What's a Recovery Week?

shawndoggy said:

I know, I know, the old school definition of a recovery week is to keep intensity but reduce volume. But using CP / TSS, what's the is it OK to just cut my TSS in half for the week, however the TSS points are acquired?

I've always dropped both time and intensity during a recovery week. That's certainly what Friel and others advocate. Since I'm mostly doing SST right now I just drop the intensity a bit to say 85% of FTP and drop the duration in half or so. I also eliminate any L5 or higher work I might be doing during the on weeks. My SST drops by half or a bit more on these weeks, but I figure the whole idea is to allow for a breather and to let the body supercompensate in preparation for the next on cycle. I also don't take these every 3 or 4 weeks any more since I've switched to SST base work. I usually feel fresh for at least 4 weeks and sometimes longer but I still do believe in an easier week now and then to regroup and refresh.

-Dave

shawndoggy said:

the old school definition of a recovery week is to keep intensity but reduce volume

I think you're confusing a recovery week with a peaking or tapering week. An olde skool recovery week is reduced intensity and volume.

I think a "recovery week" using PMC is not necessarily a week in length. Say you're taking some recovery to get TSB positive after a 3 week build period of negative TSB. You want to do little enough TSS per day so as to get positive again ("come up for air"😉 in a reasonable number of days, but you want to balance that with doing enough so as not to be totally shut down and need a week just to open up again, and you also want to avoid efforts that induce more damage than they're worth (i.e. - L6, L7).

I tend to model the next 5-7 days for someone trying to get positive TSB, see how many days it'll take and how much they can get away with riding in that period and still come back positive.

jbvcoaching said:

I think you're confusing a recovery week with a peaking or tapering week. An olde skool recovery week is reduced intensity and volume.

Busted. Confused as usual.

jbvcoaching said:

I tend to model the next 5-7 days for someone trying to get positive TSB, see how many days it'll take and how much they can get away with riding in that period and still come back positive.

The question being how "positive" should I be trying to get? Back to zero? In the +?

shawndoggy said:

The question being how "positive" should I be trying to get? Back to zero? In the +?

Depends, what's the next block of training look like, are you testing, how do you feel...if you've got historical data what has worked well in the past?

For me, if I'm just trying to build CTL in the pre-season (like now), I'll let it come barely single digit positive for 1-3 days before it drops back towards the pain cave. I'll do any planned high-ish intensity work (a sprint workout, CP testing), when it's 0 or better.

My last block had me down in the -20's & 30's for the better part of 3 weeks, takes me 4-5 days of easy 60-90 minute rides every other day to get positive. 2-3 days to re-open up and maybe test, and it's back to grinding out whatever I need to grind out.

Everyone's different though.

FWIW, I don't cut TSS in half, more like a 40% drop from my hardest week, 20% from my easiest. But there's more to my recovery weeks than just getting TSB positive, although that certainly happens.

For me it is a chance to take a mental break, which means no intervals, not paying too much attention to the PM, and definitely focusing on other areas of my life (catching up with yardwork, hiking with my family, all that stuff I'm sometimes too tired to do when in the middle of a training block.) I also use rest weeks to do some skills training that I otherwise might view as a 'waste' of training time - today I rode up and down various climbs with my coach and we worked on my descending.

At the end of the week, I'll make my Saturday group ride a bit shorter but usually let myself go hard (90 - 100% FTP) on one 20 -30' climb. This does a few things for me 1) makes sure I'm not 'shut down' before the next block 2) functions as a fitness test 3) burns off some of the restlessness I often accumulate during rest weeks so I don't go bananas when the hard training starts up again. :p Of course, it's almost race season (first crit next weekend, woohoo!) so Saturday group rides are often replaced by races, in which case the rest week can also function as something of a mini-taper.

shawndoggy said:

I know, I know, the old school definition of a recovery week is to keep intensity but reduce volume. But using CP / TSS, what's the is it OK to just cut my TSS in half for the week, however the TSS points are acquired?

everyone's needs will likely be slightly different...

for me a typical "recovery week" after a ~5 week build (deep build), consists of 3-4 days right off, no riding what so ever with lots of sleep... followed by a couple transition days (1hr tempo, then ~2hr endurance/easy group ride) then a rest day and then then back to the next build.

for a taper.. ~2 weeks before the event... i take a good 4 days right off (no riding lot of sleep), 2 transition days... then when i come back doing lower duration (1/2 of what i was just doing) with a mix of intensities.. lower reps and less structured.. then i'm rested, sharp, killer and comping at the bit for the event... after the rest period i'm not looking to train really, really just trying to regain sharpness.. after that bump training up to about 3/4 of build durations try string out you fitness for as long as possible ~3weeks or so

for me, i've found taking days right off is best... i've found this from being forced to take the time off because of family commitments and when coming back, as long as i take those transition days... i'm flying. but you don't want to be taking 4 day off if you're only doing like less than 8hr a week... i'm talking finishing you build with 15hrs+

doctorSpoc said:

for me, i've found taking days right off is best... i've found this from being forced to take the time off because of family commitments and when coming back, as long as i take those transition days... i'm flying. but you don't want to be taking 4 day off if you're only doing like less than 8hr a week... i'm talking finishing you build with 15hrs+

Thanks for the input. I'm doing approximately 10 hours a week, give or take. CTL is @ 88. Not so high, I know, but for comparison's sake, the last two seasons' "in form" periods never exceeded 70, and those were usually followed by a big crash.

Was feeling a little burned out, so I decided to sacrifice a little ATL and took two days in a row totally off the bike, went to bed early, slept in, brought TSB to +10, and now five days on the bike later I'm feeling better than ever and ready to take my CTL up a notch during the rest of the month.

doctorSpoc said:

everyone's needs will likely be slightly different...

for me a typical "recovery week" after a ~5 week build (deep build), consists of 3-4 days right off, no riding what so ever with lots of sleep... followed by a couple transition days (1hr tempo, then ~2hr endurance/easy group ride) then a rest day and then then back to the next build.

Shawndoggy, the above is good advice. Slightly different from what I have my clients do but sound advice. ....he bro takes 3-4 days off the bike to start and this in itself is a recovery week...then he builds but doesn't do anything above Tempo...then he rests again before hammering his first training week.

Recovery weeks are suppose to be really easy. 4-7 days long.....2-3 days off the bike....recovery rides....mid week "small" intensity ride...nothing SUSTAINED at threshold or above PEROID! The whole idea of the recovery week is to allow the body to rest...and get stronger. Most guys do WAY too much in a recovery week. Most guys I find need 5-7 days.
Guys doing sustained threshold blocks or VO2 work are missing the boat and reducing the benefit of the recovery week.
DO NOT simply look at TSS scores and reduce it for the recovery week by 25-50%!

I like Lemonds advice. Note: Lemond is kept "right up" with the latest in power training.
"Some riders need only 3-4 days others need 6-7 days"
" The key in the recuperation period is as much psychological as physical- you don't want to force yourself to get on the bike."
"You cannot recover and get stronger from the past hard weeks of taining and from the residual and built up fatigue by training in the recuperation week."
" You should still be riding your bike every other day for an hour or two but you should not be trying to train with it"
Greg Lemond.

I also like Mike Niederpruem's advice, even though has has gone over to "the dark side" CTS Carmichael trianing 😉

5 days. First two- active recovery, next day- some efforts but no sustained efforts at or above LT, next two days- active recovery.
Good advice.

Okay bro's...flame away 🙂

A "taper" is a reduction in Volume, usually by at least 50%, while maintaining intensity, or SLIGHLY increasing intensity, over a two week period for road races and TT's and over a shorter period for stage races. You are either riding hard or your are doing a recovery ride or an off day. Last long ride should be about 7-10 days out from the race. Some guys will do a long and hardish ride 4 days out to deplete glycogen stores so the the body will REALLY store up glycogen for the race. Only do this is the race is more then 3 hours long.
Three days before the race you shut it down and do recovery rides...day before is a short tune up ride with some short race like efforts to "open up"....but without fatiguing yourself.

The idea of tapering is to keep your body primed with race like efforts and at the same time allow for full recovery and optimal supercompensation. It will tweak higher performance for race day if done right.

TiMan said:

Recovery weeks are suppose to be really easy. 4-7 days long.....2-3 days off the bike....recovery rides....mid week "small" intensity ride...nothing SUSTAINED at threshold or above PEROID!

Basically what I did. Felt crummy Monday, but finished workout. Still felt crummy Tuesday, just spun for 60 minutes (L1 pace). Took Wed and Thurs off the bike entirely. Friday got back on and did 80TSS lower L3 high cadence ride. Saturday, back in the saddle.

So my "recovery week" was just four days, but then again, I'm not putting in 16 hour weeks either. As noted, ten hours is a pretty huge week, so skipping two days altogether was probably a 30% reduction in training load, along with another 15% in weekly TSS given the light Tuesday and Friday rides.

Anyhow, I'm thinkin' I get it. My CTL barely dropped (and in fact is now on the way up) and I feel way better.

shawndoggy said:

I know, I know, the old school definition of a recovery week is to keep intensity but reduce volume. But using CP / TSS, what's the is it OK to just cut my TSS in half for the week, however the TSS points are acquired?

I'm no coach, but IMHO, for a "time limited" athlete that's not anywhere near pushing close to 120 or 130 CTL, my definition of a "recovery week" is:

Wasted training time 😄

Seriously, if I don't ramp my CTL up too sharply, I've found little need for multiple days off of training. Life inserts enough "interruptions" without having to schedule any extra off time. Just don't go too deep into the "pain cave"...stick somewhere around -15 to -25 TSB and ride the CTL curve up.

Save your "recovering" for your event taper...then, WATCH OUT :eek:

Tom Anhalt said:

I'm no coach, but IMHO, for a "time limited" athlete that's not anywhere near pushing close to 120 or 130 CTL, my definition of a "recovery week" is:

Wasted training time 😄

Seriously, if I don't ramp my CTL up too sharply, I've found little need for multiple days off of training. Life inserts enough "interruptions" without having to schedule any extra off time. Just don't go too deep into the "pain cave"...stick somewhere around -15 to -25 TSB and ride the CTL curve up.

Save your "recovering" for your event taper...then, WATCH OUT :eek:

if you are only dipping to -15 to -25 TSB you aren't digging too deep so i would say that you likely don't need much of a break... i would imagine by doing this you could get your CTL up but that doesn't mean you're going get great performance out of training like that... chasing a high CTL?? i don't get it...

the absolute value of CTL is meaningless... where does this misguided desire to just achieve a high CTL come from? why are people just blindly following numbers and not using common sense? there is no magic here.. CTL is just a number associated with how hard you've been training the last little while...

the goal is high performance, not a high CTL and high performance comes from managing your training load (CTL) and structure and not just trying to make some CTL number go up... and the training stress needs to be followed by recovery... without the recovery the training is meaningless... you're body gets to catch up and actually addapt during the recovery... as well as your mind...

Training Stress followed by Recovery which results in Addaptaiton --> Performance + Ability to train even harder --> even more training stress followed by recovery... etc, etc... this isn't rocket science...

edit. - i'd say training stress not followed by appropriate recovery results in wasted training... remember, you're trying to ilicit addapation which results in performance.. that's the goal.. need to keep your eye on the ball

doctorSpoc said:

if you are only dipping to -15 to -25 TSB you aren't digging too deep so i would say that you likely don't need much of a break... i would imagine by doing this you could get your CTL up but that doesn't mean you're going get great performance out of training like that... chasing a high CTL?? i don't get it...

the absolute value of CTL is meaningless... where does this misguided desire to just achieve a high CTL come from? why are people just blindly following numbers and not using common sense? there is no magic here.. CTL is just a number associated with how hard you've been training the last little while...

the goal is high performance, not a high CTL and high performance comes from managing your training load (CTL) and structure and not just trying to make some CTL number go up... and the training stress needs to be followed by recovery... without the recovery the training is meaningless... you're body gets to catch up and actually addapt during the recovery... as well as your mind...

Training Stress followed by Recovery which results in Addaptaiton --> Performance + Ability to train even harder --> even more training stress followed by recovery... etc, etc... this isn't rocket science...

edit. - i'd say training stress not followed by appropriate recovery is wasted training... remember, you're trying to ilicit addapation which results in performance.. that't the goal

I think you may be reading more into what I wrote than is actually there. I never said that just chasing a high CTL is the "be all and end all" of training. Obviously, the composition of that training needs to be appropriate to the intended event. Besides, I think you may be confused. ATL is the measure of what you've done "over the last little while". Not CTL.

That said, CTL is, by definition, a surrogate for "fitness" (or potential "fitness" that is) so that a good strategy to pursue is to maximize the CTL (with appropriate training of course) within the given constraints. Remember the explanation that "form" = "fitness" + "freshness"? Think about that one a little bit...

I think you may be forgetting that an important reason for the developement of a "periodization" training structure was to help guard against overtraining. With better tools for quantifying and tracking training load (like TSS and the PMC) it's a lot easier to manage the load so that the chance of overtraining is basically nil. Your body is still adapting while you are training. Isn't that basically what CTL is intended to represent? To estimate the adapation that's occurred over an ~6 week time frame? Anyone with a CTL of less than 100 to 120 is in no danger whatsoever of overtraining. IME, as long as the TSB doesn't go too negative (due to too high of an ATL), adaptation keeps on going and going even with a negative TSB.

From your first comment above, it sounds to me like you favor a more "spikey" (i.e. "digging too deep"😉 approach with your ATL, and thus the CTL. Assuming equal starting and ending CTL values, what about that approach will get you better performance than a more "steady" ramping, besides just being more tired during your non-recovery time? Assuming appropriate content of training, of course 😉

Now...don't get me wrong. If I was dealing with a CTL of 120 or so, I'd definitely be "surfing the CTL curve" up and down a bit to avoid overtraining. But, since I'm nowhere near that on my schedule (more like 70-80) it'll be much more efficient timewise with a more steady approach...plus I'm not as tired most of the time due to too quick of changes in ATL.

But, like I said, I'm no coach...just some hacker guy who's used the PMC for over 1 year or so...with pretty decent results (for me) once I got the hang of it.

Tom Anhalt said:

I think you may be reading more into what I wrote than is actually there. I never said that just chasing a high CTL is the "be all and end all" of training. Obviously, the composition of that training needs to be appropriate to the intended event. Besides, I think you may be confused. ATL is the measure of what you've done "over the last little while". Not CTL.

not at all... ATL short term... CTL longer term...

Tom Anhalt said:

That said, CTL is, by definition, a surrogate for "fitness" (or potential "fitness" that is) so that a good strategy to pursue is to maximize the CTL (with appropriate training of course) within the given constraints. Remember the explanation that "form" = "fitness" + "freshness"? Think about that one a little bit...

CTL is a measure of volume of training stress and unless you are in a max training load/consitant training load competition not a surrogate for fitness.. if you want measure fitness, do tests over appropriate distances/times or a TT or RR...

Tom Anhalt said:

I think you may be forgetting that an important reason for the developement of a "periodization" training structure was to help guard against overtraining. With better tools for quantifying and tracking training load (like TSS and the PMC) it's a lot easier to manage the load so that the chance of overtraining is basically nil. Your body is still adapting while you are training. Isn't that basically what CTL is intended to represent? To estimate the adapation that's occurred over an ~6 week time frame? Anyone with a CTL of less than 100 to 120 is in no danger whatsoever of overtraining. IME, as long as the TSB doesn't go too negative (due to too high of an ATL), adaptation keeps on going and going even with a negative TSB.

if you have a good coach you will not overtrain... periodization training is used to quickly illicit addapation after bouts of training stress...

Tom Anhalt said:

From your first comment above, it sounds to me like you favor a more "spikey" (i.e. "digging too deep"😉 approach with your ATL, and thus the CTL. Assuming equal starting and ending CTL values, what about that approach will get you better performance than a more "steady" ramping, besides just being more tired during your non-recovery time? Assuming appropriate content of training, of course 😉

digging deep has nothing to do with some absolute value of CTL and everything to do with increasing CTL to or over the individual's historic ATL and CTL high values... CTL needs to be managed

Tom Anhalt said:

Now...don't get me wrong. If I was dealing with a CTL of 120 or so, I'd definitely be "surfing the CTL curve" up and down a bit to avoid overtraining. But, since I'm nowhere near that on my schedule (more like 70-80) it'll be much more efficient timewise with a more steady approach...plus I'm not as tired most of the time due to too quick of changes in ATL.

But, like I said, I'm no coach...just some hacker guy who's used the PMC for over 1 year or so...with pretty decent results (for me) once I got the hang of it.

like i said if you are not digging deep... 70-80 CTL... what is that like an 8hr week if you are very consistant?

think about this... who is more fit the guy that is ramping up his weekly duration and currently has a CTL of 80 but just did a 15 hr 1200 TSS week or the guy that has a CTL of 80 but has never done over 10hr 700 TSS for a week, but is very consistant... CTL is not fitness... the rate of change in CTL (slope on the graph) is important, but the absolute value is not that important, it needs to be looked at in context and is better looked at in relative terms... for those that are very consistant it can be high but is not idicative of fitness... it's just high because it started high and it never went down...

the power manager is a great tool when used correctly... using it in relative terms, not absolute terms, to graphically observer trends etc... don't get caught up in the numbers and give them more meaning that they deserve or significance they don't possess... you need to think about what those numbers really mean, observe them in context and throw in a little common sense...

doctorSpoc said:

if you want measure fitness, do tests over appropriate distances/times or a TT or RR...

doctorSpoc said:

think about this... who is more fit the guy that is ramping up his weekly duration and currently has a CTL of 80 but just did a 15 hr 1200 TSS week or the guy that has a CTL of 80 but has never done over 10hr 700 TSS for a week, but is very consistant...

Interesting Q. If one is measuring fitness by who wins the race, the guy who just got done with the 15 hour week seems less likely to win because he's severely overloaded. But he will have a higher ATL.

shawndoggy said:

Interesting Q. If one is measuring fitness by who wins the race, the guy who just got done with the 15 hour week seems less likely to win because he's severely overloaded. But he will have a higher ATL.

that's precisely why context is important and you can't just look at numbers blindly... you test under known consitant conditions or look at your numbers in context... and i'm talking fitness not form

if you want to test fitness accross riders you would ask who would likely win the race after they both just completed a 15hr week (the same condtions accross riders as well.. need to look at the context)... who would likely win after a taper or a recovery week... rider A who has never managed to even complete more than a 10hr week in their life or rider B that is buiding to 20hr weeks?

and again the real test is performance under race condtion... i.e. rested... as Tom Anhalt said form = fitness + freshness.. he just in error equated CTL to fitness (at least in the absence of proper context)

i gave an example of how two riders can have the same CTL, but one that is very obviously more fit than the other... i.e. absolute CTL value does not equal fitness...

doctorSpoc said:

that's precisely why context is important and you can't just look at numbers blindly... you test under known consitant conditions or look at your numbers in context... and i'm talking fitness not form

if you want to test fitness accross riders you would ask who would likely win the race after they both just completed a 15hr week (the same condtions accross riders as well.. need to look at the context)... who would likely win after a taper or a recovery week... rider A who has never managed to even complete more than a 10hr week in their life or rider B that is buiding to 20hr weeks?

Wouldn't that scenario mean, by definition, they'd have vastly different CTLs?

doctorSpoc said:

and again the real test is performance under race condtion... i.e. rested... as Tom Anhalt said form = fitness + freshness.. he just in error equated CTL to fitness (at least in the absence of proper context)

Correction. Here's what I actually wrote (with emphasis added) "That said, CTL is, by definition, a surrogate for "fitness" (or potential "fitness" that is) so that a good strategy to pursue is to maximize the CTL (with appropriate training of course) within the given constraints."

That's different than just a blanket "CTL = fitness" type statement.

BTW, I'm sure you're aware of who first used the analogy in relation to CTL, ATL, and TSB, right?

doctorSpoc said:

i gave an example of how two riders can have the same CTL, but one that is very obviously more fit than the other... i.e. absolute CTL value does not equal fitness...

Umm...I think I would argue that the example wasn't very obvious as to which rider would have more "fitness"...especially since a lot of "context" was left out.

doctorSpoc said:

that's precisely why context is important and you can't just look at numbers blindly... you test under known consitant conditions or look at your numbers in context... and i'm talking fitness not form

if you want to test fitness accross riders you would ask who would likely win the race after they both just completed a 15hr week (the same condtions accross riders as well.. need to look at the context)... who would likely win after a taper or a recovery week... rider A who has never managed to even complete more than a 10hr week in their life or rider B that is buiding to 20hr weeks?

and again the real test is performance under race condtion... i.e. rested... as Tom Anhalt said form = fitness + freshness.. he just in error equated CTL to fitness (at least in the absence of proper context)

i gave an example of how two riders can have the same CTL, but one that is very obviously more fit than the other... i.e. absolute CTL value does not equal fitness...

Jumping in here as I disagree with a lot of what you've written. I've used PMC (beta tester) for over two years and back-analyzed my data back to the 2002 season. For me and I believe most of the Beta's, the TSTWKT was and still is CTL. Plotting that admittedly single/aggregate number over time gave me insight to my training, fitness, training & racing PB's that I'd never come close to uncovering via conventional means.

The constitution of CTL (and the underlying TSS) is indeed important, moreso the closer one gets to key events, but simply looking at the very biggest picture was a real eye-opener for me. I looked at the graph from 2002-2005 and it told me 90% of the performance story.

My reaction initially and still is that CTL ~ Fitness approximately equal to but not a perfect match. Nothing is perfect yet IMHO.

Perhaps it may be instructive to (re?) read:

cyclingpeakssoftware.compower411Open ↗ especially Item. 13

rmur17 said:

...but simply looking at the very biggest picture was a real eye-opener for me. I looked at the graph from 2002-2005 and it told me 90% of the performance story.

...i'm with you, performance manager is an amazing tool.. had the same reaction you did while looking at the entirety of my 2006 season... very eye opening... but it served to reinforce and cement in my mind conventional training doctrine, not cause me to abandon it..

rmur17 said:

My reaction initially and still is that CTL ~ Fitness approximately equal to but not a perfect match. Nothing is perfect yet IMHO...

i think you are not really getting what the crux of my arguement is, and it is that... CTL aprox. varies with fitness over the long haul... yes... although belatedly/retrospectively so, but the absolute value of CTL is not necessarily indicative of fitness... and that's when looking at one individual and it certainly is not the case accross individuals...

Tom Anhalt said:

Wouldn't that scenario mean, by definition, they'd have vastly different CTLs?

no, not if one rider (10hr/s max guy) has consistantly kept his CTL up and the other rider the (20hr/w guy) has vastly cut back his training and is coming back.. CTL takes time to catch up...

Tom Anhalt said:

Correction. Here's what I actually wrote (with emphasis added) "That said, CTL is, by definition, a surrogate for "fitness" (or potential "fitness" that is) so that a good strategy to pursue is to maximize the CTL (with appropriate training of course) within the given constraints."

That's different than just a blanket "CTL = fitness" type statement.

BTW, I'm sure you're aware of who first used the analogy in relation to CTL, ATL, and TSB, right?

again.. i would say that change in CTL is belatedly/retrospectively related to change in fitness (and i'm looking at my power manager graph and saying only in certain situations) but that the absolute value of CTL is not a surrogate for fitness or potential fitness or how ever else you want to phase it...

and who says something is of no consequence to me unless what their saying makes sense... the validity of the content of ones words means a lot, who is said it is irrelavant... but i'm wondering if this is a case of oversimplification of an idea followed by extrapolation which can be dangerous... a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing...