SteveM wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
As the individual who came up with TSS (the first objective, stress-based way of quantifying training) and the PMC (the first practical alternative to Banister's impulse-response model, which predates the work that Tim Gabbet is publishing by a decade), my advice is:
Don't - just don't.
Would you mind elaborating a bit?
When TSB is pretty deep for a few days I'll be feeling some cardio/heart/head fatigue & a more variable amount of muscular fatigue.
Generally I use:
- A combo of bike+run PMC to estimate how trashed my legs are likely to be (muscular fatigue)
- Swim+bike+run PMC to estimate total cardio/head/heart fatigue. (I believe you're not a fan of adding the three)
- An independent PMC for each discipline.
For the muscular fatigue doing a bunch of squats has to have some ramifications, so bike+run+squat PMC? or just eyeball squat TSS/TSB when scheduling bike/run?
It's always a huge risk to try to interpret the tea leaves of a Dr. Coggan post, but given that he has expressed reservations about "composite" TSS scores, my *guess* here is that there's no reason to estimate a strength training TSS value, because the only possible relevance it might have is to a composite TSS score, which is - according to prior statements by Dr. Coggan - a bad idea.
At some point, when you start getting into "estimates," you're really just replacing TSS with RPE. Now, as I've said before, I don't actually think that's a bad idea. In fact, I'd say it's a good idea. I'm a much bigger fan of RPE than of TSS. And composite RPE actually makes a lot of sense. But the point, of course, is that TSS and RPE are different. And they should remain that way. If you want to use RPE, use RPE. If you want to use TSS, use TSS. But don't try to blend the two.
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp