CTL/ATL and stagnation

[rmur17]

Well, the impulse-response model says that changes in "fitness" occur with an effective time constant of (approx.) 30-60 d, and from a practical perspective that's all that really matters, isn't it?

yes. That's how I've been thinking about it .. but your mention of the much shorter TC's for what sound like some of the essential constituents of FTP confused me

Anyway, FTP is going up whilst CTL is holding steady at 110. I'm happy with that

edit: As I've posted elsewhere and at the risk of boring people here, I've been on virtually the same TSS weekly workload for over five months now (22 weeks at ~800 TSS/wk @0.85-0.89 IF) yet have continued to slowly but steadily increase FTP. Still no Tibetan steppe in sight.

How does that fit with the short TC points made above?

Still trying to understand this as my experience fits the quite long ~6 wk TC relationship very well.

 

[frenchyge]

edit: As I've posted elsewhere and at the risk of boring people here, I've been on virtually the same TSS weekly workload for over five months now (22 weeks at ~800 TSS/wk @0.85-0.89 IF) yet have continued to slowly but steadily increase FTP. Still no Tibetan steppe in sight.

How does that fit with the short TC points made above?

Because you test regularly and update your FTP whenever it improves. By doing that and maintaining a constant TSS & IF, your *absolute* intensity is constantly increasing (even though your relative intensity is steady). IOW, your week 1 load may have been 11 hrs @ 250w AP, but your week 22 load is 11hrs @ 319w AP.

Andy's saying that if you had held 11hrs/wk @ 250w then your ability would have plateaued in ~6wks. Same if you had started at 11hr/wk @ 319w and held it steady.

 

[sugaken]

Andy's saying that if you had held 11hrs/wk @ 250w then your ability would have plateaued in ~6wks. Same if you had started at 11hr/wk @ 319w and held it steady.

Does this mean that if you keep upping your training intensity, plateau will occur much later than 6 weeks?

I'm still building up CTL with lots of SST and L4 rides while constantly increasing both intensity and volume (weekly TSS is generally increasing, and 20MMP/60MMP are gradually increasing), and wondering when, or upon seeing what indication(s) I should start doing higher intensity work (e.g. L5).

Ken

 

[doctorSpoc]

Andy's saying that if you had held 11hrs/wk @ 250w then your ability would have plateaued in ~6wks. Same if you had started at 11hr/wk @ 319w and held it steady.

...is it just me or does anyone else find that incredibly suspect?

 

[frenchyge]

Does this mean that if you keep upping your training intensity, plateau will occur much later than 6 weeks?

Upping it, or at least keeping it constant relative to the increasing fitness, yes.

...is it just me or does anyone else find that incredibly suspect?

I don't know..... I can't imagine following the same routine for more than 6 wks without any change. As I got fitter the routine would become easier and easier so I can see that gains would eventually stop. Even as a newbie who didn't follow any structured routine, I would try to push myself at least a couple rides a week, and that's probably enough to preserve the adaptation stimulus.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

...is it just me or does anyone else find that incredibly suspect?

It doesn't sound suspect to me at all. The way I look at it, training is all about stressing the body by doing hard work near the limits of a given system and then resting while the body tries to adapt. If you pick a fixed training workload and never increase it, your body will adapt if possible. Once you adapt and that load is comfortable you're no longer stressing yourself hard enough for continued improvement unless you increase the load.

I never thought about how long it might take to adapt to a fixed load but I'll accept Andy's 6 week estimate based on the half lives of the relevant adaptations.

 

[rmur17]

It doesn't sound suspect to me at all. The way I look at it, training is all about stressing the body by doing hard work near the limits of a given system and then resting while the body tries to adapt. If you pick a fixed training workload and never increase it, your body will adapt if possible. Once you adapt and that load is comfortable you're no longer stressing yourself hard enough for continued improvement unless you increase the load.

I never thought about how long it might take to adapt to a fixed load but I'll accept Andy's 6 week estimate based on the half lives of the relevant adaptations.

I will wait until Andy comments again ,,,,

 

[NomadVW]

And isn't this then circling right back to a CTL plateau not equaling a plateau in FTP? And this is where CTL/FTP seem to diverge.

Fact is, your CTL is a reflection of cumulative (ala chronic) training load which is simply a result of intensity based on functional threshold and time. If you're testing your functional threshold often enough, you keep the same duration and intensity (relative to routinely tested functional threshold), CTL is bound to level off. It mathematically has to.

As I've come to think of it: If CTL equals fitness, FTP does not equal fitness.

If CTL equals fitness, it equals the amount of training stress your body can take on a regular basis and still see training benefits. Notice Andy didn't say FTP anywhere in this quote:

CTL is a surrogate for the "fitness" component of the impulse-response model. What I was referring to was the time-course of changes in things such as heart rate, blood lactate, mitochondrial enzymes, etc.

 

[doctorSpoc]

It doesn't sound suspect to me at all. The way I look at it, training is all about stressing the body by doing hard work near the limits of a given system and then resting while the body tries to adapt. If you pick a fixed training workload and never increase it, your body will adapt if possible. Once you adapt and that load is comfortable you're no longer stressing yourself hard enough for continued improvement unless you increase the load.

I never thought about how long it might take to adapt to a fixed load but I'll accept Andy's 6 week estimate based on the half lives of the relevant adaptations.

yeah.. the only thing i'm questioning is the time for the plateau... what of things like increase in muscle caplilarization.. wouldn't addapations like that occur on a longer time scale? and wouldn't they significantly affect "fitness".. performance ability or whatever you want to call it...?

 

[acoggan]

...is it just me or does anyone else find that incredibly suspect?

Again, I suggest that you go read the relevant scientific literature on the topic. Until you do, there's nothing more I can say.

 

[doctorSpoc]

And isn't this then circling right back to a CTL plateau not equaling a plateau in FTP? And this is where CTL/FTP seem to diverge.

Fact is, your CTL is a reflection of cumulative (ala chronic) training load which is simply a result of intensity based on functional threshold and time. If you're testing your functional threshold often enough, you keep the same duration and intensity (relative to routinely tested functional threshold), CTL is bound to level off. It mathematically has to.

As I've come to think of it: If CTL equals fitness, FTP does not equal fitness.

If CTL equals fitness, it equals the amount of training stress your body can take on a regular basis and still see training benefits. Notice Andy didn't say FTP anywhere in this quote:

- and that's why in the other CTL thread i asked Dr. Coggan to define fitness. but i don't even think the definition you state above really holds... the only way i see CTL is fitness or varies with fitness is if you define fitness as training load...and i don't think in anyones mind that is "fitness"

- from Dr. Coggan statement:

"...CTL is a surrogate for the "fitness" component of the impulse-response model..."

correct.. CTL is a surrogate for a term this equation (impulse-response model)...

but the output of the impulse response model is performance (TSB is the surrogate for performance) and it is this output that has been ~experimentally validated. as Dr. Coggan also states, this is a blackbox model, meaning you can't really draw any conclusions about the how or why of anything anything inside the black box (CTL and ATL terms are inside the black box).. it just works... something about subtracting the area under the the ATL curve from the area under the CTL curve gives you a value (TSB) that turns out is very representative of changes in potential performance (experimentally validated). as far as i can see there is no experimental validation that the "fitness" term in this black box model actually accurately predicts "fitness" unless fitness is defined as training load.. and we see that CTL doesn't really mesh well in many instances with what most of have in our mind "fitness" is.. just anecdotally it's obvious to see doesn't really hold water in many instances

i'm not sure how one would measure "fitness"...? i'm not sure one has to... but if i was going to measure change in fitness i'd just measure or approximate the changes relevant components of cycling fitness... for me NMP (i like 10-15s power), AWC, FTP over time, under equivalent conditions (fatigue level, duration..)... if i was a TT'er or triathlete i'd probably just stick to measuring FTP (or 20-30min power)... not a big fan of formal testing i'd just estimate based on training that's why i'd extrapolate 20-30min power to FTP.. i wouldn't sweat CTL too much and then only in as much at it affects the relevant components of cycling fitness in terms of adjusting overall training load.. and then you still need to consider training composition and it's affects on performance/fitness..

 

[doctorSpoc]

Again, I suggest that you go read the relevant scientific literature on the topic. Until you do, there's nothing more I can say.

your're right of course.. i should do my own digging... but i don't train like that or plan to anyway so i don't really care enough to actually spend the time to do that... so i won't bother... just thinking out loud...

 

[acoggan]

your're right of course.. i should do my own digging... but i don't train like that

Funny. I've been using that information to design my own training programs for ~20 y. Specifically, given the known rapidity with which the body adapts to training, I've always made sure that I bumped up the load (by increasing frequency, duration, and/or intensity) every few weeks. As the saying goes: if you're not training, you're just maintaining.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Funny. I've been using that information to design my own training programs for ~20 y. Specifically, given the known rapidity with which the body adapts to training, I've always made sure that I bumped up the load (by increasing frequency, duration, and/or intensity) every few weeks. As the saying goes: if you're not training, you're just maintaining.

No ...i don't train with constant intensity, constant duration.. etc.. etc..

i.e. i do as you do... "I've always made sure that I bumped up the load (by increasing frequency, duration, and/or intensity) every few weeks."

 

[Steve_B]

As I've come to think of it: If CTL equals fitness, FTP does not equal fitness.

FTP may not equal fitness but I use it as somewhat of a gauge of mine. I know what power I have to be doing 2x20's at for me to race "effectively" (my own standard) and I know below that level, I'm in trouble or at least I better proceed with caution. Certainly there are other measures. As Dr.Spock pointed out, it depends. If I was a kilo rider, then 60sec power would be paramount.

CTL and FTP diverge. Right now, I've got the best 20m power I've had on March 1st in 3.5 years of owning a power meter but yet my CTL is no better or no worse than in previous years. At the same time, I would also say that I have much more fitness at CTL = 100 (typical July for me) than at CTL = 60 ( January 7) (rested and tapered, of course).

So, I'm not saying I have an answer. I guess I'm saying that this stuff is open to some interpretation.

 

[doctorSpoc]

FTP may not equal fitness but I use it as somewhat of a gauge of mine. I know what power I have to be doing 2x20's at for me to race "effectively" (my own standard) and I know below that level, I'm in trouble or at least I better proceed with caution. Certainly there are other measures. As Dr.Spock pointed out, it depends. If I was a kilo rider, then 60sec power would be paramount.

CTL and FTP diverge. Right now, I've got the best 20m power I've had on March 1st in 3.5 years of owning a power meter but yet my CTL is no better or no worse than in previous years. At the same time, I would also say that I have much more fitness at CTL = 100 (typical July for me) than at CTL = 60 ( January 7) (rested and tapered, of course).

So, I'm not saying I have an answer. I guess I'm saying that this stuff is open to some interpretation.

my CTL (same FTP) is half what it was last summer, but my 20min power is ~equal to better than what i could do last summer at the same TSB and 40W higher than last year at this time... hope that translates into an extra 40W this summer too, but somehow i doubt it.

i think if i was doing a 15k or even a 40k TT tomorrow i'd be ok, but if i was doing a 4 day hilly stage race or a 120km+ road race i'd be pretty scared... CTL, since it probably predicts adatation to day over day workload well is likely a good predictor of readyness or "fitness" to do a stage race (or one component there of) or an ulta-marathon or longer single day event... think frenchyge? said that before, and it make a lot of sense. but in terms of other one day events (crit or roadrace) my suitability to do them right now is probably somewhat limited too but because of lack of concentration to the other components of fitness (AWC, NMP) and not by lack of training load (CTL)..

 

[Steve_B]

i think if i was doing a 15k or even a 40k TT tomorrow i'd be ok, but if i was doing a 4 day hilly stage race or a 120km+ road race i'd be pretty scared... CTL, since it probably predicts adatation to day over day workload well is likely a good predictor of readyness or "fitness" to do a stage race (or one component there of) or an ulta-marathon or longer single day event..

Oh definitely. You need CTL to withstand the TSB "hit" (or is it an ATL "hit"?) that you will take over the course of the SR. Likewise, higher CTL means you are more likely to be able to recover faster (higher TSB quicker) from ever increasingly harder training (high ATL). Progress feeds progress.

So maybe CTL does not exactly equal fitness. Maybe there isn't causality but there sure is a strong association between the two. You can't get to your best fitness without CTL being there too, me thinks.

 

[frenchyge]

(TSB is the surrogate for performance)

Has that been confirmed anywhere? I certainly wouldn't expect similar performance from a +15 TSB @ 30 CTL as from a +15 TSB @ CTL 100.

I believe performance predictions are intended to come from a combination of CTL and TSB, considered together in proportions which vary by individual.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Has that been confirmed anywhere? I certainly wouldn't expect similar performance from a +15 TSB @ 30 CTL as from a +15 TSB @ CTL 100.

I believe performance predictions are intended to come from a combination of CTL and TSB, considered together in proportions which vary by individual.

...has anyone actaully read this? think this is where all these misconceptions come from... no one has actually taken the time to read what this tool that they are all using is all about.

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

 

[daveryanwyoming]

...has anyone actaully read this? think this is where all these misconceptions come from... no one has actually taken the time to read what this tool that they are all using is all about...

Yes, I suspect many of us have read this and everything else we could find on the concepts behind the Performance Manager.

Frenchyge's comment's seem to be perfectly in line with the article you linked, in particular this section:

TSB ... is really better viewed as an indicator of how fully-adapted an individual is to their recent training load...Thus, within the logical constructs of the Performance Manager, performance depends not only on TSB, but also on CTL .... The “art” in applying the Performance Manager therefore lies in determining the precise combination of TSB and CTL that results in maximum performance.

-Dave