TSS is a function of time and effort. So if I have a 180 min workout with a TSS of 100 @ 0.5 IF. Does a 120 min workout @ .75 give the same TSS? Is there a quick way in trainer road of taking a workout of 3 hours at a given IF and knowing what u have to increase it by to get the same TSS from 2 hours? Or from 1 hour to 45 mins. Is it linear?
(IF ^2) * (# hours) * 100 = TSS
.
TSS is just hrsIF100, so 2 hrs at .5 = 100TSS. Note that IF is basically (%FTP)^2. So 70% FTP = .5IF = 50 TSS/HR. 80%=64 TSS/HR, etc.
Edit: Oops, IF is just %FTP, not ^2. The rest is right. so as above you need hrsIF^2100. The TSS/HR at each effort should be right.
TSS is just hrsIF100, so 2 hrs at .5 = 100TSS. Note that IF is basically (%FTP)^2. So 70% FTP = .5IF = 50 TSS/HR. 80%=64 TSS/HR, etc.
You’ve got the ^2 in the wrong place.
(IF ^2) * (# hours) * 100 = TSS
What sentania said (wrote).
Thanks, I noticed right after posting. I tend to think in the ^2, so maybe I just wish that was what IF was 
20 minutes at 250 watts, fresh and fully hydrated at the start of a 3 hour ride, gets the same TSS as 20 minutes at 250 watts when dehydrated, depleted of glycogen and completely knackered.
Are you asking a question, or just making a statement? Yes, my understanding is that as far as TSS is concerned 20 minutes @ 250 watts is 20 minutes @ 250 watts. TSS is not the end all be all metric, it is one metric and a useful one. But the composition of TSS isn’t reflected in the number itself. You can’t tell if it came from short high intensity efforts, or long low intensity efforts and depending what your trying to achieve that could matter.
20 minutes at 250 watts, fresh and fully hydrated at the start of a 3 hour ride, gets the same TSS as 20 minutes at 250 watts when dehydrated, depleted of glycogen and completely knackered.
Yup. And yet “results suggest external work to be the most valid and reliable method for quantifying training load.”
20 minutes at 250 watts, fresh and fully hydrated at the start of a 3 hour ride, gets the same TSS as 20 minutes at 250 watts when dehydrated, depleted of glycogen and completely knackered.
That’s why is intended more to measure an entire ride not individual sections. You might argue that your effective FTP is higher at the start of the ride and lower at the end, so TSS actually increases as the ride progresses. Its intended to be comparative with other workout sessions, utilized to track overall training load and measure of the impact of the ride as a whole.
Plus in terms of adaptation, having a high RPE, but maintaining the same power output because of a poor nutrition strategy won’t give improve overall fitness. If I only did workouts over 90 minutes and allowed myself to always bonk and dehydrate, the session would be hard, but I would get less fit than doing only 60 minute session where my total TSS was higher, but it felt easier.
It’s similar to training in high heat and humidity. IT actually makes you less fit, not more fit, but you gain other adaptation that might be useful such as heat acclimatization… or in other words, your body learns to sweat more.
20 minutes at 250 watts, fresh and fully hydrated at the start of a 3 hour ride, gets the same TSS as 20 minutes at 250 watts when dehydrated, depleted of glycogen and completely knackered.
Yup. And yet “results suggest external work to be the most valid and reliable method for quantifying training load.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24662229
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24104194
I don’t think there is any doubt that measuring work is the right approach. I don’t have a problem measuring the external work, - it’s using TSS I don’t like.
20 minutes at 250 watts, fresh and fully hydrated at the start of a 3 hour ride, gets the same TSS as 20 minutes at 250 watts when dehydrated, depleted of glycogen and completely knackered.
You are confusing work with effort.
The work required to complete the 20min @ 250W is steady. The effort, aka RPE, can vary greatly based on a number of factors. Work is like your car. You car produces 200HP when it has a full tank of gas or when it’s running on fumes.
20 minutes at 250 watts, fresh and fully hydrated at the start of a 3 hour ride, gets the same TSS as 20 minutes at 250 watts when dehydrated, depleted of glycogen and completely knackered.
Yup. And yet “results suggest external work to be the most valid and reliable method for quantifying training load.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24662229
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24104194
I don’t think there is any doubt that measuring work is the right approach. I don’t have a problem measuring the external work, - it’s using TSS I don’t like.
The authors of those papers do (rTSS, actually…but the concept is the same).
20 minutes at 250 watts, fresh and fully hydrated at the start of a 3 hour ride, gets the same TSS as 20 minutes at 250 watts when dehydrated, depleted of glycogen and completely knackered.
You are confusing work with effort.
The work required to complete the 20min @ 250W is steady. The effort, aka RPE, can vary greatly based on a number of factors. Work is like your car. You car produces 200HP when it has a full tank of gas or when it’s running on fumes.
250 watts is 250 watts. But 250 watts on fresh muscles requires less oxygen than 250 watts on fatigued muscles, as the slow twitch muscle fibres tire and more, less efficient, fast twitch fibres are recruited, oxygen consumption increases, 250 watts feels harder because it is harder, humans are not cars. Cars use the same fuel no matter what the duration. Humans change the mix of fuel depending on the intensity, the power and the duration. A car just uses the same petrol you put in the tank.
20 minutes at 250 watts, fresh and fully hydrated at the start of a 3 hour ride, gets the same TSS as 20 minutes at 250 watts when dehydrated, depleted of glycogen and completely knackered.
Yup. And yet “results suggest external work to be the most valid and reliable method for quantifying training load.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24662229
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24104194
I don’t think there is any doubt that measuring work is the right approach. I don’t have a problem measuring the external work, - it’s using TSS I don’t like.
The authors of those papers do (rTSS, actually…but the concept is the same).
rTSS try’s to allow for the effect of fatigue. TSS does not.
“and even for the fact that running at any given pace becomes more physiologically stressful the longer that pace is sustained. This can give us an apples to apples comparison for training stress incurred by a track workout versus a long steady run versus a fartlek run, or any other workout. It provides the framework by which we can see the big picture, or the forest despite the trees.”
From TrainingPeaks. http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...score-rtss-explained
If running or cycling at a given pace or power becomes more physiologically stressful the longer that pace or power is sustained any Training Stress Score that does not allow for it is flawed and misleading.
If running or cycling at a given pace or power becomes more physiologically stressful the longer that pace or power is sustained any Training Stress Score that does not allow for it is flawed and misleading.
So what do you propose in its place? It doesn’t help to tell me what I shouldn’t do without giving me a better alternative.
If running or cycling at a given pace or power becomes more physiologically stressful the longer that pace or power is sustained any Training Stress Score that does not allow for it is flawed and misleading.
So what do you propose in its place? It doesn’t help to tell me what I shouldn’t do without giving me a better alternative.
^^ You beat me to it. ^^
TSS as a single metric isn’t a be all, end all. Any single metric on it’s own doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s the culmination of the data, over time, that tells a story.
If running or cycling at a given pace or power becomes more physiologically stressful the longer that pace or power is sustained any Training Stress Score that does not allow for it is flawed and misleading.
So what do you propose in its place? It doesn’t help to tell me what I shouldn’t do without giving me a better alternative.
^^ You beat me to it. ^^
TSS as a single metric isn’t a be all, end all. Any single metric on it’s own doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s the culmination of the data, over time, that tells a story.
TSS or any other method of quantifying training load is of limited importance. There is in fact little or no evidence that increasing training load improves performance.
It makes no difference how you measure training load, heart rate, actual power, hours spent training, miles, number of pedal revolutions, the relationship between training load and performance is so vague there is no point wasting time in trying to quantify it.
The make up of training, the timing of training, how you train, when you train hard, when easy, when you rest, when you really pile it on over several days, etc etc is what matters.
People should ignore TSS - it is unnecessary and misleading.
If running or cycling at a given pace or power becomes more physiologically stressful the longer that pace or power is sustained any Training Stress Score that does not allow for it is flawed and misleading.
So what do you propose in its place? It doesn’t help to tell me what I shouldn’t do without giving me a better alternative.
^^ You beat me to it. ^^
TSS as a single metric isn’t a be all, end all. Any single metric on it’s own doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s the culmination of the data, over time, that tells a story.
TSS or any other method of quantifying training load is of limited importance. **There is in fact little or no evidence that increasing training load improves performance. **
It makes no difference how you measure training load, heart rate, actual power, hours spent training, miles, number of pedal revolutions, the relationship between training load and performance is so vague there is no point wasting time in trying to quantify it.
The make up of training, the timing of training, how you train, when you train hard, when easy, when you rest, when you really pile it on over several days, etc etc is what matters.
People should ignore TSS - it is unnecessary and misleading.
So there is this…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8693756
“Data suggest that improved performance in events of 7-20 minutes duration in response to intensified training is primarily dependent upon increases in total load and overall RPE during training and; that a 10-fold increase in training load may be associated with an approximately 10% improvement in performance.”
http://www.ausport.gov.au/sportscoachmag/development_and_maturation2/monitoring_training_load
“Training load is influenced by both training volume and training intensity. A precise understanding of training loads completed during training can be beneficial for both the coach and the athlete. The coach can use feedback from training to systematically modify future training so that performances can be improved.”
If running or cycling at a given pace or power becomes more physiologically stressful the longer that pace or power is sustained any Training Stress Score that does not allow for it is flawed and misleading.
So what do you propose in its place? It doesn’t help to tell me what I shouldn’t do without giving me a better alternative.
^^ You beat me to it. ^^
TSS as a single metric isn’t a be all, end all. Any single metric on it’s own doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s the culmination of the data, over time, that tells a story.
TSS or any other method of quantifying training load is of limited importance. **There is in fact little or no evidence that increasing training load improves performance. **
It makes no difference how you measure training load, heart rate, actual power, hours spent training, miles, number of pedal revolutions, the relationship between training load and performance is so vague there is no point wasting time in trying to quantify it.
The make up of training, the timing of training, how you train, when you train hard, when easy, when you rest, when you really pile it on over several days, etc etc is what matters.
People should ignore TSS - it is unnecessary and misleading.
So there is this…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8693756
“Data suggest that improved performance in events of 7-20 minutes duration in response to intensified training is primarily dependent upon increases in total load and overall RPE during training and; that a 10-fold increase in training load may be associated with an approximately 10% improvement in performance.”
http://www.ausport.gov.au/...toring_training_load
“Training load is influenced by both training volume and training intensity. A precise understanding of training loads completed during training can be beneficial for both the coach and the athlete. The coach can use feedback from training to systematically modify future training so that performances can be improved.”
So even a 10-fold increase in training load may be associated with only approximately 10% improvement in performance. And they use the word may, now who can possibly increase their training load by 10 fold?
Obviously training works, and if you increase your training from one hour a day to two hours a day you should improve performance if you do it properly. But the link between the increase in load to performance is so loose and vague there is no point in wasting time quantifying the overall training load in minute detail and certainly no use in just one number like TSS because the number is no more useful than adding up the hours spent training.
Understanding the training is what matters. All good coaches know what training has been done and when. But because TSS takes no account of fatigue, or temperature or altitude, or position on the bike, climbing, road bike, TT bike, turbo, outdoors, or when in the week, before or after several hard days, etc etc, TSS is misleading.
The sad thing is this forum and others is full of people who think that chasing TSS points is the be all and end all of training. They believe that more points equals improved performance.
For you to quote a ten fold increase in training load only improving performance by 10% rather proves my point. How can someone training an hour a day increase his training load to 10 hours a day or train 10 times as hard? And after all that only improve by 10%.
The effort for improved performance should be concentrated on the make up and timing of the training not the overall training load, and certainly not on TSS score.