CTL for Masters

Wow..

Been away for a few years, glad (irony) to see that things haven't changed much. Anyway. Grrr... I hate (old) trolls.

We have not reach the point of doing our season "post mortem", but I've experienced with a rider (serious master level) that highest possible CTL doesn't guarantee the highest possible performance level. As if passed a certain point, the "cost" of maintaining this CTL would outweigh the benefits it can bring.

Last season we went up to 105 tss/d roughly. This altitude would provide us with (surprisingly) stable performances. Rider would respond remarkably well to tapers (big and small), and would bounce back after key events, avoiding instability often associated with tapering/peaking. At some point I'd scratch my head wondering "em I training this guy hard enough?".

This year we went up to almost 120tss/d. Though we made some gains compared to last season, this came at the price a some instability.

Important disclamour though, I still don't know how to fine tune ATL/CTL metrics, and preferred to leave them by default. However it's as if last year, the 7d constant was too much, and this year (at close to 120tss/d), it wasn't long enough. I donno.

Our most important (and most complex) taper is yet to come (Worlds Master Track in Manchester), but we already question the idea of flying so high next season, and will probably going to aim for between 105 and 110, i.e. just enough above 100 to account for CTL loss associated with tapering.

Well said solarenergy we have been finding the same thing. Really high CTL leads to cracks in an athletes ability to maintain a normal life. You are spot on, everyone seems to hum along nicely just above 100. Paul

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by SolarEnergy
Wow..

Been away for a few years, glad (irony) to see that things haven't changed much. Anyway. Grrr... I hate (old) trolls.

We have not reach the point of doing our season "post mortem", but I've experienced with a rider (serious master level) that highest possible CTL doesn't guarantee the highest possible performance level. As if passed a certain point, the "cost" of maintaining this CTL would outweigh the benefits it can bring.

Last season we went up to 105 tss/d roughly. This altitude would provide us with (surprisingly) stable performances. Rider would respond remarkably well to tapers (big and small), and would bounce back after key events, avoiding instability often associated with tapering/peaking. At some point I'd scratch my head wondering "em I training this guy hard enough?".

This year we went up to almost 120tss/d. Though we made some gains compared to last season, this came at the price a some instability.

Important disclamour though, I still don't know how to fine tune ATL/CTL metrics, and preferred to leave them by default. However it's as if last year, the 7d constant was too much, and this year (at close to 120tss/d), it wasn't long enough. I donno.

Our most important (and most complex) taper is yet to come (Worlds Master Track in Manchester), but we already question the idea of flying so high next season, and will probably going to aim for between 105 and 110, i.e. just enough above 100 to account for CTL loss associated with tapering.

Worth a read:

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/462580/age-and-ctl-atl-constants-can-you-help#post_3806483

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by acoggan

Worth a read:

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/462580/age-and-ctl-atl-constants-can-you-help#post_3806483

Thanks Andy

Would my "feeling" be plausible in that the higher the CTL, the longer ATL decay should be (all things being relative obviously)?

Because if so, I couldn't really set ATL decay based on last season's data. I may be tempted to simply add 1 day every time we end up with a bad rebound from small (or formal) tapers, until both the reality and the numbers agree? I mean, I'd start doing this early next season?
(question is opened to all; always keen to read everyone's advices)

Hi Solar,

I'll chime in here....Peaking and tapering has so many variables and is so individual, right down to the fact that, what an athlete did one year, may not work the next year. I looked right into PMC charts and brok down how TSB's and how it was profiling (north or south and where it sits) and ATL for the same reasons. There is just no answer. I guess this part of the process comes down to knowing your athletes and the art of coaching.

I've had guys hitting PB's when their TSB's are at their deepest levels, Likewise the same guys have struggled to hit their numbers when their TSB are in the positives and profiling north.....Just too many variables, BUT, in saying that I do feel how and athletes TSB is profiling (north or south) does seem to have some consistency in terms of them hitting outcomes.

Something else you may want to think about and I would like to start a discussion on. I feel CP5 and an athletes repeatability at CP5 is a good indicator of performance, FTP on the other hand, doesn't give me much, other than setting up someones zones......thought?

Cheers
Paul