Question about CTL and "junk miles"

lanierb said:

In the past I've never done easy days for two reasons: 1) I don't have much time to train so when I do train I like it to be high intensity, and 2) I figured that adding some easy miles would not have much if any training benefit and might even be a negative on the fatigue side.

However, going over my training plans in PM, it seems like I could easily bump up my CTL a bit by adding some easy/rest miles each week. According to the model, this would be a good thing. My main question is, do people think that this is right? Or, is there some underlying model assumption about your training always being "targeted training". That is, "junk miles" aren't really adding anything. It's just that the model doesn't know you did junk miles (though it sort of does as that's kind of built into TSS, which is I guess why I'm confused).

I have never bought into the idea of "junk miles" when cycling, since cycling is a non-load bearing exercise.

If you don't have a recovery ride day, I don't see how it would hurt.

However, if you are already doing 1 easy day, why not add a short (30 - 45 minutes in zone) Tempo day? With warm up and cool down, this would give you about 1 TSS point per minute.

Not only is Tempo good for CTL, but it is good for the soul... 😄

Can you tell that I like Tempo?

Jim

lanierb said:

In the past I've never done easy days for two reasons: 1) I don't have much time to train so when I do train I like it to be high intensity, and 2) I figured that adding some easy miles would not have much if any training benefit and might even be a negative on the fatigue side.

However, going over my training plans in PM, it seems like I could easily bump up my CTL a bit by adding some easy/rest miles each week. According to the model, this would be a good thing. My main question is, do people think that this is right? Or, is there some underlying model assumption about your training always being "targeted training". That is, "junk miles" aren't really adding anything. It's just that the model doesn't know you did junk miles (though it sort of does as that's kind of built into TSS, which is I guess why I'm confused).

The problem with using junk miles to build up CTL is that it takes a long time. Assume an IF of .7 for rest/easy miles, and you're looking at 50 TSS/hour. How many hours of junk do you really want to add?

You are also correct that the adaptations elicited by such low intensity training are generally not directly applicable to racing. That is to say, yes there's an underlying assumption that the training you do is somewhat specific to what you're training for.

That said, if low CTL is an issue for you due to the amount of time you have available to train, then there may be periods where all you do is tempo/sweet spot, as that's generally the most time effective way for most people to build CTL (as always, YMMV).

lanierb said:

Or, is there some underlying model assumption about your training always being "targeted training". That is, "junk miles" aren't really adding anything.

While Performance Manager doesn't make any assumptions about the composition of your training, the garbage-in-garbage-out rule does apply. If you wish to draw meaningful conclusions about your performance based on CTL and TSB numbers, it would help to have those numbers based on training that was well suited for the events in which you seek to perform well.

As an additional illustration, it has been suggested on another forum that the 'override TSS' feature could be used to capture physical stress generated from yard work, a physically demanding job, etc. While that certainly helps understand how much stress the body is under at any given time, it doesn't necessarily help in the prediction of cycling performance.

lanierb said:

However, going over my training plans in PM, it seems like I could easily bump up my CTL a bit by adding some easy/rest miles each week.

I guess I answered your question, without really thinking about whether there was another solution. Here's a question: if you feel you have room for more TSS/CTL, then why do you have those rest days in there to begin with? 😉

If you really feel there's room for more TSS in your routine, then ride sweet spot instead of active recovery. If you really feel that you need the rest, then why are you trying to cram more TSS in with 'rest miles?'

frenchyge said:

I guess I answered your question, without really thinking about whether there was another solution. Here's a question: if you feel you have room for more TSS/CTL, then why do you have those rest days in there to begin with? 😉

If you really feel there's room for more TSS in your routine, then ride sweet spot instead of active recovery. If you really feel that you need the rest, then why are you trying to cram more TSS in with 'rest miles?'

Good question. The reason is I train for more than one sport which constrains both my time on the bike and my overall fatigue level. I would like to have a bit more bike CTL, but I don't think my system could handle another hard day. I was thinking a couple hours at level 2 would be okay fatigue-wise, but was wondering if it was worth anything. The model says it is, but you guys have confirmed my feeling that it probably isn't. However, the idea of doing a short tempo/sweet ride sounds like a good one. I think I will give that a try and see how tired it makes me.

lanierb said:

The model says it is, but you guys have confirmed my feeling that it probably isn't.

I believe among the caveats listed for the model is that your training should resemble your events - unless you have a junk miles event...
My warmup/cooldowns are junk miles 🙂

lanierb said:

I would like to have a bit more bike CTL, but I don't think my system could handle another hard day. I was thinking a couple hours at level 2 would be okay fatigue-wise, but was wondering if it was worth anything.

I've oftentimes seen people express a similar sentiment (although never with as much persistence as from WarrenG), that while they can't do any more 'hard' there's always more room left in the system for 'easy'. Andy's commented on that several times, but the bottom line is that TSS is designed in such a way to handle it. TSS includes a weighting factor for the intensity of the ride such that a similar TSS hard or easy ride should produce a similar amount of stress on the body. Granted, there are people who don't believe that.

2 hours L2 (including a typical VI) produces an IF of ~.8 and 130 TSS. What you're saying is that your system could handle that, but couldn't handle a 1 hr L3 or L4 workout, which might be of more benefit to your cycling program? That's okay if you are, but this winter I found that as long as I didn't go over ~125 TSS, I had no residual effects the next day *no matter what the intensity was* (I did 3-day L4/L5/L4 blocks, and L5/L4/L5 blocks for much of the spring without any issue). If you haven't experimented with it, you might give it a try.

Woofer said:

My warmup/cooldowns are junk miles 🙂

Yeah, but I've seen junk miles during some Cat 4/5 road races, so it's still specific training. 🙂

frenchyge said:

as long as I didn't go over ~125 TSS, I had no residual effects the next day *no matter what the intensity was*

Ditto.

lanierb said:

Good question. The reason is I train for more than one sport which constrains both my time on the bike and my overall fatigue level. I would like to have a bit more bike CTL, but I don't think my system could handle another hard day. I was thinking a couple hours at level 2 would be okay fatigue-wise, but was wondering if it was worth anything. The model says it is, but you guys have confirmed my feeling that it probably isn't. However, the idea of doing a short tempo/sweet ride sounds like a good one. I think I will give that a try and see how tired it makes me.

There is another thread running concurrently to this with Dr Coggan and Warren G having a debate about TSS and stress load variances due to type of training. The scientific approach (Andy) is effectively saying that the stress load for say 100TSS via 2.5 hours of easy riding is the same as say 100TSS via a hard 90 mins - so the fatigue issue you mention is not really relevant. In other words you are better off adding another hard short session if you have capacity for more TSS than a longer junk miles session - the benefit to your performance is greater and the fatigue load is the same.

peterwright said:

There is another thread running concurrently to this with Dr Coggan and Warren G having a debate about TSS and stress load variances due to type of training. The scientific approach (Andy) is effectively saying that the stress load for say 100TSS via 2.5 hours of easy riding is the same as say 100TSS via a hard 90 mins - so the fatigue issue you mention is not really relevant. In other words you are better off adding another hard short session if you have capacity for more TSS than a longer junk miles session - the benefit to your performance is greater and the fatigue load is the same.

Thanks for the comments. Somehow it seems counter-intuitive that the two different rides put on the same stress load but I'll definitely give it a try. I like the short level 3 idea as that won't be mentally tough either.

peterwright said:

The scientific approach (Andy) is effectively saying that the stress load for say 100TSS via 2.5 hours of easy riding is the same as say 100TSS via a hard 90 mins

Just to put this in context: that's 2.5 h at recovery pace (IF = 0.63) vs. 1.5 h at "all day" pace (IF = 0.81).

Z2 requires practically no freshness in order to complete a reasonably short workout. When already carrying a pretty hard training load your ability to perform higher intensity work of the same TSS will be hindered VS. the same stress done at a lower intensity. So even though the amount of additional stress would be the same you're ability to complete the workout won't.

That's probably also why it's "easier" to maintain a higher TSS during periods with a lot of Z2/3 stuff and that a lot of times when going into a period of a lot of Z5/6/7 TSS inadvertantly drops.

gvanwagner said:

Z2 requires practically no freshness in order to complete a reasonably short workout. When already carrying a pretty hard training load your ability to perform higher intensity work of the same TSS will be hindered VS. the same stress done at a lower intensity. So even though the amount of additional stress would be the same you're ability to complete the workout won't.

That's probably also why it's "easier" to maintain a higher TSS during periods with a lot of Z2/3 stuff and that a lot of times when going into a period of a lot of Z5/6/7 TSS inadvertantly drops.

nail on the head.. how well can you actually perform that high intensity workout given a heavy/high intensity load to begin with... you need the recovery in order to perform the next high intensity workout effectively

2.5hr recovery is pretty useless and will not yield recovery.. does seem comparable to 1.5 hr all day pace... so 2.5hr recovery does not equal a recovery workout.