Caveat. I would call it what it says it is, a measure of your training load. Not a measure of fitness.

Training load can correlate with fitness. Or it can inversely correlate with fitness. I only bring that up because the 3-4 peaks on my ~10 yeas of CTL are all when I was absolutely shattered and had to take months off. So as you scale the CTL peak, do so gradually, and start to tip-toe the closer to the top you get. It's always better, in my opinion, to be slightly undertrained (vs. some mythical optimal fitness) vs. overtrained.

To measure fitness either use race results or some repeatable test, like an FTP or ramp test.

X2 - I once believed it was a measure of fitness too. But I have had some cracker sprint races with a ctl of 50. And some very shit cooked ones with 120 ctl with massive builds sans much rest....Right now I’m on 107 with an oly on Sunday but I’m feeling good right now and not fatigued. Chasing high load numbers, you really need recovery or you can dig some pretty deep holes

I am definitely not an expert at this at all. However, I've asked my coach lots of probably annoying questions and overall CTL by itself is not going to give you the answer you are looking for. You need to correlate ATL and TSB to try to find that mythical taper/peak fitness level and then there are still all those other life stressors. I love to try to coorelate when I have some pretty kick ass workouts/races to what my numbers are saying at that time but there are still a lot of life commitments that can weigh on these results. Read TP website it's good information. For reference my CTL is 127 today. I'm not doing any races over Olympic this year but I'm no where near ready for a race at this point.

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/what-is-the-performance-management-chart/

---

https://www.strava.com/athletes/23685202

One thing I often fail to keep in mind . . . CTL only reports on what you put into it. There are other stresses that, by necessity, need to go into the equation to have an accurate portrayal of total load. For example . . . until recently, my CTL didn't include my stresses from strength training. Those are pretty significant. More importantly, I still ldon't know a way to input the load introduced by life stresses. Those can be greater than the stresses from training -- and have to be put into the equation somehow if CTL is going to be meaningful.

I have been told that a CTL in the low 100's is pretty sustainable. I like to taper down to a CTL in the low- to mid-90's. Because life has happened this winter, I'm now down around 60 and, as a result, I have cancelled all my spring racing (except races purely for training effect). I fully expect it to take until September 1 to bring my CTL back up in a balanced way. Do it too fast, and it's counterproductive.

Edit: ooops, didn't notice TriRugby had given the same answer.



Isn't CTL just one half of the picture? Surely you need to view CTL alongside ATL and, ultimately, TSB for a prediction of form?

https://blog.trainerroad.com/why-tss-atl-ctl-and-tsb-matter/


https://help.trainingpeaks.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000415452-How-to-analyze-runners-training-load-in-WKO4-using-the-Performance-Manager-Chart

CTL is individual, and must be considered with the other metrics to have meaning with regard to your own fitness.


CTL is representative of training load and volume, but also generalizes fitness because you have to consider the ATL (acute training load) and TSB (form) metrics, which give the CTL context in terms of your own fitness AND your ability to sustain that "fitness". Sure your fitness is 60/80/90/100 CTL, but if your form/TSB is -55 on that day its unlikely you can hold this load for your "fitness" CTL #'s over consecutive days or even weeks.

CTL #'s vary widely between individuals for each distance. Alan Couzens' has a chart for goal CTL for each tri distance. Oly is I believe mid 60's to 100. Those #'s are not indicative of performance though. You might have a guy/gal on the podium with a CTL of 60; at the end of the day CTL doesn't tell us training quality, specificity, our genetic response to training, etc. So, we only use the (all) metrics to help guide us to balance our work and recovery days to hopefully arrive at the race ready to rumble.

---

Matt Leu, M.S. Kinesiology
San Pedro Fit Works, Los Angeles, CA
Endurance Athlete and Coach
Consistency/time=results

and here i was feeling terrible inside for only being at 68 currently(based on outdated ftp, ie way too high) but also good that it was above low of 39 post surgery :)

Comparing CTL is probably like comparing genitalia. Further, looking at a total CTL across SBR is of limited (and questionable) value. That said, an Oly race is generally about 200 TSS (assuming you race the whole thing at about 0.90IF). So, I aim to have a CTL of about 1/2 that on race day (100 CTL) with a balanced plan. I seem to race best with a TSB of 0 (versus the generic +20 recommendation from Training Peaks, which experience has shown doesn't work for me). I train to a peak CTL value of about 120 with a TSB of -20. Then taper to CTL=100 / TSB=0 over about 10 days.

I've had good experiences with tapering 10 days earlier than others and then build back up to a tsb of about 5.

I used to be flat for my big races, now I'm really ready to go.

CTL is extremely variant; in WKO, GC, CyclingAnalytics they all report slightly differently and if you aren't on point with your FTP the whole thing is thrown off. For me, as a guy with no real fast twitch, I find my race fitness perfect at 80-95 CTL; and that's only training the bike. For someone who's style doesn't rely on aerobic fitness as much (such as a sprinter) it may be lower. TBF, I haven't seen how I do over 95 but hitting those numbers probably requires me to ride at an unsustainable level considering I have a job and am pushing 50.

FWIW, I ride about 12-16 hours a week and that puts me around those prime numbers.

I have heard that actually works well and I have had good races like that myself. Problem is sometimes I get it wrong and end up too recovered and not ‘built back up’ enough and end up flat anyway haha

This has got to be the right answer re specificity etc.

Maybe I’m just a skeptic but I really have a hard time that every TSS unit is “created equal” in terms of making you fitter/faster/stronger, even if it correlates w aerobic adaptations in the aggregate

I tried that after i did a big race, then another big race the following weekend.

I did well on both races but better on the second one.

It’s certainly not enough on its own to quantify training, but it can be useful.

I found that around 70 CTL I’d almost always start getting some sinus issues, daily orange juice seemed to sort that out. Then at around 100/110 I’d find that I was really struggling with the load, turned out to be fueling, double breakfast got me past that & up to 140/150.

So whilst TSS/CTL aren’t all equal, it’s not a bad way to somewhat quantify load & mitigate issues before they come up.

In my experience the type of work you do to generate the CTL is far more important.
Having a CTL of 150 from doing low intensity training, is very different to a CTL of 80-100 doing threshold and above training.
There have been a few discussions on the forum about splitting the CTL between different energy systems.

Agreed, i'm not saying i have no use for it, i just try to not let the tail wag the dog, so to speak. For example, you see some coaches saying things like "SST is the most bang for the buck because it allows you to raise CTL the most." Well maybe it is the most bang for the buck, aerobic fitness wise, but you always want to ask them, are we trying to raise CTL, or are we trying to actually get faster?

My theory is that hte shorter your efforts are (with a 1-rep max squat being the most extreme example) the less useful CTL is for showing you how much you've put into the tank. For example preparing for mountain bike races, doing short, intense intervals, you will watch CTL fall, despite getting more tired, while clearly gaining adaptations.

What i have been doing more recently is:

- making up a rough seasonal periodization based on when events are
- looking at CTL from last year to roughly judge what my starting point should be, volume wise
- using HRV trends to guide the overload (i.e., when to push it harder vs. rest) and taking a rest week whenever i feel like i need it
- using hte WKO4 PDC, plus periodic spot testing, as a way of roughly seeing where each energy system is at
- changing from general to specific prep based on time to event

And overall generally not worrying about what happens to CTL, although i keep track of it and always keep open the possibility that it could lead to important insights in hindsight.

Nobody knowlegable EVER said that part in bold. Anyone who DOES make that assertion, clearly doesn't grasp the concept. So, I'm not sure why you are arguing against it?

TSS is not a training plan, and no one (least of whom would be the author of the concept: Dr. Coggan...too bad he's not here to make this point himself) would suggest that simply taking your TSS to the highest level possible through any means available would prepare you for an event or ensure you are the fittest/fastest you can be. In fact, such a plan would probably just be a recipe for Overtraining Syndrome----go pretty hard every day....until you burn up.

On the other hand, a properly design training plan with distributed (event appropriate) intensity, and adequate recovery, and gently increasing TSS will likely lead to the athlete reaching greater levels of fitness/speed as TSS increases. How much faster the athlete gets per unit TSS, as well as the TSS level at which the athlete plateaus (doesn't get faster for more TSS) is athlete specific.

TSS is just a better way to quantify total training load than hours or miles.

Fair point, I could never argue that it's not better than hours or miles. But the part in bold, dude, you see people arguing that all the time here. How many threads devoted to "is my TSS too low," "what should my TSS be," humble brags about how high their TSS is, cloaked in the veil of "is my TSS too high"

So respectfully no, not a straw man and 100% worth saying

Sure, people say all kinds of stupid shit on ST. Argue with THEM when the SAY it---if you are so, inclined. I've mostly grown tired of it after 15 years...and ignore them, unless I'm feeling frisky on a Friday or something.

My point was, no one argued that point IN THIS THREAD. Do we need to rehash all the stupid stuff people have ever said about TSS / CTL and argue with them in every thread (when someone hasn't already made the stupid assertion in a particular thread)?

Typically the people who make the assertion you did, use it as a counter example to explain why they think TSS (and CTL/ATL/TSB etc) is worthless. But, it only highlights their fundamental misunderstanding of the entire point of the concept. Its a rough measure of recovery cost (TSS), recovery capacity (CTL), recovery debt (ATL), and recovery surplus/deficit (TSB).

As an aside, a few weeks ago someone I know posted a screenshot on Instagram of their 490 CTL. This person is also an "Ironman certified coach" and actually coaches a few poor souls :) Anyways I once had a CTL of 130 going into an IM. This past season set a 50 minute IM distance PR on a measly 100 CTL. I also set all time 5min and 20min power PBs on a CTL of around 86.

---

What's your CdA?

Can anyone explain the difference between the CTL/ATL/TSB that are listed on TrainingPeaks at the far right of each week under the 'Calendar' tab of the web application, versus the CTL/ATL/TSB listed under the 'Home' tab of the web application and also listed multiple place on the iOS app? My numbers are different in these places.

---

Geoffrey Nenninger

The numbers on the calendar are predicted for every Sunday. Most of the other places are for Today.

lol 490 CTL. No way!

I seem to do great peaking up to ~140 CTL and then tapering and racing right around ~130.

He probably had his ftp set to 12.

I agree.

490 is definitely wrong. Either incorrect FTP settings, or just manually over-typing the value to brag about the CTL.

To get a CTL of 490 you would need 42 days straight of between 11.5hours (at 65% FTP) to 7.5hours (at 80% FTP)... which is clearly unrealistic.

Some Pro's get up to ~200 as a peak.

I train almost exclusively as a cyclist these days.

My workouts are pretty consistently 4-5 days week and between 60-80 minutes on the trainer, and have been for 3+ years

For me, CTL (time + intensity) is a great baramoter of how beat up my body is. Each time I inch up > 60, I have gotten sick.

So I feel like in my specific use case , CTL is very helpful in assessing “tiredness” ... but in general, my best fitness has also come in periods near high CTL. So I believe, for my training tendencies, they are highly correlated

When I was a triathlete, CTL was so convoluted based on different sports, lots of inconsistencies in training types (some weeks were huge long / slow, others had more intensity)

Eh different strokes, i still think if someone wants to discuss what it does, worth getting out of the way what it "doesn't".

:)

Anyway to stop derailing this, to the OP, i think that will be 100% personal to you and will depend on your event, which i think people have said already (maybe even Tom said that :)).

I expect that for a longer format endurance-type event, it will peak closer to race day, relatively speaking. If you're doing something with a higher VI / intensity factor like cyclocross, i suspect it would peak a lot earlier. And in terms of how high it ever gets, i think that dpeends not only on how much time you have to devote to it that year, but also how much time you have put in during prior years. This past season i started from 0 after a loooooong hiatus and it hit 75 and that was really taxing. i'm coming into the base portion at 50 right now so i expect it will either (A) go higher or (B) feel easier getting to the same point.

FWIW as a runner and a cyclist back in the day i used to plan pretty rigorously using TSS, even week to week, but now i'm not doing that anymore. but after a break, i do like to look at what the recent prior peaks were to get a good rough guide of where to start, load-wise

:=)

Fair enough.

The CTL curve gives me an opportunity to develop my fitness over a season that includes variable life stressors, periods of focus on different sports, distances, builds, tapers, etc. At the end of the season, while I “know what the numbers are,” I hope to see a well-executed season of training and racing. BTW: illness and injury results in an ugly curve.

I have been paying attention to CTL more in the last month or two as I experiment with a more rapid build and more volume than is typical for me for a 70.3 (this will be my 11th HIM). But now you guys have me wondering.

Some of the posts on this thread refer to getting FTP wrong which throws CTL out of whack (through the IF which affects TSS if I understand this stuff correctly). Training Peaks autocalculates threshold right? It is showing that 10 min/mile is my threshold run pace which is ridiculous. Can I see my bike FTP somewhere?

I am handling the increased load fairly well (10-12 hours per week). I feel really good. My CTL is at an all-time high and rising. But because of the FTP thing I'm sort of skeptical now. Although I guess the slope of the line is still relevant.

Click on your name and select Settings. You can see your zones there.

Does anyone know if training peaks CTL is pretty much the same as Garmin's training load metric? I know I can do some digging on both companies websites to determine this, but didn't know if they are calculated similarly and if there are any good interpretations of the scores themselves.

Thanks

---

Use this link to save $5 off your USAT membership renewal:
https://membership.usatriathlon.org/...A2-BAD7-6137B629D9B7

They should be. Using those terms is using Coggan and Friel's trademarked work.

No, TP does NOT auto-calculate threshold. You must enter your thresholds (swim, bike, run...power, pace, HR) manually and calculate your desired training zones. TP can be configured to alert you when it detects that your threshold MIGHT have moved. IIRC, it only does that for sustained efforts longer than 20minutes that are above your theoretical maximal capability based on your current threshold. But, it will NOT make any actual changes, unless you tell it to do so.

Actually it does, but not entirely; there is a selectable option under "Notifications" of the "Zones" tab to have TP automatically notify and update your FTP and zones when it measures a new max 20 minute effort, less 5% that is above your current set FTP. It only goes up though, not down. So when you are returning from a break and do a new test to see where you are "bottomed out" and entering the # manually will be required.

---

Matt Leu, M.S. Kinesiology
San Pedro Fit Works, Los Angeles, CA
Endurance Athlete and Coach
Consistency/time=results

That's because the number requires context, such as your ATL, TSB, and ramp rate. CTL as a general number is pretty uselss although it can give you an idea of how fit you are. What it doesn't tell you, which the other number fill in, is how fatigued you are. You can be fit like Crowie, but if you're completely fried it won't matter.

Fair enough. I'd forgotten about that option.

But, it is of extremely limited value...possibly even questionable value, for the reason you mention: It doesn't adjust downwards. And it isn't great at detecting actual changes in threshold as may be indicated under other testing conditions---eg, an actual 1 hour test.

Ah, I do remember that page. I've visited it a couple of times over the years. I played with it and it made my head hurt so I left. Now it's a question of the investment of doing the proper testing/estimating and spending the time to figure out the page for the return of the incremental benefit to my training.

Id be really curious to see what the numbers and training look like for someone like Wout Van Aert, who goes straight from cyclocross into the spring classics, which have very different preparations and physiological demands.

Did Wout for example keep doing longer endurance sessions between cyclocross races? If so, i'm curious whether that accounted for his less stellar this year (but still pretty amazing) performance during the CX season.

Or, did he take a break prior to CX worlds and then NOT rest afterwards, and immediately crank up the volume instead?

Wanna revisit this briefly to ask an ancillary question.

For those of you who track your training load, what IS your preferred method?

First off, I don't use TSS to track fitness. I do tests and periodically look at things like efficiency factor for comparable workouts to see if I am improving hte metrics that I want to improve.

But, I was using it to track overall training load, just to have a general feel for it. But I have found that TSS isn't really that great for me as a general tracker of training load and stress. For example, if I do a threshold workout and a long slow distance day, often they have the same TSS but the threshold workout leaves me much more gassed. After the LSD day, I'm generally ready to rock and don't even need rest. Similarly, the same workout on a hot day leaves me much more gassed, takes me days to recover even if I hydrate well. TSS though would be the same. HrTSS seems to correlate better (for me anyway) with training stress for these types of workouts, but it doesn't really work that well for things like sprints or anaerobic. Do enough of those and I'm pretty well spent in a way that HrTSS doesn't capture.

I have found so far that what works best for me is to use TSS for sprints and speedwork and HrTSS for all others, but curious if there are other options that people like to use, for example the EPOC based scores that some Garmin devices use.

I still think TSS is more useful than just duration because it accounts for intensity, just curious if there's anything else out there.

I have been using the HRV4Training app on my phone for about a year now. It will show me my daily resting HR and my HRV, plus a baseline of the last seven weeks. But the part I really like is to go to "Insights" then "HRV Trends". This shows a slew of trends, and at the bottom shows you as Green if coping well, yellow if it thinks you're beginning to not cope well, and orange for "accumulated fatigue. The main page seems mostly not useful, but twice this year I have gotten a week turn orange, when in fact I was just not feeling great.

So I use that as my "brake" on just looking at CTL numbers.

---

I'm closer to the feathered end of the spear than the point.

That's funny, I use HRV4T also and I love it. Great tool and it's getting better with every update.

I use it in the same way you do, in order to hit the brakes and/or move workouts around if my planned workout doesn't match physiological state.

That said, i'm still trying to find the best way of monitoring training load and stress so that i can bump up stress each week in a controlled way, while still having daily HRV readings as the backstop. I've used a bunch of different things (WKO4, TrainingPeaks, Garmin, etc.) and while they all have advantages they all have weaknesses too.

How dope would it be if there was a platform that let you make fully custom charts and reports just by dragging and dropping modules on a web platform? Because after all this time and gathering all this data, all I really want to be able to see is, by week and by month, (i) number and duration of easy rides, (ii) number and duration of medium rides, (iii) number and duration of hard rides, and (iv) duration of longest ride.

Guess things really have come full circle :)

I've started the same app about 20 days ago and look forward to correlatling the HRV with training and see how they match up.

Nice! Hopefully it's as useful for you as it has been for me, which is very useful.

Just to note, I have not necessarily found a strict 1:1 correlation of hard trainings --> lower HRV the next day, but I have found that the broader correlations and trends that the algorithm finds HAVE been valid.

And, HRV vs. baseline has been a good predictor of whether i'll have enough in the tank to do an intense workout vs. deferring the intense day to the next day or the day after, with one important caveat: race day. Race day i tend to have super low HRV no matter what because I am usually pretty jacked up from the moment i get out of bed. So, super low HRV on race day may or may not mean i'm good to go because the signal is masked by psychological arousal. I actually don't take HRV readings on race days anymore because it screws up the baseline.