CTL & illness

i'm not sure on the actual ctl but this winter when I hit about 500TSS/wk I would catch a cold or strain a muscle. Now that weathers better I didn't get sick until I hit about 700TSS/wk....but I was sick for 2 weeks. not sure if its coincidence but its funny to see the places I got ill mapped out on the PMC by big peaks

marmatt said:

i'm not sure on the actual ctl but this winter when I hit about 500TSS/wk I would catch a cold or strain a muscle. Now that weathers better I didn't get sick until I hit about 700TSS/wk....but I was sick for 2 weeks. not sure if its coincidence but its funny to see the places I got ill mapped out on the PMC by big peaks

Just checked that week before I became sick. Around 560TSS/W

giannip said:

Is there some correlation or has there been a CTL value whereby it seems is the tipping point before people MAY become ill or at least more susceptible to illness?

I seem to have rememebr a few posts mentioning 65 but can't rememebr exactly.

I became ill shortly after mine reached 67.9

Not sure absolute CTL is the issue in your case but:

1. lifting your peak CTL from season to season probably needs to be managed, too large a rise may not be productive (it takes time to build the capacity to train more).

2. The ramp rate of CTL (expressed in points/week increase) of >8 pts/wk is likely to be associated with increased susceptibility to illness. For some that might happen with a lower ramp rate of 5-6 pts/wk, others more. In part it depends on a range of factors, including how well you set your FTP, your current absolute CTL, local conditions, time of year (cold v warm), your own physiology, diet, exposure to ill people etc. Obviously it is easy to have a higher ramp rate when CTL is starting from a low base. Between 4-8 pts/wk seems to be a manageable ramp rate for most.

3. I am aware that for some, everytime they hit a certain CTL, they do suffer from increased susceptibility to infections. Now that maybe due to not managing the nutritional requirements or increased rest/sleep that training at a higher CTL might require, rather than as a result of the higher CTL per se.

4. Experience to date suggests that a CTL of around 150 is the upper sustainable limit. You are a long way from that but everyone probably has their own natural CTL ceiling.

Is your CTL ramp rate measured by daily TSS per week. I believe 5 TSS gain per week is max healthy gain. Anything greater than you are asking for trouble. There is no absolute CTL value because the fitter you are, the higher CTL you can tolrate. I frequently see guys have have a CTL above 100. 😄

giannip said:

Is there some correlation or has there been a CTL value whereby it seems is the tipping point before people MAY become ill or at least more susceptible to illness?

I seem to have rememebr a few posts mentioning 65 but can't rememebr exactly.

I became ill shortly after mine reached 67.9

giannip said:

Is there some correlation or has there been a CTL value whereby it seems is the tipping point before people MAY become ill or at least more susceptible to illness?

I would guess it to correlate better with ATL, which also drives the CTL ramp rate mentioned previously.

BlueJersey said:

Is your CTL ramp rate measured by daily TSS per week. I believe 5 TSS gain per week is max healthy gain. Anything greater than you are asking for trouble. There is no absolute CTL value because the fitter you are, the higher CTL you can tolrate. I frequently see guys have have a CTL above 100. 😄

i think it depends primarily on your ability level and body type. i can go up 10-15 or even more and be fine

frenchyge said:

I would guess it to correlate better with ATL, which also drives the CTL ramp rate mentioned previously.

I would suspect TSB would be the most closely correllated -- it described how quicky training has recently ramped (TSB = CTL - ATL, where CTL is a TSS averaged with a 42-day exponential time constant, ATL averaged with around a 7-day exponential time constant):

TSB >> 0: ready to win
TSB << 0: ready for bed rest

Dan

djconnel said:

TSB >> 0: ready to win
TSB << 0: ready for bed rest

Dan

If CTL is high enough.

There's certainly not a CTL value you would associate with it. The speed at which your CTL increases (rapidly climbing ATL / rapidly decreasing TSB) would be a better indicator to look at.

I run a CTL over 115 pretty steady, and you got monster guys like Dave Harris running CTL over 150.

This thread is similar to this thread in question:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t390745.html

The TSS recovery guidelines are just that. If you have a CTL of 65, and you go out and hammer a couple days of 150's in a row - your recovery is going to be significantly longer than a guy like Dave Harris who has been sustaining 150 for a while. Your body is going to take a much larger penalty shot.

IMO - CTL and ATL are useless numbers to your day to day "feeling" as numbers on their own. (ala TSB)

djconnel said:

I would suspect TSB would be the most closely correllated -- it described how quicky training has recently ramped (TSB = CTL - ATL, where CTL is a TSS averaged with a 42-day exponential time constant, ATL averaged with around a 7-day exponential time constant):

Changes in ATL drive (precede) changes in CTL, so a rapidly rising CTL requires that ATL be considerably higher, which in turn means that TSB must be significantly negative. To date, however, what seems to be responsible for people "cracking" (e.g., getting sick or injured) is a sustained overload, i.e., a few big days or even a week leading to a really high ATL and a very low TSB usually doesn't do the trick (although there are obviously always exceptions). Thus, when designing training programs based on TSS, I mostly try to keep the rate-of-rise in CTL in check.

djconnel said:

TSB >> 0: ready to win
TSB << 0: ready for bed rest

As the saying goes, form equals fitness plus freshness, but to gain freshness, you have to give up fitness. Where the optimal balance falls likely depends on the nature of the event, but a really high TSB isn't necessarily what you're after.

See the slides towards the end of this presentation for some further info:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/pmc_summit.pdf

acoggan said:

... what seems to be responsible for people "cracking" (e.g., getting sick or injured) is a sustained overload, i.e., a few big days or even a week leading to a really high ATL and a very low TSB usually doesn't do the trick (although there are obviously always exceptions). Thus, when designing training programs based on TSS, I mostly try to keep the rate-of-rise in CTL in check....
See the slides towards the end of this presentation for some further info:
cyclingpeakssoftware.compmc summit.pdfOpen ↗

Nice! Page 14, in particular, shows a cyclist getting sick in two cases of approximately 6 weeks at TSB ~ -20 in each case.

This suggests I could define an additional variable which describes the sustained TSB:

CTL(t) = (1/Tctl) integral of t' from 0 to t { exp((t' - t) / Tctl) TSS(t'😉 dt' }
Tctl ~ 42 days

ATL = (1/Tatl) integral of t' from 0 to t { exp((t' - t) / Tatl) TSS(t'😉 dt' }
Tatl ~ 7 days

TSB = CTL - ATL

Now I define quantity X:
X = (1/Tx) integral of t' from 0 to t { exp((t' - t) / Tx) TSB(t'😉 dt' }

or, equivalently:

X(t + dt) = (1 - dt/Tx) X(t) + (CTL(t) - ATL(t) - X(t)) dt / Tx

for some Tx (21 days? How long does it take to get in trouble?)

For the sample case, I'd guess he got sick when X <= -20. But of course, there's a lot of other factors in getting sick...

Interpretation: TSB describes your rate of change of CTL. Averaging this over time should then describe how much training load has changed over the averaging interval. So "X" is describing how much CTL has changed over the past certain-number-of-weeks. But this is basically what you said 🙂 (there's big red lines on the plot showing rapid CTL rise sustained over extended periods).

Dan

djconnel said:

Nice! Page 14, in particular, shows a cyclist getting sick in two cases of approximately 6 weeks at TSB ~ -20 in each case.

This suggests I could define an additional variable which describes the sustained TSB:

CTL(t) = (1/Tctl) integral of t' from 0 to t { exp((t' - t) / Tctl) TSS(t'😉 dt' }
Tctl ~ 42 days

ATL = (1/Tatl) integral of t' from 0 to t { exp((t' - t) / Tatl) TSS(t'😉 dt' }
Tatl ~ 7 days

TSB = CTL - ATL

Now I define quantity X:
X = (1/Tx) integral of t' from 0 to t { exp((t' - t) / Tx) TSB(t'😉 dt' }

or, equivalently:

X(t + dt) = (1 - dt/Tx) X(t) + (CTL(t) - ATL(t) - X(t)) dt / Tx

for some Tx (21 days? How long does it take to get in trouble?)

For the sample case, I'd guess he got sick

She, actually (it's my wife's data).

djconnel said:

when X <= -20. But of course, there's a lot of other factors in getting sick...

Interpretation: TSB describes your rate of change of CTL. Averaging this over time should then describe how much training load has changed over the averaging interval. So "X" is describing how much CTL has changed over the past certain-number-of-weeks. But this is basically what you said 🙂 (there's big red lines on the plot showing rapid CTL rise sustained over extended periods).

The funny thing is that I've been showing that plot at seminars for several years now, but it was only when I was preparing my presentation for the '06 Cycling Summit that I noticed that the first rapid and sustained ramp-up in CTL was followed by a small dip. Sure enough, when I pulled out her training diary from that year, she'd missed several days of training due to illness...

(BTW, I belatedly realized that the particular slides that I was directing you to - i.e., the frequency distribution histograms - are already out-of-date. More recent versions based on additional data can be found in the 'Files' section of the wattage list, and/or in the version of this presentation hosted by Charles Howe on www.trainwithpower.net.)

acoggan said:

She, actually (it's my wife's data).

Whoops! 🙂

Quoted post said:

BTW, I belatedly realized that the particular slides that I was directing you to - i.e., the frequency distribution histograms - are already out-of-date. More recent versions based on additional data can be found in the 'Files' section of the wattage list, and/or in the version of this presentation hosted by Charles Howe on www.trainwithpower.net.)

That would be slides 20-22 (especially 21-22) of :
http://www.freewebs.com/trainwithpower/PM.ppt

Nice message there... be trained but fresh, especially for high-intensity efforts. (something I think folks should be aware of anyway, but this does a nice job of quantifying it)

Dan

Alex Simmons said:

Not sure absolute CTL is the issue in your case but:

1. lifting your peak CTL from season to season probably needs to be managed, too large a rise may not be productive (it takes time to build the capacity to train more).

2. The ramp rate of CTL (expressed in points/week increase) of >8 pts/wk is likely to be associated with increased susceptibility to illness. For some that might happen with a lower ramp rate of 5-6 pts/wk, others more. In part it depends on a range of factors, including how well you set your FTP, your current absolute CTL, local conditions, time of year (cold v warm), your own physiology, diet, exposure to ill people etc. Obviously it is easy to have a higher ramp rate when CTL is starting from a low base. Between 4-8 pts/wk seems to be a manageable ramp rate for most.

3. I am aware that for some, everytime they hit a certain CTL, they do suffer from increased susceptibility to infections. Now that maybe due to not managing the nutritional requirements or increased rest/sleep that training at a higher CTL might require, rather than as a result of the higher CTL per se.

4. Experience to date suggests that a CTL of around 150 is the upper sustainable limit. You are a long way from that but everyone probably has their own natural CTL ceiling.

Curious, where did CTL 150 come from ref: experience? Is that where you had issues? Not questioining the validity, just trying to understand the reference.

jmocallaghan said:

Curious, where did CTL 150 come from ref: experience? Is that where you had issues? Not questioining the validity, just trying to understand the reference.

Not me personally (my CTL max has "only" been 100) but I was fortunate enough to be a beta tester for the PMC and so was privileged to read the experiences quoted by other long term users and coaches. ~150 is not absolute, just that it seems be the level that those with such experience noted as being the maximum sustainable training load.

Just think about that - >1050 TSS / week for 2-3 months....:eek:

Or the equivalent stress of 90 minutes at FTP every single day for 2-3 months:eek: :eek:

But for someone used to those workloads, it's not as big a deal.

One other comment - if your CTL ramp rate is >8 pts/wk and you are doing so without too much difficulty, that in itself would be a signal that your FTP may be set too low.

I have had experience of retro analysis of a season with the PMC and noticed a "correlation" between when I got ill and when my ramp rate was high. I know it was only 2 instances in the season and it may well not have been the actual cause but I haven't repeated it since and haven't got sick either. Indeed this was the first season where I got through without any sickness.

Alex Simmons said:

~150 is not absolute, just that it seems be the level that those with such experience noted as being the maximum sustainable training load.

Just think about that - >1050 TSS / week for 2-3 months....:eek:

Or the equivalent stress of 90 minutes at FTP every single day for 2-3 months:eek: :eek:

Way back at the beginning of the off season when I started riding with a powermeter and learning all about TSS and ATL/CTL/TSB I threw together a "hypothetical PMC" to give myself an idea where I could be for CTL by the end of April going into my peak month of May. I had this idea that I'd be in the 140's.

Ain't no way in the world I could make the 140's and sustain life off the bike. I run 120ish right now, and that's with a lot of endurance hours on the bike in between intensity. I can't imagine the hours on the bike it takes to handle a 150 CTL.

Edited to add:

For novelty's sake, this is the TSS/CTL comparison I do maintaining high 115-120 @ 15-17 hrs per week.

cycleiwakuni.comPMC.phpOpen ↗

jmocallaghan said:

Curious, where did CTL 150 come from ref: experience?

As Alex indicated, it's based strictly on empirical observations (albeit from multiple coaches and athletes). The range of 100-150 also isn't written in stone, in that I proposed those as round numbers that seem to bracket the range in which people feel as if their training load is as high as they can handle. Time may prove that I was wrong, and the range is closer to, say, 80-130 or 120-170, or that the spread between high and low is greater than indicated, but at least it provides a starting point for comparisons.

Alex Simmons said:

Just think about that - >1050 TSS / week for 2-3 months....:eek:

Or the equivalent stress of 90 minutes at FTP every single day for 2-3 months:eek: :eek:

I think the words that I've highlighted are the key. That is, quite a few athletes can rack up really high TSS numbers for a week here or there or even for several weeks in a row, but I've only seen data from one person so far who has been able to raise their CTL above 150 (and even then only by a small amount). Indeed, Frank Overton has an article slated to appear in VeloNews re. the TSS values obtained from riding the Tour de France, and while individual stages are often >200, when you toss in the flat stages, TTs, and rest days the overall average is less than that...and that's sustained for only 3 wk, and it is widely recognized that many who complete the Tour come out of it completely "flat".