CTL-FTP.....optimal level?

I do not disagree with Piotr regarding expecting FTP to rise when raising CTL and maintaining the same relative composition. However, I do not think that agreeing with this expectation contradicts my statement that there is no direct relationship between CTL progression and FTP progression.

In the end, adaptations leading to FTP improvements (or 5min MMP, etc) are more directly related to meaningful time spent training at powers that elicit those adaptations than CTL.

One can increase time spent training at powers that elicit adaptations that lead to FTP progression and not see substantial CTL rise - by changing compostion. And, conversely, one can increase CTL without substantially increasing time spent training at powers that elicit adaptations that lead to FTP progression.

CTL says nothing about composition, and thus, one cannot make assumptions about a relationship between CTL progression and FTP progression.

DancenMacabre said:

• What I am trying to say but doing a bad job is: there must be some minimum CTL needed to get yourself in the ballpark of your fitness/ftp potential.
  

You're not doing a bad job of getting your point across, but why does this have to be true? Why couldn't years of steady, gentle pressure create the same level of results as riding 150 TSS everyday (albeit over a longer period of time)? Seems to me that a high CTL taxes/trains the recovery system as much (or more) than the production systems.

DancenMacabre said:

Because if the answer is no then it provides little incentive to train more & build CTL. After all, as far as I can see from the race calendars, there are few if any womens stage races in the country so all my events would be one-off & for sure < 4 hours.

😕 All of the stage races in this part of the country include women's categories. You're not going Pro already, are you? 😄

DancenMacabre said:

But to get from like 140 or 150, I forget where he started, to almost 300 on a couple of L4 days/week + a weekend ride sure sounds like someone who has hella talent & good genes.

Yeah, he had hella good genes. IIRC, he was a collegiate level cross country runner or some such. That's the fine print for people trying to jump into that thread and expecting the same results.

DancenMacabre said:

• That means the training load, relatively speaking anyhow, stays the same. ..... Doesnt the body adapt to the same/similar workload in maybe 8-10 weeks? If it does then how can you get fitter?
  

Because as you make corrections for FTP increases, a constant CTL represents an increasing absolute workload. In the end, the body adapts to absolute workload, not relative workload. If you work the body at 90% of capacity, it adapts to try to reduce the stress. If the stress does not subside (ie, because you have increased the absolute workload in order to keep the body at 90% of the new capacity), then it will adapt further. That's progressive overload. You don't have to raise the relative workload up to 95%, then 98%, then 99%, then 100% in order to stimulate further adaptations. Keeping it at a steady 90% works just fine.

DancenMacabre said:

...

• What I am trying to say but doing a bad job is: there must be some minimum CTL needed to get yourself in the ballpark of your fitness/ftp potential...
  

The number 70 has floated around a lot as a good minimum target for CTL, and a lot of folks struggle above 110 or so. But all of that of course is within the context of a 'good' training mix as everyone has been saying in this thread and whenever max or min CTL targets are posted someone will post examples of exceptions like Hunter's friend that races elite races successfully on less than 70 CTL and folks like Nomad and Dave Harris that seem to thrive in the 120+ range.

IMO, the easiest way to think about the whole TSS/CTL question is to remember it's basically a measure of overall training volume like miles or hours. It's a bit more sophisticated because it takes into account intensity but it still maps closer to overall load than specific training intensity.

So it's a bit like asking what should I target for average weekly hours or average weekly miles. No one can answer that question and how much you improve depends a lot on how you train during those miles or hours and how well you're able to recover to do more training. But it's safe to say that up to a point more miles or hours ridden in a quality way is a good thing and generally leads to improvement (Piotr's point) but no one can give you a formula that tells you how your FTP will or won't improve with additional mileage or hours and of course there's a point where additional hours or miles will push you past the breaking point so more isn't always better.

-Dave

acoggan said:

Wouldn't it be great if there was a way to figure that out?

..... stay tuned I take it.....

Alex Simmons said:

..... stay tuned I take it.....

As my wife likes to say: may-be. 😉

acoggan said:

As my wife likes to say: may-be. 😉

Such a friggin tease...and I'm not talking about your wife Dr. Coggan.

Jollyrogers, ha ha, yes what a tease!

Acoggan, is there a limited preview, advance showing or pre-ordering 😄😄😄😄 Super exciting, I cant wait to see what this new thing is.

DaveRyan, good point in you saying nobody can say 'this or that is the ideal # of miles/hours'. 70 seems like a good start point b'cause I know you can do hella hard training and be at 70. Especially if you are stuck inside for winter and only have the trainer availalbe - then you work your tail off to get a quality 70 CTL. Guess that I am thinking that the real value in the PM is less using the watts display on the bike computer to guide the training - that whole training 'by power' thing - but that it is stuff like the PMC that is where the real insights are to be had, 'training with power'. That does not even get into other PMC related stuff like tapering, etc.

Boba, ok ok, lets see if I have been taking good notes. 😕:o🙂 Increasing CTL with a composition targeting FTP (solid L3/L4/SST) probably (maybe?) would improve the latter - to a point at least. This is the lift the 0-60 min part of the curve notion. Increasing CTL by adding a bunch of low L2 and related composition training probably will do little, maybe nothing for FTP but it you will definitely burn lots of calories, get used to long, long hours on the bike, and maybe lift the curve at long durations, like the 120min and beyond segment. Hopefully I am somewhere in the ballpark.

Frenchyge, ha ha!!!! Dont you know it isnt nice to tease a low-talent newbie about going pro???? :p About the closest I will be to going "pro" is if I buy some indoor cycling dvd where I get to race Kristin Armstrong (only if I can cut her threshold power by 40%, increase her weight by 20%, and make it come down to a sprint).

Ok, see now I get it about the kill me thread OP being a very good athlete. Some of us arent but from what I can see on the thread, not many people made the connection. Meaning that his rate of progress was a nice trio of parts: good advice/coaching, hard work, and good genes. I have way higher volume than he did so I think the effort part is there for me, no coach but get hella good tips on this board from y'all (thank you for that), but probably lousy genes. End result = progress yes, but not nearly so fast as in that thread. No point in being disappointed, if someone has better genes then just salute them & keep training.

Great explanation of that absolute/relative workload. Sure makes me feel better knowing my 20 minute Level 4 intervals can keep working at 90-95% and wont have to be at 100% to do the trick. Not now at least.

By serendipity, here is some good insight into the loose connection between FTP and CTL (assuming appropriate composition), from the horse's mouth.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/power-training/293017-tss-if-calculation.html#post2324555 (post #3)

DancenMacabre said:

ok ok, lets see if I have been taking good notes. 😕:o🙂 Increasing CTL with a composition targeting FTP (solid L3/L4/SST) probably (maybe?) would improve the latter - to a point at least. This is the lift the 0-60 min part of the curve notion. Increasing CTL by adding a bunch of low L2 and related composition training probably will do little, maybe nothing for FTP but it you will definitely burn lots of calories, get used to long, long hours on the bike, and maybe lift the curve at long durations, like the 120min and beyond segment. Hopefully I am somewhere in the ballpark.

I think your statement is in the ballpark in the context of your present training status.

Extrapolation to other scenarios may or may not be as applicable. For example, (and this scenario was presented earlier) for someone with little or no CTL, training at nothing but L2 is likely to provide a notable boost in FTP. After all, it is not like there are no adaptations beneficial to raising FTP in riding at L2: Power Training Levels, by Andrew Coggan (see table 2)

Also, keep in mind that in raising the 2-4 hour portion of your MMP, L3 work may still be the go-to type of work. Many of my two hour rides are SST and most of my 2-4 hour rides are squarely in L3.

Quoted post said:

Also, keep in mind that in raising the 2-4 hour portion of your MMP, L3 work may still be the go-to type of work. Many of my two hour rides are SST and most of my 2-4 hour rides are squarely in L3.

How much of this work do you do in a typical week and what does your riding consist of in between? 2to4 hrs with an average power in L3 in my terrain would leave me pretty fatigued.

Fightin Boba said:

Also, keep in mind that in raising the 2-4 hour portion of your MMP, L3 work may still be the go-to type of work. Many of my two hour rides are SST and most of my 2-4 hour rides are squarely in L3.

rbarker76 said:

How much of this work do you do in a typical week and what does your riding consist of in between? 2to4 hrs with an average power in L3 in my terrain would leave me pretty fatigued.

I'd rather not divulge the day to day specifics of my program, as they are provided to me under a coaching agreement with Alex Simmons. I should state that when I refer to a 2-4 hour ride fitting into SST or L3, I am using NP, not AP to make that characterization. Furthermore, I should add that I find that I have to exercise more control to hold myself back into L2 for outdoor rides of 2-4 hours in duration than it is to let myself loose into the L3 and SST realm. Today, I had lousy legs and still ended up with a 3 hour section of my ride with an NP in the lower end of L3.

Fightin Boba said:

Typically, one can calculate TSS per hour:
[INDENT][INDENT]Since TSS = IF^2 x hrs x 100, then
_IF_ = TSS/hr
0.70 = 49
0.75 = 56
0.80 = 64
0.85 = 72
0.90 = 81
0.95 = 90
1.00 = 100[/INDENT][/INDENT]

rbarker76 said:

2to4 hrs with an average power in L3 in my terrain would leave me pretty fatigued.

4 hours at IF 0.8 = ~255 TSS
3 hours at IF 0.85 = ~215 TSS
2 hours at IF 0.9 = ~180 TSS

All would also leave me fatigued, but we aren't talking 300+ TSS rides here. And, of note, my road races typically end up in around 190TSS +/- 30.

Fightin Boba said:

I'd rather not divulge the day to day specifics of my program, as they are provided to me under a coaching agreement with Alex Simmons. I should state that when I refer to a 2-4 hour ride fitting into SST or L3, I am using NP, not AP to make that characterization. Furthermore, I should add that I find that I have to exercise more control to hold myself back into L2 for outdoor rides of 2-4 hours in duration than it is to let myself loose into the L3 and SST realm. Today, I had lousy legs and still ended up with a 3 hour section of my ride with an NP in the lower end of L3.

I assumed you were using AP instead of NP to classify the power level. A two hour group ride with a few friends ususally puts me into a NP of low L4. Can I ask on average what your VI looks like on these typical SST or L3 rides you are talking about? Just curious because my terrain in extremely rolling. Its hard for me to get AP into L4 for anything longer than 12minutes because the terrain drags the AP down. Terrain for L5 around here is perfect.

rbarker76 said:

I assumed you were using AP instead of NP to classify the power level. A two hour group ride with a few friends ususally puts me into a NP of low L4. Can I ask on average what your VI looks like on these typical SST or L3 rides you are talking about? Just curious because my terrain in extremely rolling. Its hard for me to get AP into L4 for anything longer than 12minutes because the terrain drags the AP down. Terrain for L5 around here is perfect.

For rides in the 2-4 hour range and NP falling into the L3 / SST range, VI generally looks <1.1 (typically 1.06-7ish) if I'm riding solo, >1.2 for group rides, and between 1.1 and 1.2 when intervals are also involved.

Alex Simmons said:

acoggan said:

Piotr said:

Guys,
Where's the point of diminishing returns is probably very individualistic.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a way to figure that out?

..... stay tuned I take it.....

Aha!!! TSS2. 😎

Piotr said:

Aha!!! TSS2.

Future journal entry: There I was, racking up a nice 126 TSS on the trainer & feeling good about it only to see i'd earned a measley 89 TSS-2 TM. :p

Since NP is used in the calculation of TSS, at least what we call TSS today he he..... My interpretation of NP has been that it's hella useful in accounting for 'metabolic' cost/stress. Not as much in considering NM cost/demands of a session - which is why we use QA...

So then do y'all think the new metric is mostly a better way of taking account of the NM cost/demands of a session?

B'cause if that's the case, I gotta think many of the routine steady-state training sessions & intervals we do for typical road race prep, won't end up having much different values for these two metrics. Maybe microinterval, tabata &/or track workouts might earn diff. values though?

[quote="DancenMacabre"]
So then do y'all think the new metric is mostly a better way of taking account of the NM cost/demands of a session?
[QUOTE]

I'd rather not speculate. I am content to roll along with TSS, CTL, ATL, and TSB 1.0 and wait for Dr Coggan to do (if you will) due diligence with his completely "new approach to modeling the relationship between training and performance". I know enough about Dr Coggan and what he has released about the TSS2 to know that it will eventually result in delayed gratification.

Fightin Boba said:

I'd rather not speculate. I am content to roll along with TSS, CTL, ATL, and TSB 1.0 and wait for Dr Coggan to do (if you will) due diligence with his completely "new approach to modeling the relationship between training and performance". I know enough about Dr Coggan and what he has released about the TSS2 to know that it will eventually result in delayed gratification.

He he, no doubt it will be good. I mean this is Dr. Coggan we are talking about, not some new microsoft operating system 🙂

i was just thinking aloud about what it could be or not be. TSS seems hella robust as is - like you said. though there are some things it isn't quite as good about but then many metrics aren't perfect, especially when looked @ in isolation.

oh and i caught your comment about a new PMC 😉. maybe not speculating, but it is fun to wonder about these things & imagine if in some future time we'll be adding another acronym to our lingo.