CTL for Masters

hi all - i just recently stumbled into the great thread here. (VERY helpful comments from Paul BTW!)

Some thoughts pertaining to the IF's Paul mentions i.e. maintaining IF>80% :

During my race season my CTL hovers betwen 100-115, my daily workouts are usually 1.5 hr or less and although I hammer my workouts I usually end up with IF ~75%
I always include my warmup and cooldown in my workout file. Since I warmup slowly and very easily these #'s influence the IF downwards which makes for some very difficult workouts to keep IF >.8 for a 1.5hr workout

I'm wondering if its common for athletes to discard the W/U&C/D -or- you just absolutely SMASH your athletes and even with the warmup they still average over 80% That seems like a heavy workout if you only have 1-1.5hrs/day (but I have no point of reference other than my own experience.)

FWIW I'm 51y/o, Cat2 MTB and CX, top third A.G. road. I'd like to think i'm in pretty decent shape but that 80% seems like a pretty tough number to hit and maintain

Look forward to hearing some opinions on this
-shano

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy

Maybe you want to split the cost with smaryka.

Even Andy Coggan says the whole NP, IF, and whatever is a fraud.

No. Really. You're hilarious!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by shano92107

Some thoughts pertaining to the IF's Paul mentions i.e. maintaining IF>80% :

During my race season my CTL hovers betwen 100-115, my daily workouts are usually 1.5 hr or less and although I hammer my workouts I usually end up with IF ~75%
I always include my warmup and cooldown in my workout file. Since I warmup slowly and very easily these #'s influence the IF downwards which makes for some very difficult workouts to keep IF >.8 for a 1.5hr workout

I'm wondering if its common for athletes to discard the W/U&C/D -or- you just absolutely SMASH your athletes and even with the warmup they still average over 80% That seems like a heavy workout if you only have 1-1.5hrs/day (but I have no point of reference other than my own experience.)

FWIW I'm 51y/o, Cat2 MTB and CX, top third A.G. road. I'd like to think i'm in pretty decent shape but that 80% seems like a pretty tough number to hit and maintain

Look forward to hearing some opinions on this
-shano

I have wondered this as well because I have typically kept my warm up and cool down as part of my data. I end up with a 0.8_ with everything combined, but a couple months ago I excluded that fluff time (hit the lap button at the end of the interval and stop the timer between target intervals) and have a good string of days showing up in the WKO calendar with 0.9 to 1 for the totals at 40 minutes. The last couple of days I have started back to just leaving the easy intensity efforts because I do easy between the high intensity intervals as well. With all the fluff added in my 40 minute training effort comes out to be about 90 minutes total so that is a lot of easy effort to pull down the totals.

I am just a recreational level cyclist and I am not sharing data with anyone so I figure as long as I know I am hitting the targets during the intervals that is all that matters despite those easy moments pulling down the total session IF.

I know that I have nothing to add or to answer your question, but only that some of this confuses me as well.

good points FeltRider. I guess the bottom line is just what you said - hit the intervals good and hard and just accept that the TSS will be biased dependent on W/U, C/D. I was targeting the 80% IF Paul mentions as it seems like a reasonable target but for those of us requiring longer warmups I'll have to just accept a slightly lower weekly average IF but make sure it stays well above my Base Level IF averages.

FWIW, I'll throw out a contrary argument. I don't pay any attention to my IF. Rather, my training goals are time at level by week, period. And, frankly, I don't pay much attention to time at L1-L3. I'm solely focused on L4-L7. So, the fluff miles/time don't enter the equation at all. I do pay attention to TSS, but only to decide when I need a day off due to the total stress of the prior day's ride. And, I use the Performance Manager stats when I am preparing for a target event. Otherwise, I just ignore them.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by shano92107
hi all - i just recently stumbled into the great thread here. (VERY helpful comments from Paul BTW!)

Some thoughts pertaining to the IF's Paul mentions i.e. maintaining IF>80% :

During my race season my CTL hovers betwen 100-115, my daily workouts are usually 1.5 hr or less and although I hammer my workouts I usually end up with IF ~75%
I always include my warmup and cooldown in my workout file. Since I warmup slowly and very easily these #'s influence the IF downwards which makes for some very difficult workouts to keep IF >.8 for a 1.5hr workout

I'm wondering if its common for athletes to discard the W/U&C/D -or- you just absolutely SMASH your athletes and even with the warmup they still average over 80% That seems like a heavy workout if you only have 1-1.5hrs/day (but I have no point of reference other than my own experience.)

FWIW I'm 51y/o, Cat2 MTB and CX, top third A.G. road. I'd like to think i'm in pretty decent shape but that 80% seems like a pretty tough number to hit and maintain

Look forward to hearing some opinions on this
-shano

Hi Shano,
You can move your weekly IF's around depending on where you are in your training cycle. In the offseason when I'm CTL building it may drop as low as 0.7. because I'm focusing more on sub threshold, longer rides on back to back days...But right now we are in the middle of the season, and we cut out the "riding for the sake of riding" and really focus on riding to meeting the demands of the event/our weaknesses/race execution training and consolidating our strengths. I'll have guys riding national road series races on a little as 8-10hours PW but weekly IF's up around >0.85.When they turn up to hard group ride, it's white knuckle riding just to hang on, but it makes you race fit.
If guys are getting down below 0.8 for their in-season training, then I start to look deeper into how much quality they are doing in relation to their weekly volume. So you tweek it, and they start knocking out consistent hard training they can back up week after week.
All our training is included from the time you get on the bike to the time you get off.

Here is an example of guy, who I took from a Master C athlete up to Master A. We moved his FTP from 290 up to 340. he weighs 90kg. He won his first crit last weekend and also won the prime. His peak 5s power was 1550...When he came to me for coaching, he was getting dropped in Masters C events and weighed over 100kg. This is pretty good example of keeping an eye on his weekly IF. Which you can see, apart from a taper and post race downtime around May, his weekly IF's were consistently above 0.8....It took him a good couple of months to get his head around it and train that way, but it has certainly paid off for him. He works on a 2 day on 1 day off, 3 days on 1 day rotation. The hard days are very hard. He works full-time has kids and is in his 40's...He trains around 10-12hrs PW, which would account for the lower weekly TSS scores. When I start CTL building him again, we'll be target 800-1000TSS @ 0.70-0.85. Before this block below we moved his CTL up to 110. During the in-season it tends to settle around the low 90's

Hope it helps
Paul

[IMG]cyclingforums.com700Open ↗[/IMG]

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by fluro2au

Hope it helps
Paul

well, yes as a matter of fact it helps quite a bit! I think I've learned more about leveraging the power of PMC and IF time series from reading your posts than i have with the last 2 years of collecting and looking at my power data - thank you Paul!

Yes I see how it might take some mental wrestling to get the IF>.80 targeted and maintained. I'm going to re-think my training calendar for the summer after I let your comments soak in over the weekend. This is really great stuff. I think I'm on a good track but have been going too easy and resting too much but I'm noticing in the last few weeks that my recovery times are reducing drastically. I guess I stumbled into some fitness but a lot of room for improvement here

RDO I am curious how you think about setting targets for the amount of time in each level. Do you target an absolute figure for L4 and then set L5, L6 and L7 as a % of that? Do you periodize these time-in-level targets? And how would you adjust the time targets as training time decreases (I recall from other posts that your overall volume is quite high)?

The short answer is that I start with a target of total volume in minutes per week. If I have no work or travel or other constraints, I target 15+ hours/week. Total volume doesn't really vary during the season or off-season. The next thing I do is target high-intensity time (L4-L7) versus low-intensity time (L1-L3). In general, I want as much high-intensity time as possible, but I'm happy with 50%+. Again, this doesn't really vary as a function of season or off-season. The third step is to target the mix of L4, L5, L6 and L7 within the high-intensity target. This does vary as a function of phase of season and off-season. In general, I am targeting L4 almost exclusively early in the season and in the off-season. As I approach my first event of the year, I allocate more of the high-intensity minutes to L5-L7, but I maintain a fairly high volume of L4 at all times. The other thing I do as I approach a target event is to do my L4s higher in the level (e.g., 100%-105%FTP) and at shorter durations. The mix of high-intensity minutes as a percentage of total minutes takes a hit in this phase due to the higher ratio of rest time at the higher intensities. During the season, I vary the mix of L4-L7 similar to what I do in the early and late phases of buildup. After a target event, I focus primarily on L4s and drop my intensity back to the lower end (e.g., 91%FTP), and de-emphasize L5-L7. I'll maintain this structure right through non-target events, and basically view non-target events as training rides.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo
The short answer is that I start with a target of total volume in minutes per week. If I have no work or travel or other constraints, I target 15+ hours/week. Total volume doesn't really vary during the season or off-season. The next thing I do is target high-intensity time (L4-L7) versus low-intensity time (L1-L3). In general, I want as much high-intensity time as possible, but I'm happy with 50%+. Again, this doesn't really vary as a function of season or off-season. The third step is to target the mix of L4, L5, L6 and L7 within the high-intensity target. This does vary as a function of phase of season and off-season. In general, I am targeting L4 almost exclusively early in the season and in the off-season. As I approach my first event of the year, I allocate more of the high-intensity minutes to L5-L7, but I maintain a fairly high volume of L4 at all times. The other thing I do as I approach a target event is to do my L4s higher in the level (e.g., 100%-105%FTP) and at shorter durations. The mix of high-intensity minutes as a percentage of total minutes takes a hit in this phase due to the higher ratio of rest time at the higher intensities. During the season, I vary the mix of L4-L7 similar to what I do in the early and late phases of buildup. After a target event, I focus primarily on L4s and drop my intensity back to the lower end (e.g., 91%FTP), and de-emphasize L5-L7. I'll maintain this structure right through non-target events, and basically view non-target events as training rides.

Nice,

We've started to introduce a session where you do a max effort for a given length of time. Then take 90% of that effort and that becomes your interval repeat target. How many repeats you do will depend on how long you can keep repeating and keeping it above 90%...It's great way to fine your execution, especially the earlier intervals and also build on your mental toughness in the later intervals

For example, if you are doing 2min intervals and you hit your first one at MAX, achieve say an AP of 400w, then each subject 2min interval is done at 360w (90% of 400w)...Some weeks you might be able to complete 4-6 intervals, while other weeks it may be 8-10 intervals.....Who knows and who cares, what is important is that you are training to and addressing your physiological and psychological limits.....It's tough session but the guys like it and it is very personalised and it mirrors very well what does happen in races.....unknown repeatable hard efforts

Paul

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by fluro2au
We've started to introduce a session where you do a max effort for a given length of time. Then take 90% of that effort and that becomes your interval repeat target.

Yes, a couple of us here (e.g., Dave) use the 90% of max effort at a given duration rule for training ride intensity. I apply this rule throughout the duration spectrum < L7. For L7 efforts, I go all out. Everything else is dialed back about 10%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapDaddyo [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
Yes, a couple of us here (e.g., Dave) use the 90% of max effort at a given duration rule for training ride intensity. I apply this rule throughout the duration spectrum < L7. For L7 efforts, I go all out. Everything else is dialed back about 10%.

Considering that maximum effort is a slowly decreasing function of duration (max 1 hour effort is about 95% of 20 minute effort)

One should be able to do at least 3 repeats of any interval at 95% and 6 at 90% of maximum effort for that interval.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy
Quote:

Considering that maximum effort is a slowly decreasing function of duration (max 1 hour effort is about 95% of 20 minute effort)

One should be able to do at least 3 repeats of any interval at 95% and 6 at 90% of maximum effort for that interval.

Why 3 at 95% and 6 at 90%?

Paul

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by fluro2au
Why 3 at 95% and 6 at 90%?

Paul

Generally, the relationship between effort and time is an exponential function.

If you compute your FTP (60 minute power) by multiplying your 20 minute power by 95%, the exponential relationship says you can compute your power for any interval by multiplying your power for 1/3 of that interval by 95%.

There are a lot of issues - heart rate, heat effects, that affect the end results, that is why I drop down to 6 repeats at 90%. (It should be 9 repeats.)

But my comment presents a reasonable starting point.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy
If you compute your FTP (60 minute power) by multiplying your 20 minute power by 95%, the exponential relationship says you can compute your power for any interval by multiplying your power for 1/3 of that interval by 95%.

A better approximation of power at a given duration is the Monod Critical Power Model. But, estimating maximum sustainable power at a given duration says nothing about how many repeat intervals one could do at that duration and at or below the maximum sustainable power for the duration. This would be a function of the duration of recovery segments and NP. But then, since you don't believe in NP, IF, TSS, etc. this entire topic is a non-starter for you.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo
A better approximation of power at a given duration is the Monod Critical Power Model. But, estimating maximum sustainable power at a given duration says nothing about how many repeat intervals one could do at that duration and at or below the maximum sustainable power for the duration.

Would you like to supply a proof?

I was asked why I used the numbers I did. I gave an answer.

Now you have stuck your foot in your mouth by making a claim of "a better approximation." You need to provide proof.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy
Would you like to supply a proof?
I was asked why I used the numbers I did. I gave an answer.
Now you have stuck your foot in your mouth by making a claim of "a better approximation." You need to provide proof.

I don't have to prove anything to you. There's a lot of documentation on the Monod Critical Power Model. Do a PubMed or Google search and get yourself informed. I have used and currently use the model and, apart from the known bias of overestimation at long durations I find it to be a good predictor of the power/duration curve if you use well-considered benchmarks. I'm aware of no documentation on your assertions, just you.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo
I don't have to prove anything to you. There's a lot of documentation on the Monod Critical Power Model. Do a PubMed or Google search and get yourself informed. I have used and currently use the model and, apart from the known bias of overestimation at long durations I find it to be a good predictor of the power/duration curve if you use well-considered benchmarks. I'm aware of no documentation on your assertions, just you.

So you just made up your "better" comment.

I expect that type of stuff from guys who accept IF, NP and what not with no proof or even a definition of what is being measured.

---

I have a busy week this week and next. Working up to 4-a-days.

30 minutes at target power/heart rate, shower, eat, nap, and repeat.

My heart rate is down 10bpm and my power is up 30% so far. And each session gets easier. But the first few days are the easy ones. Toughest part is the 3 pounds of weight loss during 30 minutes of training.

So what does my story about my training have to say about this. It means that your ability changes not as you get stronger - I did not get 30% stronger this week, but as a result of other changes in your body. So the Monod Critical Power Model cannot predict anything.

95% is a reasonable starting point.

Honestly guys just stop feeding the troll.

But, it's such good comic relief.