Comparing numbers: Lowest TSB?

i had a -47 on April 23...

I had -52.4 yesterday, after 3 days of hard training (total 747 TSS).

Can you briefly fill me in on what these actually mean in Layman's terms? I've got 'The Book', but I'm still having issues understanding what they're telling me. I know and think I understand the CTL aspect of it, but the TSB and ATL, I'm still confused. I heard that TSB should be positive before a A race, do they mean a positive number, or change from a downward slope to an upwards slope? I'm still not sure where I should be resting. New to this whole specific training instead of just doing group rides.

Thanks!

rjjasick said:

Can you briefly fill me in on what these actually mean in Layman's terms? I've got 'The Book', but I'm still having issues understanding what they're telling me. I know and think I understand the CTL aspect of it, but the TSB and ATL, I'm still confused. I heard that TSB should be positive before a A race, do they mean a positive number, or change from a downward slope to an upwards slope? I'm still not sure where I should be resting. New to this whole specific training instead of just doing group rides.

Thanks!

The finishing touches weren't put on the Performance Manager until after the book was in press. Your best source of info on this idea (in addition to the blogs of, e.g., people like Alex) is therefore the Power411 section of the CyclingPeaks website:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/

In particular:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/performancemanager.asp

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/howtoperformancemanager.asp

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/performancemanagerscience.asp

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

Also (and here's a teaser for those who are following along at home 😄 ), look for a report soon on some of the abstracts recently presented at the American College of Sports Medicine meetings...

-50 for me. The numbers my coach is using for the first 8 weeks of my training (no start value for the PMC) would give me a -83 and some change in a couple spots, but it's just simply not accurate. Everything after that is close enough that 1 or 2 points doesn't matter.

CTL/TSB with zero start value:
[img]cycleiwakuni.comPMC.phpOpen ↗[/img]

minus 67 is the lowest i can see on my charts at a quick glance

ric

TSB numbers need context, in this case an accompanying CTL. Much harder to be big negative TSB when CTL is higher.

I doubt I went past -30 TSB

acoggan said:

The finishing touches weren't put on the Performance Manager until after the book was in press. Your best source of info on this idea (in addition to the blogs of, e.g., people like Alex) is therefore the Power411 section of the CyclingPeaks website:

Yes, those items by Hunter and Andy are a good read. My disscussion of the Performance Manager are specifically in these posts:
Hope it helps.

alex-cycle.blogspot.commy performance manager chart.htmlOpen ↗

alex-cycle.blogspot.complanning comeback with performance.htmlOpen ↗

alex-cycle.blogspot.comsecond coming back.htmlOpen ↗

alex-cycle.blogspot.comseason in review.htmlOpen ↗

Alex Simmons said:

TSB numbers need context, in this case an accompanying CTL.

As you know, TSB is also dependent upon the time constant used to calculate ATL and, to a much lesser extent, CTL. Specifically, you'll see much more dramatic swings in TSB when using a time constant of, say, 3 d, vs. the 7 d default value. Conversely, if you use a longer time constant of, say, 10 d (as I do), TSB will be less volatile.

Alex Simmons said:

TSB numbers need context, in this case an accompanying CTL. Much harder to be big negative TSB when CTL is higher.

Which is why I think ATL is much more indicative of how far into the pain cave one has gone.

acoggan said:

As you know, TSB is also dependent upon the time constant used to calculate ATL and, to a much lesser extent, CTL. Specifically, you'll see much more dramatic swings in TSB when using a time constant of, say, 3 d, vs. the 7 d default value. Conversely, if you use a longer time constant of, say, 10 d (as I do), TSB will be less volatile.

Why/when would one change the time constant? Does the event you are training for (long endurance events vs short explosive power events for example) have any bearing on what the time constant should be? Personally I've always used the default.

thx

gene r

LT Intolerant said:

Why/when would one change the time constant? Does the event you are training for (long endurance events vs short explosive power events for example) have any bearing on what the time constant should be? Personally I've always used the default.

"The default time constants of the Performance Manager, i.e., 42 d (6 wk) for CTL and 7 d (1 wk) for ATL were chosen as nominal values based on the scientific literature. As with the fitness component of the impulse-response model, the precise time constant used to calculate CTL in the Performance Manager has a limited impact, and although users may still wish to experiment with changing this value, there seems little to be gained from this approach. On the other hand, the calculations in the Performance Manager are sensitive to the time constant used to calculate ATL, and hence TSB (since TSB = CTL – ATL). Thus, part of the art of using the Performance Manager consists of learning what time constant for ATL provides the greatest correspondence between how an athlete actually feels and/or performs on a particular day vs. how they might be expected to feel or perform based on their CTL/ATL/TSB. Again, experience indicates that younger individuals, those with a relatively low training load, and/or those preparing for events that place a greater premium on sustained power output (e.g., longer time trials, 24 MTB races, long distance triathlons) may obtain better results using a somewhat shorter time constant than the default value, e.g., 4-5 d instead of 7 d. Conversely, masters-aged athletes, those with a relatively high training load, and/or those preparing for events that place a greater premium on non-sustainable power output (e.g., shorter time trials, criteriums) may obtain better results using a somewhat longer time constant than the default value, e.g., 10-12 d instead of 7 d. (Of course, since athletes preparing for longer events often – but not always – “carry” higher overall training loads, this tends to constrain the optimal time constant more than would otherwise be the case.)"

(From point #7 under "Applying the Performance Manager Concept" of the article found here: http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/performancemanagerscience.asp)

acoggan said:

"The default time constants of the Performance Manager, i.e., 42 d (6 wk) for CTL and 7 d (1 wk) for ATL were chosen as nominal values based on the scientific literature. As with the fitness component of the impulse-response model, the precise time constant used to calculate CTL in the Performance Manager has a limited impact, and although users may still wish to experiment with changing this value, there seems little to be gained from this approach. On the other hand, the calculations in the Performance Manager are sensitive to the time constant used to calculate ATL, and hence TSB (since TSB = CTL – ATL). Thus, part of the art of using the Performance Manager consists of learning what time constant for ATL provides the greatest correspondence between how an athlete actually feels and/or performs on a particular day vs. how they might be expected to feel or perform based on their CTL/ATL/TSB. Again, experience indicates that younger individuals, those with a relatively low training load, and/or those preparing for events that place a greater premium on sustained power output (e.g., longer time trials, 24 MTB races, long distance triathlons) may obtain better results using a somewhat shorter time constant than the default value, e.g., 4-5 d instead of 7 d. Conversely, masters-aged athletes, those with a relatively high training load, and/or those preparing for events that place a greater premium on non-sustainable power output (e.g., shorter time trials, criteriums) may obtain better results using a somewhat longer time constant than the default value, e.g., 10-12 d instead of 7 d. (Of course, since athletes preparing for longer events often – but not always – “carry” higher overall training loads, this tends to constrain the optimal time constant more than would otherwise be the case.)"

(From point #7 under "Applying the Performance Manager Concept" of the article found here: http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/performancemanagerscience.asp)

Thanks Andy. On a few occasions I've been surprised at my results (power output at certain intervals) given that my TSB was in negative numbers, in some cases TSB < -10. Maybe my time constant is the culprit? It would be interesting to go back and model different time constants to see if by changing the constant how I felt/performed aligned better with TSB.

gene r