Recently I have been thinking about the whole CTL thing and taking it a bit more seriously. I recognize that I could work very hard in a week but not have as much TSS thus decreasing my CTL against a week when I could get outside and ride longer, but not as hard. For instance, if I did a sample TR week I could have 3 one hour bike workouts and a 2 hour workout on the wknd and not reach 300 TSS for that week, but I've worked really hard and feel fit and know without a doubt that I've improved. To contrast that I could ride 3 times at 90 minutes outside and a 4-5 hour ride on the wknd in a week and get close to 600 TSS and seemingly not work as hard in each individual ride. Not to say I wasn't improving in both examples, but if you only use CTL as your fitness number (which sadly some do and TP forces you to think) then you think you're twice as fit when it may be possible you're more fit with the 300 TSS week or at the least similar.
I read an article by Steve Palladino that explains CIL (Chronic Intensity Load) for running (https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/...0Training%20Load.pdf and thought that might be the answer, but I can't seem to find it on TrainingPeaks even though that's the charts and graphs that he uses in his illustrations. Would that be the metric that helps the PMC chart make more sense for times when I have limited time, but still want to be able to gauge my fitness through data against the bigger TSS weeks that are lower intensity? Or is it just as simple as reprogramming my mind to think of CTL as a number only as good as the intensity it's tied to? I'm thinking I should look at each week's TSS with an average IF number beside it so I know that I did less in terms of stress, but more intensity to make up for it. It seems to me it's sort of a flaw with Trainingpeaks, b/c they push CTL as fitness, but it's not really the complete picture and they frame it that way. Even if I track intensity on my own and for my own good, TP would still tell me my fitness (CTL) declined for a 4 week block of higher intensity and lower TSS when in reality I could have really improved. But it's a mind F seeing that number decline without a further addition to that chart and I think the chart and the numbers provided are valuable in the right context so I don't want to just discard them.
Any positive feedback on this or ways to improve it so I can track accordingly?
I read an article by Steve Palladino that explains CIL (Chronic Intensity Load) for running (https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/...0Training%20Load.pdf and thought that might be the answer, but I can't seem to find it on TrainingPeaks even though that's the charts and graphs that he uses in his illustrations. Would that be the metric that helps the PMC chart make more sense for times when I have limited time, but still want to be able to gauge my fitness through data against the bigger TSS weeks that are lower intensity? Or is it just as simple as reprogramming my mind to think of CTL as a number only as good as the intensity it's tied to? I'm thinking I should look at each week's TSS with an average IF number beside it so I know that I did less in terms of stress, but more intensity to make up for it. It seems to me it's sort of a flaw with Trainingpeaks, b/c they push CTL as fitness, but it's not really the complete picture and they frame it that way. Even if I track intensity on my own and for my own good, TP would still tell me my fitness (CTL) declined for a 4 week block of higher intensity and lower TSS when in reality I could have really improved. But it's a mind F seeing that number decline without a further addition to that chart and I think the chart and the numbers provided are valuable in the right context so I don't want to just discard them.
Any positive feedback on this or ways to improve it so I can track accordingly?