome that the impulse-response model (upon which the PMC is based, and as fully implemented in RaceDay) has never been validated using a performance test longer than 5 min in duration. But, these are probably more thoughts that are going to be lost on 99.99% of people...

You seem to have missed a key point re. the PMC. While Banister's model attempts to quantitatively predict performance, the PMC requires that you balance the notions of "fitness" and "freshness" more abstractly to determine what timing AND amount of training yields the best performance (note that the classic impulse-response model ignores the amount aspect, simply assuming that more is always more). IOW, you should be looking at your CTL as well as your TSB, and based on what you've written it sounds as if the PMC approach is working exactly as it should (i.e., you've found your personal CTL limit, or something close to it).

So then if, for a given season you've determined your CTL limit, then you can put together training loads to reach that limit at the ideal time in the season to taper from it for a "A" race. Loading beyond that point would simply risk injury and burnout. Obviously it's somewhat of a moving target.

I do like the ability to tweak training load here and there and see the impact for a "B" race where I want to be at maybe a 0 to +5 TSB for each discipline, and then look at how much fitness I give up in a taper for an "A" race and adjust training loads the 3 weeks prior to move that number around a little. Then compare my numbers to my previous "A" race where I performed well and ideal, try and have a slightly higher CTL and about the same TSB going into the next one.

One question... and this might be in the Training Bible, but the longer the distance, do you want a comparatively higher or lower TSB than for a shorter distance "A" race.... given a similar overall training load for the season? OR about the same.

What I've learned most from the PMC model, is that since you have a personal limit on what CTL you can reach and maintain, the impact of time off or an injury is not as big as you might expect with a reasonable time from to train following recovery. Where I'm at, if I drop my CTL in 1/2, I can recover that fitness it in about 2 build cycles it seems and still have good form with 2 weeks more for a taper. SO 10 weeks out, from an "A" race and an injury is NBD. Closer than that and you may struggle. It makes you reconsider how aggressively your train following the "Base" period... with running in particular.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

What was Chris Froome's TSB and CTL going into today's stage?

Sorry, you won't find the answer there. ;)


In general, the shorter the event, the higher TSB should be. For a more detailed answer, please see pp. 155-158 of the 2nd edition of our book, or (for a more tri-specific answer), Dr. Steve McGregor's chapter in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/...-Friel/dp/1450423809

I don't know (but I could find out).

If he was using a Stages power meter the data would be dubious.

Can you also find out what pain killers he was on and what drugs he was taking for his asthma?

My theory is that only person on the planet is smart enough to put a power meter to good use. And to emulate the researchers in this profession, no attempt will be made to reject the null hypothesis.

I know TRIMP has been validated. Is it the case for TSS? If so, do you have a reference? Thanks.

TSS has never been scientifically validated.

Define "validated".

Is TSS measuring what it is supposed to measure? All measures need to be validated (using whichever adequate concept
of validity, be it convergent, construct etc.) just to make sure they do where they're supposed to.
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21904234 for TRIMP for instance. I'm not implying in anyway that TSS is not valid.
I was just looking for TSS validity and haven't been able to find anything thus far (OK, I haven't spent a lot of time searching...)

Andrew Coggan has been asked this question before.


Question; Dr Coggan's TSS was inspired and modeled on Dr Eric Bannister's heart rate based training impulse (TRIMP) which has been validated by numerous scientific studies.

Has TSS been validated in any scientific studies?

Andrew Coggan's reply;

"No (even though I've been encouraging somebody to take up the bit for years). "

thanks

http://thetriathlonbook.blogspot.co.uk/...elated-rambling.html
""
Training Stress Score (TSS), is a training load estimator for cycling invented by Dr. Andrew Coggan, and is modeled after Dr. Eric Bannister's heart rate-based training impulse (TRIMPS). It takes into account both the intensity (i.e., IF) and the duration of each training session, and according to the author, it “might be best viewed as a predictor of the amount of glycogen utilized in each workout.”

TSS has the advantage that it is easy to calculate and that it is based on the direct measurement of the applied stimulus (power), unlike TRIMPS that is based on heart rate. However, unlike TRIMPS, TSS has not been validated in any scientific studies, which means that its use by many comes from believing that it is a good tool to estimate training load.""

The problem is so many people believe TSS has been scientifically validated and no longer look at heart rate. In my opinion you should look at power and heart rate.

To quote Frank Day: ugh. What a crappy study - [of course two different measures of training load calculated from the same (heart rate) data will be correlated with each other. The only way you wouldn't see such auto-correlation would be if the data were manipulated in radically different ways.

If you're looking for a study validating TRIMP (as a predictor of physiological strain), these are probably as good as it gets:

Busso T, Hakkinen K, Pakarinen A, et al. A systems model of training responses and its relationship to hormonal responses in elite weight-lifters. Eur J Appl Physiol 1990; 61: 48-54.

Busso T, Hakkinen K, Pakarinen A, et al. Hormonal adaptations and modelled responses in elite weightlifters during 6 weeks of training. Eur J Appl Physiol 1992; 64: 381-386.

Even then, though, you can't really separate the validity (value?) of TRIMP as a predictor of physiological strain from the impulse-response model itself, since they didn't look directly at the relationship of TRIMP to hormonal response (e.g., during/after a single bout of exercise).

Anyway, back to TSS: when I first proposed it back in 2003, it was the first ever objective, stress (i.e., input)-based measure of training load, with its purpose being to serve as input function when modeling the relationship between training and performance. Despite regular encouragement from me, the scientific community has unfortunately been quite slow to get around to studying the idea (there are reasons for that, but no time now to explain). A decade or so on, though, things are starting to change. Specifically, in addition to Fergie's quite-commendable effort several other abstracts/papers have utilized/assessed TSS and/or one of its progeny/imitators/components (with Phil Skiba leading the way back in 2007):

Skiba PF. Evaluation of a Novel Training Metric in Trained Cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007; 39: S448.

(See below.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19910822

(Demonstrates that rTSS/the PMC can be used to predict running performance.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20058020

(Demonstrates that variations in TSS/CTL predict variations in Hb mass.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21113616

(Used TSS and IF to match/compare the training of two groups of cyclists)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24405984

(Demonstrates that the running equivalent of normalized power is a predictor of optimal pacing strategy.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24104194

(Demonstrates that the running equivalent of TSS is a better predictor of training-induced improvements in performance than either TRIMP or Foster's session RPE.)

Of the above, Phil's original study is probably most directly on-point, so it is probably worth reproducing the abstract here (with some emphasis added):

"Numerous systems have been developed to quantify athlete training, many based upon subjective criteria. Recently, a novel system based upon lactate-normalized power output has been popularized for cycling (Coggan 2003, 2006), which has not been evaluated in the literature. This system should be superior to existing methodology because it relates a purely objective parameter (power output) to resultant metabolic stress by weighting cyclist power output with a 4th power function that closely tracks serum lactate response to a standard ramp exercise protocol. This value is then compared to the average power an athlete is capable of maintaining for one hour (previously shown by Coyle et al (1988) to be highly correlated to power output at LT) to generate a training stress score.PURPOSE: This investigation examines the validity of this algorithm in a group of trained cyclists (n=5). This work also evaluates the utility of the related training stress scoring system in the quantification of training load and performance modeling using convolution integrals.METHODS: Power meter files for one-hour (range 51–62 minutes) individual time trial races (ITT) and one-hour (range 51–60 minutes) criterium races (CRIT) were obtained from 5 trained cyclists. Average power (AP) values were compared between ITT and CRIT. CRIT power data were then subjected to a 4th power-weighted 30-second moving average to generate a normalized power (NP) value. ITT AP and CRIT NP were then compared. Training stress scores were generated and used as the input function for systems-based performance modeling for a national-level track cyclist per the method of Morton et al (1991).RESULTS: CRIT AP was highly correlated with ITTAP (p<0.04, r2=0.791), however, CRIT NP was more highly correlated to ITT AP (p<0.001, r2=.978). Using the examined training stress score, it was also possible to accurately model performance (p<0.0001, r2=0.9189). CONCLUSIONS: Though additional work with a larger sample size is required, these data indicate that NP may be superior to AP in describing how strainful a variable-power work task is. These data also demonstrate the utility of the associated training stress quantification system in performance modeling for trained cyclists."

In addition to the above, a number of other peer-reviewed studies have also used, or at least cited, some of my other ideas, e.g.:

Abiss CR, Quod MJ, Martin, Netto KJ, Nosaka K, Lee H, Suriano R, Bishop D, Laursen PB. Dynamic pacing strategies during the cycle phase of an Ironman triathlon. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38:726-734.

Gregory CM, Doherty AR, Smeaton AF, Warrington GD. Correlating multimodal physical sensor information biological analysis in ultra endurance cycling. Sensors 2010; 10:7216-7235.

Francis JT Jr, Quinn TJ, Amann M, Laroche DP. Defining intensity domains from the end power of a 3-min all-out cycling test. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010; 42:1769-1775.

Robinson ME, Plasschaert J, Kisaalita NR. Effects of high intensity training by heart rate or power in recreational cyclists. J Sports Sci Med 2011; 10:498-501.

Cowell JF, McGuigan MR, Cronin JB. Movement and skill analysis of Supercross BMX. J Strength Cond Res Publish Ahead of Print 2012 (DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318234eb22)

Note that there may be others out there, since as merely a hobbyist in this arena I don't make a practice tracking each and every citation of my work...

Times change: see my reply to Francois.

The problem is that you haven't presented anything that could help someone train or monitor their workload. The method you 'discussed' (even though you refuse to give any specifics) has no ability to help anyone. The systems and calculations developed by Coggan do have the ability to help people.

I've trained with HR for nearly 20 years, used power for about 8-9 years. In my mind, there is no comparison, I would choose power over HR every time. I still use both, but more just to collect HR data since I like numbers. Power is easier to test, more consistent and seems more relevant to biking. I wish my other sports had objective measures. Running is getting closer but xc-skiing is still just a 'guess' with time in HR zones (hoping you did the zones correctly and that HR doesn't change that much).

I followed my PMC last year leading up to IMC and it seemed to follow my race progression very well. Adjusting to changes in power from heat, bikes, in/out was much easier than adjusting to the HR I was seeing or my RPE. I didn't do formal FTP testing, just monitored my workouts and adjusted zones as needed.

I don't think I'm expecting the TSS to be scientifically validated. I know it follows principles that I understand and it appears to fit in with my personal assessment of my workouts. It's not a training plan or guide, it's a tool to help monitor training so you or your coach can write a better plan. That's good enough for me and from the looks of it many other successful athletes and coaches as well.

Has anyone validated your power/heart rate metric?

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I only realised there was a thread here after Andy Coggan made a comment on Facebook.

This was an abstract for presentation at the recent World Congress of Cycling Science in Leeds. It is the study for my Masters Degree and I am just working on the final draft of my Thesis. Hopefully there will be a paper or two in this.

With more crunching of the numbers the main thing we have found is that max mean powers in road cycling are highly variable. Even for TT accounting for distance or dropping the bottom half of the data out. Not earth shatteringly amazing stuff but coaches and athletes do obsess on max mean powers for certain durations. This data highlights the folly in that although I only had 5-7 riders with repeated time trial performances so the confidence limits are getting pretty wide.

At the conference in Leeds Dr Simon Jobson asked for my gut on the PMC. I will still use it as I see huge utility but will carry on researching this area and some of the cooler new metrics that are coming out around Golden Cheetah 3.1 and WKO+ 4.0.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Yes, fair comment indeed. The subjects were all National and International level cyclists and competition but MMP's from each event don't tell you if a rider was hiding in the pack or on team duties or if riding a TT in a stage race just saving energy for other stages. Or for some TT's if it was an out and back course vs a point to point.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

One challenge not to forget, is that Golden Cheetah and WKO can't track training load form running and swimming. So if you need to monitor all 3 disciplines to stay on top of overall cardio system stress and associated risks of over training, then you need a system than can look at all 3. While not perfect for swimming and running, it's still a good way to get an overall picture. The challenge with running and swimming is that they are more dependent on technique and the overall efficiency at a given pace can vary more with conditions and equipment selection.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

You could estimate TSS for run and swim. TrainingPeaks online determines a TSShr score that I use for HR based clients to keep a track on the Fitness, Fatigue and Freshness. Power is nicer and I even then the meter is sometimes out of action and I have to make a manual entry.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Yes, I use it's pace based TSS estimate. The HR estimate doesn't work well for me. My Threshold HR is too variable. I think in training it's usually 165, but I've also run a 77 minute 1/2 marathon at an average of 178. So.... you can see why I'm not a big fan of HR. It would consistently underestimate my TSS for running I believe. I don't use a HRM for swimming. too much of a PITA. Moving pace in reference to a threshold pace is a lot easier.

For me it seem pretty valid, as in terms of overall energy levels, a 100TSS run seems similar to a 100TSS ride, though the leg fatigue itself is higher for the run of course.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Thanks Andy. I didn't pick that particular study for quality purposes really. It was just the first that pop up on pubmed, and it was just to illustrate 'validity'.
Thanks for the links, I'll go over them.

As a side note, run TSS is pretty easy to estimate. For me at least it's about 8 per mile at a easy run pace. For Zone 2-3 its' 9 and Zone 4 it's about 10. Where the automatic calculation is nice, is in Trianingpeaks at least, it factors in the grade of the road and creates normalized pace. It also calculates "efficiency factor" by comparing HR ot pace as a ratio. I notice mine is all over the place and as a result, I can conclude that pace is a better measurement overall that HR for running.

One other parting note.... when I'm beat down and just not in the mood to train... I don't. It's not a big surprise that this feeling usually correlates to a extended period of low TSS. A large 3 week training block finally caught up with me and I was just crushed.

I will note that my HR is running low, and that itself is a indicator that I'm my fatigue level is pretty high. It funny, because for a long time I would have thought...wow, cool, my fitness must have jumped because I'm running the same pace at a lower HR. Now I realize, especially early in a run, that I'm just fatigued and my heart responds more slowly in that state.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Yes, what I meant was within the stated framework where only 20 minute duration was looked at. I don't see how you can just blindly pick a duration and try to gauge level of performance from it.

That's just silly. There needs to be a continuous function that is scaled to different durations. You can learn quite a lot by comparing a 20min and 60min TT, but your best 20min within the 60min TT is not important.

I don't know enough about physiology (ie ~zero) to offer an alternative, but it seems like the accumulated fatigue from repeated efforts that approach CP levels in crits or road races are what wear you down... so any semi-accurate measure of stress or performance needs to model the whole spectrum of CPs. For instance if myself and another rider have the same CP20, but I have a higher CP1 and CP5, then the short high intensity efforts within the race will take less of a toll on me.

That's not likely true. I'd actually expect the opposite to be true. The guy with a higher CP20, has a bigger overall engine and can ride at a higher CP60, CP90. The stress would be best measured by normalized power. The guys with a bigger engine can attack more often and will be a better TT rider and best in a break away.. The guy with a better CP1 and CP5, will be a better sprinter. Just different abilities. It also depends on how you train.

remember too, that it's not always the watts you generate attacking the first 1-3 minutes, it's what you can then sustain after the initial attack for the next 10-15 minutes. I would actually think that those with more fasttwitch muscles would recover slower from repeated efforts.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Thanks for the citation. Refresh my memory. Isn't the impulse-response model used in this abstract the very same impulse-response model you have harangued yours truly (and others) about for years, saying that it isn't useful, that you need to do too many performance tests, that this is why you put forth the performance manager, yadda yadda yadda...

You are going to need to make a decision here. Either the Banister IR model works well as written, using a reasonable number of performance tests, and was appropriately used here to support the validity of TSS, or the bolded results in the above cited abstract are completely meaningless because of all the criticisms you have made of the IR model over the past few years. You really can't have it both ways.

Cheers,

Phil

--

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

Wrong. The IR model has been used to model 5 km time trial performance for running (~17-20 min duration).

Sorry, I assumed that you had access to an adequate number of appropriate performance tests to avoid the model being overparameterized - are you saying that wasn't the case?

Anyway, you're right, the PMC was developed as a more practical alternative to Banister's impulse-response model in part because the latter requires that you do many performance tests of appropriate duration in a short period of time in order to get truly statistically-reliable results. (Even then, it really only tells you when to train, not how/how much to train.) Nonetheless, regardless of any limitations to the modeling approach used, your abstract demonstrates that TSS seems to work reasonably well as an input function.

Citation? That study seems to have slipped my mind.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10029340
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2246166

Thanks, I'd forgotten those. Still, it would be interesting to see how well the impulse-response model works with much longer duration events (e.g., marathon, IM triathlon).

Personally, I think the data was just fine. But you tell me, since you gave me the data. To refresh your memory, it was a female track cyclist whom I believe you know very well. ;-)


--

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

I had forgotten about that. So how many performances did you use to fit the model? (Also, why did you never publish this study? I know the attempt to combine it w/ Lindsay's and Simon's results sort of fell apart when they moved on, but it seems you could have followed up independently on this abstract.)

I do a few things with power and heart rate, so do many people who use Dr Coggan's ideas.

I'm more interested in training horses. My daughter is looking at Dr Coggan's ideas with regard to using them for training horses.

I don't see anyone improving on Dr Coggan's ideas with regard to using power in isolation. I just think that more effort should be put into looking at heart rate alongside power.

I do think there are many problems with using power alone to measure training stress. I won't list them all here, but the difference in sustainable power on the flat or track compared to climbing is an example.

Just because I criticise TSS etc does not mean I don't think it is useful or that there is a better way of using power to measure training stress.

But I also think that heart rate is perfectly adequate for measuring training stress, in fact heart rate has some advantages particularly for tri athletes and people who do other sports as well as cycling.

I think it is a mistake to ignore heart rate. If you combine power with heart rate you have more useful data. I don't see it as good science to ignore reliable data.


I was very impressed by Dr Coggan's WKO4 webinars. I'm surprised by how little Dr Coggan's ideas have been picked up on in other sports? Rowing in particular. Also horse racing where pace can now be measured in real time via GPS etc.


Has Dr Coggan looked at horse racing data?

E.g.
http://cyclingtips.com.au/...utputs-are-affected/

"When doing the research, they found found that a rider could ride a TT and a climb with the same power, and same cadence, but there could be a 10bpm variation in heartrate, as well in (sic) differences in oxygen consumption and lactates. It comes down to an athlete’s predisposition of muscle fibre make-up."

So what best describes the stress on the rider in those two scenarios? Power, which is the same in both cases, or HR which I suspect reflects the differences in oxygen consumption and lactates?

The fixation with heart rate is pretty interesting. The body probably does, like, 10,000 things in response to effort...and we just hone in on heart rate so much. I guess because it is easy to measure.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

The current illogical emotional fashion to ignore heart rate is more interesting.

Here's my own mini "case study". So how would the HR vs Power guys each explain this file from my last 70.3 bike leg and run leg? How do I explain what physiologically was happening. MY HR was 10-15bpm higher than I normally see in training at the same pace and lower levels and it took 30 minutes to settle down. Before you just say HRM error... when I've seen an error before, it's usually reading a lot higher than this. If it is error, then how am I supposed to use HR for any type of useful data.

Bike:
http://www.trainingpeaks.com/...FQ5DJQNWT34LQPIJPJEQ
Oh... and it's a Stages PM... so of course my power data is complete crap.

Race simulation Ride (full race kit) 2 weeks earlier
http://www.trainingpeaks.com/...TMPHSYTAN5OMYUHQAY6M

Run:
http://www.trainingpeaks.com/...WYGNPIMBXLF76DN3XTWE

Open 1/2 Mary 3 weeks earlier:
http://www.trainingpeaks.com/...3JFV5AGPILPPWCEJJ3L4

Now a Brick run 1 week later, 2 weeks before the 70.3
http://www.trainingpeaks.com/...YEO6XKWAQOSYK2I7LCAQ


Now do you see why I generally believe that using HR for pacing or overall measurement of training stress to be total crap? From the examples above, pace (with elevation) running and power for the bike are far more useful.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Who is arguing heart rate versus power? I'm arguing you should use both.

I must have misunderstood some earlier posts. I still think I showed some interesting examples that demonstrate why some will question the value of HR. Be interesting to see what the expert opinion is on racing HR vs. training HR.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Why and how? My HR strap broke about 8 months ago. Havent cared to replace it, training by pace/power/swim speed and RPE.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

The opinion of many'experts' is that if you know power then heart rate is at best irellevant and at worst misleading.

In order to understand the relationship between power and heart rate you need to look at both.

We are also reaching a point where the cost of regular blood tests for hormone levels etc, and the measurement of blood lactate in real time or at least after important training efforts is no longer prohibitive. Certainly not when compared to the cost of purchasing and keeping a power meter working reliably.

More attention should be paid to the response to to training. Power output is only one part of the picture.

You wouldn't train a horse without looking at how the animal responds to the training dose. They are worth far too much money. Why then only look at the power output of humans?

I'm not an "expert" in this area, I'm an expert (or at least some people - e.g., USAC, USOC, EIS, a 2015 ProTour squad, etc. - seem to think so). Moreover, I collected both heart rate and power data for nearly a decade before ditching the strap.

You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. You have done a very poor job of stating what areas you disagree with and being consistent. And, you have offered no better solutions or options. You also deliberately misinterpret statements for your own purposes.

Many find HR misleading when it comes to cycling. You have an issue with a few percent difference between indoor and outdoor FTP but then push a measure that can vary by a much larger percentage with no reason.

I've learned a few things from Andy about physiology, and for that I appreciate his presence on the forum. But as a 'non-expert' in psychology, I'm even more grateful for the unintentional insights he provides into expressions of insecurity and ego. The delta between what a man thinks he is saying versus what he is actually saying is perhaps no greater by anyone on the forum.

The posturing also makes me think we're in the Hallowed Halls of Academia, circa 1990. So maybe it's a good example of regressive behavior as well.

I was just making fun of Trev "the Rev's" use of quotes as a veiled insult. But, if someone is seeking examples of passive-aggressive behavior, all they have to do is look at your last couple of posts.

Trev is just a troll. I really should just ignore him, but what oh-so-many overlook about debating is that isn't about convincing your opponent, it is about convincing (educating) your audience. IOW, trolling by people like Trev provides a good opportunity for me to share my thoughts/ideas/knowledge with anyone else out there who might be reading.

... 'provides a good opportunity for me to share my thoughts/ideas/knowledge with anyone else out there who might be reading. '

And I for one thank you for that !

db

What are your thoughts on a TSS adjustment due to heat and altitude (when different from standard training environment). I have found that TSS has worked very well as a predictor/ pacing tool for TTs and triathlons but that I must adjust target values based on altitude / heat when compared to previous race performances. I find I need to do this with a CP modified skiba type of model as well (at least for longer races with heat). I recently did some pace planning for an athlete going from Boulder (home base) to a race at sea level. Pacing was spot on for a ~8 percent power gain over typical race based training sessions. Similarly a TSS adjustment (again for pacing purposes) was needed to fine tune a strategy for a very high placed age grouper racing at Buffalo springs (3000 ft and ~90 degrees versus typical training/testing environment of 500 ft and ~75 degrees). Just curious if you any have thoughts on some adjustment the the metric that may be needed to help account for this. In any case I think your metrics prove themselves out quit nicely (I didn't do a study but several podium spots for Pro and Amateur athletes recently at big races seems to back them up at least for pacing/planning purposes).

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Founder: BestBikeSplit
Amazonian

I have an issue with more than just indoor and outdoor FTP.

Add to the list the
following.

TT bike v road bike
Flat v climbing
Hot day v cold day
High inertia v low inertia
Sea level v altitude
Indoors big fan v indoors little fan
New TT position v old TT position
Hydrated v dehydrated
Morning v evening


And most of these are a difference of more than a few percent. Just a TT position change could be 20 or 30 watts drop or increase in FTP.

Heart rate varies - there is always a reason. It is the variability that is of interest.

You might want to look up some definitions of passive aggressive behavior. I believe you're confusing with the concept of restrained criticism.

Restrained criticism is making some fairly direct observations about someone's bad behavior. Most people are able to evaluate whether it's valid criticism or not, and act accordingly. And it's generally considered more productive and more polite than simply saying something like, "Wow, what a colossal, arrogant douche."

So - you have issues with life, pretty much, is what you're saying?

---

float , hammer , and jog

I have been saying since 2006* that I don't believe that the best way forward is to continue searching for better ways of quantifying training-induced stress. Instead, it would be more useful to be able to quantify the relationship between training and performance. This is where the original impulse-response model falls short, as it really only tells you when to train, not how/how much to train (at least w/ the PMC it is possible to give guidelines re. maximal sustainable CTL.

*UK Sport, their equivalent of our USOC, had me give a talk on quantifying training stress. It was when I was preparing that talk that I started really thinking about such questions.

This, from the guy who likes to brag about how he stares down motorists...why the passivity now? Afraid of crossing swords and getting eaten alive?

De nada.

Can you clarify or edit this because it isn't clear what you mean.

I note how no one answered your question.


This is a good example of where having both power data and heart rate data is more valuable than power alone.

In what way?

Done.

 

Sir Andrew, I love, Love, LOVE your posts! Thank you for the entertainment you bring to slowtwitch!

PS: My sword is bigger (and broader) than yours. But that doesn't mean I'll let you eat it.

 

Wow, I check back in after being in the wilderness for a couple years and what do I find? Coggan, Roady, Rchung???.... What is this, 2005? The only suspect missing is Smartass Coach.

Good to see you back AC. I guess I need to start checking in again.

---

Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com

Amazingly true as a lurker here and other discussion lists where I am picking up small nuggets from these threads on how to utilize the power meter data in refining my training structure. I have a lot more to learn so thank you for the morsels of information :-)

Again, I would rate myself as still a newbie (recreational cyclist) and may not be using some of the metrics correctly, but using TSS as guide to helping refine my training schedule structure for day to day consistency sake has worked pretty good.

Thanks

Not really necessary. I've had a bit more free time on my hands recently, but life is slowly returning to its normally hectic pace, so I'm going to have to go back to lurking.

Just throwing in my 2 cents, since I do find some of the power crowd to have an oddly misty-eyed religious attitude toward power.

If I had to choose, I'd throw away the strap without a second, thought, but....

I find HR valuable in two ways.

1) I find my HR at steady 200W to be a very good indicator of my immediate readiness. It's around 105BPM when I'm in top shape, 120BPM when I'm "overreached" and higher than that if something's wrong with me. I do these efforts every time I warm up, and it's pretty consistent. I trust it more it more than my "Freshness" score. It was useful to me last week when it hit 130BPM even though I felt absolutely fine. I quit my workout wondering what was going on, and sure, enough about 5 hours later I was camped out on the toilet for 24 hours food poisoning. People might complain there that it's useless because various life stresses can mess that all up, etc. I'd argue that various life stress are *part of training*, that it's useful information to know when something affects your training.

I'm sure I could get this same sort of indication with some variant of FTP test, but the benefit of the HR version is that it can be done every day with effectively no additional training stress. It's just part of the warmup.

2) In crits and road races I find HR to be a good surrogate for "available W' ", in energy terms. Which is effectively the capacity to attack. If my HR is under 165, I give myself the green light to launch. Because I know I'm likely to be able to put in a 30s effort at 600W+, then recover back to FTP without cracking. If it's over, I sit in. Instantaneous power is no good for this because it's rapidly fluctuating between 0 and 600 during a normal crit lap. Something like 30-second average power might be nearly as good, but I haven't messed with it because I find 3-second power useful for other purposes, e.g. settling quickly into FTP during a breakaway. Someday there may be better-modeled indicators of available W' available on head units. Until then, HR works for me.

In summary,

Power excels at tracking performance, and is pretty-good-and-getting better at tracking accumulated stress over time. HR seems to be good at measuring instantaneous stress.

It's also good for when your PM dies in the middle of a serious ride, and then you can use HrTSS so you at least get some credit in WKO+, etc. :)

I'm able to predict my Max 20 minute power from my standard 10 min warm up power / heart rate.

The warm up was originally devised as a standard to ensure my 20 min tests were comparable like for like. It became evident the heart rate power ratio during the warm up predicted the result of the Max test.

This holds true on Concept2 and Wattbike, (before the Wattbike I used a wind trainer with speed of rear wheel as a proxy for power), and has proved reliable since 1998 when I first bought my own Concept2.

Thats a great post Trail.

I have found a like warmup that gauges my readyness to train to use in conjunction with TSB. Its called like Lambert&Lambert Submaximal Cycle test and I think it was designed to be used with HR, but with power it goes like this:
6 minutes @ 55%
6 minutes @ 75%
3 minutes @ 95%

When I am fatigued those 3 minutes is just awful. When I am in great shape I get very amped up. And usually it is somewhere in between and just enough to make me feel ready and have a great session.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

I'm able to predict my maximal 20 min power from my perceived exertion while warming up. An even better predictor, though, is my maximal 20 min power.

So can I. The heart rate data is confirmation. The heart rate data is additional evidence which is easily recorded alongside power. It isn't easy to record perceived exertion for every minute of a 20 minute effort. In fact sometimes after very hard training it is difficult to remember very much. So heart rate data is good as a guide alongside power.

I don't understand why you choose to ignore hard evidence. I use power, perceived exertion and heart rate. I'm doing all that you do - just I'm looking at all the data instead of ignoring some of it.

Do you mean your 20 minute maximal power yesterday, a week ago or last year is the best predictor of your 20 minute maximal power today?

Do you think everyone can predict their maximal 20 minute power from their warm up by perceived exertion?

IOW, at best it is redundant. At worst, though, it is misleading. In between, it is just an unnecessary distraction.

"That which gets measured, gets improved."

I measure power:heart rate ratio. It improves. If you measure power alone you have no evidence your improvement is anything more than trying harder.

I'm all for learning to try harder and train the central governor. But if I remember correctly you think the central governor theory is madness.

Sooner or later if power:heart rate ratio is not improving you will stagnate or go backwards. Unless of course you have found a magic potion which enables you to increase your maximum heart rate year on year. Even if you train yourself to sustain a heart rate closer and closer to your maximum heart rate in the end you run out of heart beats.


Another advantage in heart rate is it is hard evidence for a coach to look at. People can lie to themselves and their coach about how hard or easy a given wattage might have been. Heart rate shows how hard they were really trying.

It takes a special talent to be able include so many fallacies in one short post.

Wow, that is some crazy shit there. We may need to bring back Frank Day to get things back on track.
..

I did warn people to not reply to the troll but anyways

Care to specifically identify all of those fallacies? And report what the truth is instead?

Interesting how people who are unable to construct an argument resort to insults. Many people use power with heart rate. It is a valid scientific approach. I have set out some examples below.


http://cpsinmotion.com/...training-with-power/

""Training with power alone ignores the fact that we are not all ‘machines’, however integrating multiple data channels including heart rate provides a more holistic view of your overall physiology at work. As you become fitter, your heart rate will decrease for a given power output or a given speed on a particular stretch of road or same climb. As your fitness improves your training zones shift and although your maximum heart rate will not change much, your speed and power will change in relation to your heart rate. To accurately determine this, precise testing performed under controlled conditions will help you understand how quickly you are improving and also how well you are able to maintain the improved performance and understand the cyclical periodisation needed to reach your next level.""

""
Training with both a power meter (direct power as opposed to derived power) and a heart rate monitor allows for an ideal combination of the objective measure of exercise intensity and an indirect measure of oxygen consumption. Although interpreting the data can be a daunting task, and can take valuable time to process. The comparative value of the power: heart rate ratio and its relative relationship changes over time, offers excellent insight into how a rider is responding to a training plan and incremental progression in performance without over-loading the individual and reap maximum effect. Riding at the same power output with a lower heart rate is an indication of improved fitness assuming a relative lowering or no change in RPE. An increase in perceived exertion with lower heart rate would suggest fatigue, especially if the rider is unable to sustain a particular power and previous sessions were indicative of a poorer performance. """


And a few more links.
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...power-and-heart-rate

http://help.trainingpeaks.com/...nd-Efficiency-Factor

http://www.pbscience.com/...r-cardiac-drift.html

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/05/speed-power-heart-rate-and-fitness.html

I posted several power files that blow HR out of the water. How to you account for HR drift? Positive drift? What about negative drift like I see in most of my races? Because HR is elevated from the swim and the shift from being horizontal to vertical. Maybe I swim really hard, but again I've seen it take 30 minutes to slowly drop.

Lets look at what heart rate is for a second....

Your heart a positive displacement pump....though it's imperfect since the valves are just check valves, not positively engaged. Also, the chambers are not emptied completely so it's stroke volume can vary a little so its' "pump curve" in not linear because of this. That aside, even if flow rate was always directly proportional and linear, increase flow rate will increase the potential for higher oxygen consumption, but will not measure it. Couple issues:

Your whole cardio system is not actively controlled by you brain. It's a passive response to chemical triggers. Some triggers can include things not related oxygen consumption.

There are other muscle efficiency factors going on at different intensities. That part of why power and HR zones are used. But these zones will vary day to day just as your FTP will vary.

No system is perfect. All data has value (pace, HR, power) but I just can't place HR above power as it varies so dramatically in varying situations.

Power is a direct measurement of the force generated by your muscles over a given time period. HR doesn't determine how hard you push on the pedals. Even if you were to connect an inline blood monitor that lets say oxygen, CO2 and lactate levels, it still won't tell you how hard your pushing on the pedals at that moment. It's still indirect.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

I agree with you. Yes all data has value, power, pace and heart rate.

But you seem to think I'm saying heart rate is better than power which I'm not. You also seem to think I'm saying heart rate tells you how hard I'm pushing on the pedals which I'm not.

If I had to choose between power or heart rate I would choose power. But I'm saying I prefer to look at power and heart rate.

You mentioned above how your heart rate is affected by the swim etc etc, I don't disagree with you. It is the way heart rate varies alongside power that is of interest.

We agree though that we would not put heart rate above power.

We agree all data has value. I'm advocating not ignoring heart rate alongside power not that heart rate is a superior alternative. If I could look at blood lactate alongside power I would look at that too.

Some interesting stuff here where power and heart rate are used. Sub maximal testing to predict performance. See Chapter 6.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/...0%2FPOY%2F5kL7YVE%3D

I guess HR has value, but it needs to be justified and corrected for conditions.

Today for example we have a little mini polar vortex in this part of the country and dewpoint was down to 50F and 70F ambient. My HR at the same pace was 8bpm lower.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not completely useless, but I think it tends to be only a little more valuable than using pace/distance on the bike for useful data. You need to include conditions.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

That is exactly my point though. Due to the cooler conditions your heart rate was lower for the same pace/ power.

So suppose you were cycling at 250 watts for an hour at 50F one day then 90F the following day. Both would score the same TSS, but the ride at 90F would be at a higher heart rate.

My view is the ride in high temperatures should be scored higher because the training stress was higher and the higher heart rate reflected this.

For testing though using heart rate you need to control the conditions. But then temperature affects power output too.

You're making a huge assumption there, that your _training stress_ is higher on the hotter day. Is that true? And by how much?

I think everyone will agree that you're likely getting a ton more heat acclimation on the warmer day, but when I hear "training stress", heat acclimation is only one small part of it. I'd bet that you're only having a _slightly_ higher physiological adaptation on the 90F day than the 50F day. You can be as heat acclimated as possible, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can bike fast. But, to the contrary, if you're in great bike shape but you've only biked in 50F weather and go out into 90F heat, you'll probably still do decently.

I think it's likely that if you go out and hold your HR constant at 50F and then do another ride holding the same HR at 90F (likely at a lower power), you'll likely receive LESS overall physiological adaptation (caused by training stress) at the 90F. Put another way, I think if I had to choose an overall training temp, it probably wouldn't be the 90F day.

Well put it this way. Ride for 20 minutes at 90% maximum heart rate at 50F one day. Then ride at 90% maximum heart rate the next day at 90F. Which day do you think you are going to produce the most power?

No way I could ride at FTP for an hour at 90F.

Yet the TSS would be the same for an hour at FTP on both days. The legs would have done the same work but the cardiovascular system would have been more stressed on the hot day than the cool day. Seeing as we are training the cardiovascular system as well as the leg muscles I don't think TSS scores the hot day's training correctly.

Then you have Perceived Exertion. It would certainly feel harder on the hot day. If it feels harder it is harder.

I'm not saying heart rate tracks training better than power. I am saying you get a fuller picture if you track training with both.

You'll have to search to find it, I remember it being posted on the wattage list, but I think there has been research showing training in heat improving performance at normal temperatures, suggesting that the training load is higher.

I don't know of the research, but I know some of the people coaching the GB Modern Pentathlon team in the 1980s were aware of the benefits of training in the heat.

Steve Irwin wrote:

You'll have to search to find it, I remember it being posted on the wattage list, but I think there has been research showing training in heat improving performance at normal temperatures, suggesting that the training load is higher.

This isn't the research but an article referring to it and a link to the research.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/..._type=blogs&_r=0

What surprises me is people intuitively thinking it wouldn't improve performance.

No mention in the study of harmful bacteria leaking into the bloodstream from the gut.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19208999

I also note that they would have got the same TSS for the training done in both the hot and cool conditions.

I have heard about the benefits of training in the heat. I thought it was even favorable to high altitude. Maybe it's the "secret" of triathletes in the midwest...haha. High relative heat on the training all winter, then high humidity through the middle of the summer. An unlike the SE to Texas, the weather varies dramatically, so you get doses of humidity periodically, rather than adapting to all year long. I know my run yesterday felt like my lungs had a supercharger on them. HR was 8-10bpm lower and I was all nice a relaxed, hardly breathing at all. I could really focus on my form.



I think TSS would still score the specific muscle fatigue fairly close. That being said, that's also why it's suggested you test your FTP regularly in condition similar to how your train.

Oddly, this morning is was really cool and dry (58F, 55F dewpoint) but my HR wasn't really any different. So either I adapted in about 48 hours to the cool weather, or I was over dressed enough to keep my core temp closer enough to a hot day that it didn't matter. Breathing rate was a lot lower. RPE was similar, as I measure RPE more by leg fatigue when cycling.

Looking back at the hot weather the last couple months to training in the spring, and I can't say that I was any more fatigued because it was hot. Not nearly as much as HR would indicate. Sure the rides were harder, but I'm not sure the training load went up significantly.

Also in my Olympic distance race Sat, where it was very hot and humid, I didn't really see a big difference in comparative HR compared to my much cooler 70.3 and even cooler open 1/2 mary. It was a similar pattern of a very high HR coming out of T1 that took 30 minutes to settle down. Stayed level on the run at a similar intensity, then slowly increased as I got really hot, then jumped when I made a final push at the end of the race.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

When you say heart rate didn't change much what was pace and or power?

OK

If you can't produce more power over durations that matter, you are not fitter and won't go faster, no matter what your Power:HR ratio happens to do. If you are not trying, then knowing your HR isn't going to help as the problem lies elsewhere.


What does this actually mean? Hill's ideas as resurrected by Noakes? If so they are certainly not well established science, and seem to me to be ideas mostly supported by motivated reasoning.

Fatigue is multifactoral.


I don't recall anyone saying something was madness. This in itself is a backhanded ad-hom attack, akin to the misquoting and twisting of quotes Trev often does.


Well if power is not improving, then perhaps you are stagnating, but that's not always the case as of course one may simply be carrying some appropriate level of fatigue during a block of training. At the end of the day, the only part of the power:HR equation that matters is the numerator.

I've no idea what maximal HR year on year has to do with it. Red herring.


HR doesn't tell you how hard you are trying. It just tells you what your HR was. There are a multitude of factors unrelated to how hard you are trying that influence HR.

Heart rate is a very good guide to how hard someone is trying.

http://www.toppfysik.nu/...ing-competitions.pdf

"We conclude that during competitions of <120 minutes heart rate is a valid and reliable predictor of exercise intensity and energy expenditure. For competitions of <240 minutes heart rate will increase by <5 beats/min relative to workload and therefore over predict exercise workload and energy expenditure."

If you are holding 300 watts, your maximum heart rate is 180 bpm and your heart rate is at 95% (171 bpm) you are trying bloody hard.

If heart rate wasn't useful why do you think so many scientific studies look at it?


If you and your "when you know your power, then at best heart rate is irrelevant but at worst misleading" fundamentalist extremists don't use heart rate fine, but why do you get so annoyed by people who do use it? Some of you have become a sort of Taliban who wish to impose your extreme fundamentalist views on everyone else.


Methinks the reason is looking at heart rate alongside power exposes the flaws in the power only approach. For starters heart rate alongside power exposes how TSS is flawed.

I've lurked on many discussion lists and forums that are highly power based members and I have never seen those dedicated power users (and myself) focus so much on TSS as you suggest. I use TSS as a guide, but like many that focus on using a power meter to guide their training efforts it is a tool to improve 1m power, 5m power, 60m power, etc. TSS is not the highlight to training using a power meter as a guide as far as I am concerned. You statement makes it sound as if that is what most of us hold as a top metric.

TSS is just a bonus metric like TSB, ATL and CTL that some of us use and some don't. But most of us dedicated power meter users are focused on the effort duration, intensity and training structure. I don't expect TSS to be perfect, but yet it has served me well in managing the training load in my typical weekly/monthly training structure. It just a guide as far as I am concerned. What I do find is the chart that Coggan provided with TSS/d to line up pretty good for what I do so maybe I am just the lucky one. Using TSS/d as a guide and based on the same training routine and weekly schedule I know about how much I can take per day.

The day that I find it to be the most useful is my Saturday ride that is either an aggressive group ride or a long solo ride. Based on 4+ years worth of ride data I know that if I can keep my TSS down below 300 for that Saturday ride I can typically manage at least a sustained solo TT type L3/Tempo the next day. If I go over 300 TTS on Saturday I typically can just manage to stay in L2 for the duration. So I glance at live TSS or IF on my Saturday ride with hope that I can finish a 4 to 5 hour endurance ride at 250 TSS or lower. This seems to work okay on 8 out of 10 rides, but there are occasions where 250 TSS/d doesn't work and it may be due to greater residual fatigue from higher intensity intervals during the week day. So is it flawed? I am just not smart enough to answer, but I feel that using TSS to help guide day to day consistency it has helped me. I will have to admit that I have yet to understand how to use TSB like most power gurus in guiding training in regards to fatigue and freshness.

To add fatigue and recovery needs for me seem to be the same if it happens to be 300 TSS/d in an aggressive group ride with a lot of burned matches or 300 TSS/d from a 5 hour solo TT type steady pace. The fatigue I feel the next day is very similar between the two. Again I understand that I am talking n=1 experience, but again it seems like TSS has been okay as a guide.

You keep coming back to this point.
HR is used because it's easy and cheap to measure, and it's been around for a long time. Doesn't mean there aren't better ways to skin that cat now (hint - there are).
Also:
Doing workouts in sub-optimum conditions (when it's hot/humid, when you're dehydrated, etc) - does NOT lead to doing more WORK.
They may feel harder, they will almost surely have a greater recovery required, but they don't provide a greater training benefit.

Power and the metrics around it are not perfect. Nothing is. Something better or more accurate/inclusive may come along - and likely will.
That won't make the current tools useless, just less useful. Much like power did to HR.

---

float , hammer , and jog

If a work out feels harder and takes longer to recover from are you sure it has no extra training benefit. It might not get more TSS, you might not have done more watts. But I posted a study earlier which shows there are additional training benefits from doing workouts in extreme heat.


I think being able to measure power has made heart rate more useful.

My opinion is that power and heart rate combined with RPE is more useful than power and RPE.

Sorry if people don't agree.

It isn't as if I'm the only person on the planet who uses heart rate with power. Many coaches and scientists do. I don't see why some people have a problem with that.

Here is an interview with Tim Noakes.

https://www.bulletproofexec.com/...ore-4-hour-body-fun/

""Co-host: Cool. The Rating of Perceived Exertion that most people think is affirmative and that kind of thing and I think a lot of coaches are moving towards heart rate training and power training and those metrics. Do you think Perceived Exertion is still a fairly good representation of how hard you’re working?
Dr. Noakes: No, it’s not because it’s a measure of how close you are to the finish. That’s they key. The Rating of Perceived Exertion was started a measure of your intensity. The heart rate is a much better measure of intensity, and it’s very reproducible. If you try and regulate the same heart rate, you’ll be doing roughly the same intensity.
If you want to know your intensity, the heart rate is really a very good measure. Whereas Rating of Perceived Exertion doesn’t tell you your intensity because it rises the longer you go on. If you run at the same intensity, your Rating of Perceived Exertion will rise. Therefore, it’s not related to the intensity. It’s related to how long you can keep going at that pace.
That’s what the information you get from the Rating of Perceived Exertion is, how long can I go at this pace.""

You train by feel and post a quote saying that going by feel is useless to monitor intensity?

You are making lots of claims and assumptions and mis-represented quotes to try and demonstrate the 'fundamentalist' attitudes of 'die-hard' power/TSS users. The only one that comes across as a fundamentalist (please don't relate sport to the Taliban again) is you.

Why do you gloss over the term 'predictor'. You claim HR is hard evidence of exactly what your body is doing. This study claims it can usually predict what intensity you are doing when the duration is between 120 and 240 min. Why couldn't they make that claim for under 120 min?

HR is less reliable and direct than power. You can do workouts that keep the heart rate lower and have the same effect on your legs. HR lags behind power output and drifts as the workouts get longer. Both power and HR have issues to overcome when quantifying intensity and overall stress, but I think many people find fewer challenges in working with power data. My life got a lot easier when power came into the picture. I still have HR most days, but I find it bounces around all the time and doesn't add much if anything to the view of my training.

RPE is one thing. Heart rate is another and power another. They measure different things. I use all 3.

The study shows a drift in heart rate after 120 minutes.


"Results: Our results show a significant (p<0.05) drift in the power to heart rate relationship after 120 minutes of competition. This drift is in the range of an increase in heart rate of 5 beats/min over 240 minutes of competition. Road races and time trials of <120 minutes in duration did not show a significant drift in either heart rate or power output, but there was a trend for lower power output and higher heart rate over time. "

There was no significant drift in road races or time trials of less than 120 minutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...Begging_the_question

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...8-avoiding-the-issue


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

I use feel, but I don't use 'feel' to measure intensity. I use power to measure power output. I use heart rate to measure heart rate, which is a good guide to O2 consumption. e.g. as I get fatigued and more less efficient fast twitch muscle fibres are recruited to maintain the same power my heart rate increases. Or, as I begin to overheat and I have to divert more blood to my skin to keep cool, my heart rate increases if I maintain the same power. My cardiovascular system is working harder to maintain the same power. So there is a greater training load.

As to my Taliban comments, I note you didn't ask people to stop calling me a Troll.

I don't think you understood the study. I suggest you read it again.
""
Conclusion
Our results suggest that the drift in the relationship between heart rate and power output, CV drift, is not as pronounced during cycling competitions as in the laboratory. The reasons for the difference in our results compared to those from the laboratory are not clear but the airflow around the cyclist during outdoor riding is a very likely factor.
We found no significant changes during the first 120 minutes of road race competition or during 35 minute long time trials. After 120 minutes we have observed an upward drift of the heart rate in relation to power output in the range of 5 beats, in competitions lasting 240 minutes. CV drift can be a result of many different mechanisms and it is impossible to draw any conclusions to which mechanisms that have induced the drift we observed.
We conclude that during competitions of <120 minutes heart rate is a valid and reliable predictor of exercise intensity and energy expenditure. For competitions of <240 minutes heart rate will increase by <5 beats/min relative to workload and therefore over predict exercise workload and energy expenditure.""

Perhaps you can explain why you still look at heart rate?

Thanks, read the study again and understand it now. Surprisingly poor study and conclusions that they draw have no basis in the analysis they did. Very few subjects, self reported info and data files and poorly worded conclusions. And they used norm power, which I'm assuming you don't agree with since it is one part of the TSS equation.

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_the_shoe_fits

How do you know what is happening to your fast twitch muscle fibers as you exercise? Are you estimating that, guessing, assuming or measuring?

41 subjects is a lot for sports studies.

Heart rate normalises itself without the need for an algorithm, clever that.



NP is an estimate of what power might have been if the effort were steady state. Note the words 'estimate' and 'might'.

Try 9 subjects and 49 data files. That is a tiny sample size and they identified that as an issue in the study.

Slow Vo2 component. The recruitment of fast twitch fibres as slow twitch fibres tire is just an example I'm giving which might explain why if you ride at a constant wattage heart rate increases.

How do you track overall training load/stress?

None of the 'facts' you discuss track training load. Hours is a poor metric, distance is also poor. Evaluating the trend in power:hr seems like a delayed method to track the ability to train hard, problems wouldn't show up for a while and you wouldn't have clear ways of determining if the problem are real or just a random variation in heart rate response. I know you can test all sorts of things to determine why heart rate is altered, but most people aren't using lactates, hormone/blood profiles, brain waves/nervous system activation, etc.

Didn't answer the question. Are you measuring fibre recruitment, guessing, assuming?? Is the only reason for increased HR with the same power a change in muscle fibre recruitment as the training goes longer?

Mildly annoying that Trev is using his misinterpretation of my study to start this thread. Which begs the real question. Can you block people on ST in the same way I have blocked him on other forums?

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I started the thread by posting your study. I didn't comment on the study. So I did not misrepresent it in any way.

I'm not surprised by your findings due to the nature of racing but I didn't expect, that when time trials were isolated the result wouldn't change.

If I have misrepresented your study in any way, please point me to exactly where I have done so and I will edit the post.

I quote below from your study.

""Measures of training stress in cyclists do not usefully predict maximum mean power in competitions ""

Most people who measure training stress using power data would probably assume that measures of training stress do usefully predict maximum mean power in competition.

My own view is that there are so many factors which contribute to performance, it is unlikely any one measure will predict to any degree of accuracy.

It really isn't my fault your study found that measures of training stress using power meters do not usefully predict mean power in competitions.

No, increase in core temperature is another. Fatigue is multi factorial.
As I said earlier I just gave the recruitment of fast twitch fibres as an example.

Now as some people on this thread have resorted to name calling and others are getting annoyed with me. I think it better I stop posting, until people have calmed down.

No argument there.

It won't last though.

I was thinking the opposite. Getting a pwoer meter has exposed the flaws in using HR for pacing and measuring intensity with any accuracy.

My last 20 minute power test in May is a perfect example (I have lots of these). It wasn;t paced perfectly, but made for a good example. I actually went out a little too easy and my power continuously increased over the duration.

Ave. power: 321W
Ave HR: 158

Ave HR last 5': 172
Ave power last 5' - 341W

I can tell you without a doubt that my threshold HR is NOT 158. Its' probably closer to 172. It took 7:00 to rise from 115 to 158. So I was riding above threshold power for 7' and my average HR was only 145.

SO what exactly is HR telling me? That I have a good aerobic base? I suppose there's some value in that. How slow my HR changes is a good comparative measure of fitness, but not all that accurate. Plus I don;t need a measurement of my aerobic base. It's not like I have some mythical number I'm training towards. I try to achieve the highest fitness level possible. I can compare my fitness one period to the next by the power numbers I achieve in training.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

I quote you below. When did you change your mind?

In Reply To: what's the point of tracking one's W/BPM?
""Assuming constant thermodynamic efficiency, VO2 is proportional to power, so power:heart rate is proportional to VO2:heart rate. In turn, VO2:heart rate is proportional to the product of stroke volume and a-vO2 difference (i.e., O2 pulse). Thus, an improvement in power:heart rate is indicative of an increase in stroke volume and/or a-vO2 difference (and/or an increase in thermodynamic efficiency). That's why I've been recording my power:heart rate during ergometer workouts for >20 y.""


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...t=search_engine#last

I quote below:
"I think it better I stop posting"

I thought you left because people asked you questions and you refuse to provide detailed answers. You hound people for decade old quotes (that you often take out of context) but don't live up to that same rifle in your responses to questions.

I have not taken anything out of context. I'm asking when Dr Coggan stopped using heart rate with power and why.

I'm obviously referring to your collection of posts and quotes and links etc. Not just your most recent post.

But, I am interested in how you manage training with heart rate, power and feel. Please elaborate for all of us to learn.

Andrew, please stop calling me a Troll.

You looked at heart rate alongside power for some 20 years. Certainly up until at least 2007. When did you discard using heart rate?

Were you the one who dug up that thread? Something isn't adding up here.

I do all my training indoors, other than running. I use a Concept2 for rowing, a Wattbike for cycling. I look at power and heart rate. Running I look at pace/ heart rate. But for me feel always comes first.

In particular I look at power:heart rate ratio. Due to an illness and resulting recovery problems I am unable to do maximal tests very often.

Probably due to the consistent conditions in which I train, I'm able to track my progress by comparing watts / heart rate over the various durations.

If you are genuinely interested in what I do please send me a PM.

Regularly? Probably around 2006 or so, when my heart rate strap died and I couldn't think of a good reason to replace it.

I did dig up and old one and wear it during one workout earlier this year, though...but it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

Again, that doesn't answer anything. Why the reluctance to give details publicly? You are outspoken about a system that has helped simplify training for thousands of people, but can't say anything more than you go by feel and look at hr:power ratios.

What I'm more interested in is why two posters on here are both using a cryptic reference to a soviet era leader??

Thank you.

In all those years in which you did look at heart rate and power did you learn anything?

Some bro science I did today:



I next plan to compute an EWMA of kilojoules and see how it compares

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

More bro science:

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Ok pretty interesting here, I wish I had more known-clean data to work with, as it is I have about 5 months of my own data and 12 months of my wife's data.

Wife's data, when CTL is up, so is a weighted moving average of kilojoules, training makeup was pretty consistent in other words, and they predict performance similarly well.


with my own data, I had a pretty big shift in training makeup, kilojoules trending down while CTL trends up. Performance was also trending up while CTL was.

So CTL does a so-so job of predict my 2013 performance, a weighted moving average of kilojoules completely fails.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

EWMA is ?

---

age is just a number after your name

So the way CTL works is it is an "exponentially weighted moving average" of your tss each day. Something like this is important if you want some day to day number that represents you current state of training load. Because the worksouts you did 3 months ago still have a bearing on your current state of fitness, just not very much. The ones 2 months ago matter, a bit more, and your training in the current month matter quite a bit. So you can't just average your last ~100 days of TSS/kilojoules or your last month or your metric will not reflect reality at all (I tried this, but it is also intuitive)

So if I want to compare how TSS performs vs kilojoules as a basis for a training load metric, I need to also do a EWMA of kilojoules to compare it vs CTL

which is what I did here on my data and my wife's data:
http://blog.aeroweenie.com/...-of-performance.html

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter