CTL/ATL and stagnation

[acoggan]

ithe fitness term in the impulse response model has not been shown to be an accurate measure of actual fitness and so i would conclude that a simplified surrogate for it (CTL) is likewise not been show to be an accurate measure for for fitness

Point taken, but wouldn't you agree that, in general, the higher your training load relative to your personal ability, the greater your fitness will tend to be? (Recognizing, of course, that "saturation" will eventually occur, and that the composition of the training needs to be appropriate to however fitness is defined.)

 

[rmur17]

I tried to answer you as well.

Functional threshold power is just that: your functional threshold power. So, regardless of the time-course of physiological adaptations that contribute to this performance ability, I'd expect the time constant of the fitness component of the impulse-response model to be a good estimate.

If that logic isn't clear, try thinking about it this way: the impulse-response model has been studied extensively, and it is amazingly robust. Even so, it is a bit of an artificial construct, i.e., the model is really as much or more empirical in nature than it is based on first principles. In particular, the impulse-response model assumes a linear, non-plateauing relationship between training load and fitness, which is clearly wrong. This inherently invalid assumption, or perhaps others, may account for the discrepancy between the changes in, e.g., blood lactate during exercise at a constant power vs. changes in actual performance ability. Nonetheless, the impulse-response model still provides a quite reasonable fit to the data.

okay I'm happy to look at the aggregate rather than the components.

 

[rmur17]

I didn't misinterpret the use of 'surrogate', but rather which model you were applying it to (impulse-response, where it's fitting, vs PMC, where it's not). I intentionally ignored your point and the other several pages of discussion because I had no desire to debate your views on CTL and fitness components.

My only reason for commenting on a discussion in which I otherwise had little interest is because I thought you to be stating that TSB was a surrogate for performance *in the PMC model*, which of course would be incorrect. Or, as you later noted, I was indeed.....

.... as it related to the PMC model.
In the PMC model: Performance = CTL + TSB, so of course substituting TSB in place of Performance would be incorrect.

thinking a little I'd say it's more appropriate to say:

Performance = {CTL in range} AND {TSB in range}

More of a logical AND rather than an additive function? Ranges are determined retrospectively using PMC and updated whenever necessary.

 

[frenchyge]

thinking a little I'd say it's more appropriate to say:

Performance = {CTL in range} AND {TSB in range}

More of a logical AND rather than an additive function? Ranges are determined retrospectively using PMC and updated whenever necessary.

They are relative functions, so I think it's safe to expect better performance from CTL 120 / TSB +30, than from CTL 90 / TSB +15 (again, assuming CTL composition is appropriate for the performance being measured in both cases).

That's assuming you'd define both of those conditions as being 'in range' for both parameters, of course.

 

[rmur17]

They are relative functions, so I think it's safe to expect better performance from CTL 120 / TSB +30, than from CTL 90 / TSB +15 (again, assuming CTL composition is appropriate for the performance being measured in both cases).

That's assuming you'd define both of those conditions as being 'in range' for both parameters, of course.

well not to argue too much but IME (without getting ever too anal about a real taper), very high CTL relative to personal historical highs is possibly counter-productive to Performance. And I submit that very high TSB is probably counter-productive as well. Too much tapering and you're likely just too blocked, lethargic, water-logged to ride really well.

On the flip-side, low CTL relative to personal history and/or low TSB relative to history are likely to produce pretty sad performances.

For me, excellent performance versus TSB would roughly follow a flattened parabolic function with local maxima somewhere in the -10 to +20 region. Lower and I'm likely to be too tired/sore/under-fuelled to perform well. Higher and I may be too sluggish/blocked to perform well. Just my experience without thinking about the underlying reasons too deeply I'm not that deep.

 

[frenchyge]

I'm not that deep.

Me neither. I don't expect I'll ever reach my genetic CTL limit because of personal scheduling issues, so I just ride as much as I can and try to keep it productive.

Regarding your other comments, I think the absolute numbers would really depend on what you consider to be the appropriate range. My point was simply that CTL and TSB are supposed to be relative funtions, so ideally one could expect more from being higher in range than lower.

 

[doctorSpoc]

...but wouldn't you agree that, in general, the higher your training load relative to your personal ability, the greater your fitness will tend to be? (Recognizing, of course, that "saturation" will eventually occur, and that the composition of the training needs to be appropriate to however fitness is defined.)

i think the fact that your caveats and qualifications of your statement are about twice as long as your statement is telling... but without a good definition for fitness, discussing it is really fruitless...

here are some...

[size=-1]A set of attributes that are either health related or performance (or skill) related. Health related fitness comprises those components of fitness that exhibit a relationship with health status. Performance/skill related fitness involves those components of fitness that enable optimal work or sport performance.

OR

[/size][size=-1]Physical fitness is a set of attributes a person has in regards to a person's ability to perform physical activities that require aerobic fitness, endurance, strength, or flexibility and is determined by a combination of regular activity and genetically inherited ability.[/size]

or how about: "Suitability of an athlete's adaptations, obtained both genetically and through training to perform an athletic activity." i just made that one up...

..the above would be absolute fitness, do you prefer fitness to be relative to one's genetic performance potential?