Useful Tool for power meter users (plan & predict PMC-data)

Setarkos

Hi all,

I wanted to share the following Excel-Sheet. It is based on a version by Julian Baumgartner that I found on google groups about a year ago. I have since made a few (minor) modifications.
You can use it for long-term and short-term training planning.
It will calculate TSS values for interval workouts, and give you a forecast of how your PMC-data will develop (CTL, ATL, TSB) if you enter your planned workouts. So it'll be easier to aim for a certain CTL and TSB for an event.
You can also set warning values for 3d, 7d, 28d accumulated TSS, CTL ramp rate etc.
It contains a PMC chart which will show a forecast based on your planned workouts. It will autoatically be updated when you enter your actual TSS after a workout.
All instructions are on the first sheet.

Please let me know what you think. If you find mistakes or have suggestions to improve the sheet, don't hesitate to tell me.
It has become my primary tool for planning my training. I only use WKO+ for ride analysis now.

Here is the download link: http://setark0s.wordpress.com/2013/05/0 ... g-planner/

And a few screenshots...

SBezza

Perhaps one for the coaches to answer, but why would you AIM for a specific CTL, I understand perhaps aiming for a TSB value in the build up to a target event, but surely you should base your training on your goals and let the CTL, and ATL take their course. You could target a CTL that was just unachievable and then end up training more and more to get there, whilst making yourself more and more fatigued without actually gaining anything.

I suppose it is good to predict what training sessions impact on the PMC would be, but to target certain values seems pointless in one respect, surely the nature of how you fit the training together has more of an impact on performance.

Setarkos

It depends. CTL was introduced (in part) as a measure of fitness. (see: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... chart.aspx)
Of course you wouldn't target a certain CTL just for the sake of it but you do want it to be in a certain range. What that range is, is quite individual but with a bit of experience you know eg. how long you can maintain a certain CTL and at what CTL you typically perform best. For example professionals would try to have a CTL of ~120 coming into the TdF. With a higher CTL you tend to recover better and also perform better towards the end of a long stage - of course this has a certain limits as you can't just raise your CTL infinitely. Obviously your targets should be realistic. But the prognosis should show if they are.

I find CTL ramp rate (not visible in the screenshots) for example quite an important figure as well, to control training load not just retrospectively but also when you construct your training plan.

Edit:
Planning with your CTL in mind is especially useful for long term periodisation, ie. planning peaks and transition periods. You should have an idea what CTL "feels best" for you and what CTL you can maintain for how long. Then you can make use of that knowledge. Often you'll hear people say "I need to get more miles in" this is roughly equivalent to saying "I need to raise my CTL" (with the difference that CTL incorporates intensity, too). For example, everybody (almost) will have better form with a CTL of 80 than with a CTL of 30. And nobody will be able to maintain a CTL of 150 all summer for 3 months.

SBezza

With each year of gained fitness the CTL you can manage and how long you can remain there for will change, and again I wouldn't limit myself to a set target. I would agree you might have an idea of what you can personally sustain, but a CTL of 120 on a diet of threshold work, is a whole different ballgame to a CTL of 120 on a diet of L2 riding, so I still can't see a massive reason for targeting a CTL range, it is the same with ramp rates, short termed tiredness IMO comes from the training sessions you do, not how quickly CTL ramps up, that has a more profound effect on long term fatigue IME. I can get quickly fatigued doing sessions where TSS is less than 100, yet can quite happily do 2 days back to back of 250 TSS without any issues.

For example this year I have a CTL well over 10 points higher and for a lot longer period than last year, if I had aimed for last years values and thought after that I would get too fatigued, I just wouldn't be as fit. My coach might well have a CTL target for me, I'll have to ask, but in general I do training sessions designed to maximise my performance in the main races I take part in, and CTL is what it is. If I get too fatigued I take it slightly easier until I am rested enough.

Setarkos

I find projecting my CTL quite helpful and I no that if I get above a certain value it is like flipping a switch.

If it's useful for you or not is your decision, I guess. The sheet will also calculate accumulated TSS for 3, 7, and 28 days and you can set values when it should warn you - if you find those measures more helpful than CTL ramp rate.

The sheet is not a guide to making training plans but only a tool - so a certain knowledge about trainings planning and also about how your body responds to certain stresses and how your feeling corresponds to the metrics.

I myself can't really relate to my TSB values so they are rather useless for me but I know how I fell after certain workouts. Others find that metric more useful - it all depends to what extent you can relate to the metrics.

SBezza

No worries, just wondered what coaches think of setting a CTL target, not saying it is a bad thing, I just don't really see why you would want to target a specific figure or range. Obviously it is good to keep it as high as possible within reason.

I have found that having a high CTL is great for fitness and recovery, but even that is dependant on sessions done, doing 2 Vo2Max interval sessions in a week can be very damaging, but the acculumlated TSS from these is quite small in reality compared with the bulk of my sessions and recovery can become an issue as the damage to the muscles from these is quite high. So with this in mind even 3, 7 and 28 day TSS figures don't paint a very detailed picture (for me at least), it is more about the type of session that seems to impact more than the figures produced by WKO+

Setarkos

Yes of course you are correct.
As soon as you simplify the data, you inevitably lose some information, so keeping the bigger picture in mind is always a good idea.

You say: "Obviously it is good to keep it as high as possible within reason."
You could interpret this as setting a target zone

One thing I might add when I have the time is a chart that shows how much time is spent in what training zone for a given period of time although WKO+ already does that very well - so I might not find the need to do so...

SBezza

Setarkos wrote:

Yes of course you are correct.
You say: "Obviously it is good to keep it as high as possible within reason."
You could interpret this as setting a target zone
...

No, it is keeping it high at what ever level you happen to end up with, my high might be someone elses unachievable goal . I certainly didn't aim for my current CTL, not sure if my coach had an idea of where it would end up, probably not based on my training ethos. Is it at it's highest yet I don't know, but thats not my worry, again I have my training based around my key goals and the racing I fit in between these goals. I have no doubt I could get it a fair bit higher, but that would mean even less racing than I am currently doing I would suspect, or racing in a very fatigued state.

Setarkos

Well as long as you have a coach, you don't really need to worry.

How do you decide, how much volume and intensity, that is what amount of training stress, you set yourself to do for a given time period?
What do you mean when you speak of 'goals'? If that is mainly "doing well at races" and doing specific intervals, then there is really not much long term planning going on... not to say that it shouldn't work fine.

ric/rstsport

SBezza wrote:

Perhaps one for the coaches to answer, but why would you AIM for a specific CTL, I understand perhaps aiming for a TSB value in the build up to a target event, but surely you should base your training on your goals and let the CTL, and ATL take their course. You could target a CTL that was just unachievable and then end up training more and more to get there, whilst making yourself more and more fatigued without actually gaining anything.

I suppose it is good to predict what training sessions impact on the PMC would be, but to target certain values seems pointless in one respect, surely the nature of how you fit the training together has more of an impact on performance.

aiming for an approximate CTL is quite useful (at least in my experience). Your CTL is a product of the volume and intensity that you ride at (in a general sense), so by aiming for some approximate CTL allows us to know whether you've done a sufficient mix of intensity and volume.

On the other hand TSB is only likely to be manipulated for specific events. so, for say a 1km TT for a track sprint specialist i may aim for a very positive TSB. While for endurance riders doing a targetted long race a more neutral TSB maybe more appropriate. Additionally, it's only worth manipulating TSB when you reach certain CTLs. If you start manipulating with too a CTL you're just losing fitness and wasting time.

Of course, some CTLs are unachievable. Surely that's like me saying i'd like an FTP of 440 W; or want to do a 46-min 25mile TT. They're unachievable (for me). All these goals should be built around the athlete -- so, someone may aim for a CTL of 75, and a FTP of 270 W. they're all specific to the athlete.

The analogy for CTL is the forest, and you still need to work out what trees go in the forest.

Ric

amaferanga

I got that spreadsheet from the Wattage list a few years back. It's quite useful and I kept it nice and simple. Yours looks needlessly cluttered.

Setarkos

amaferanga wrote:

I got that spreadsheet from the Wattage list a few years back. It's quite useful and I kept it nice and simple. Yours looks needlessly cluttered.

Hm, I'd say from the original sheet I got from Julian Baumgartner, I rather slimmed it down. I'm sure there are other (slimmer) sheets floating around which have a similar purpose and maybe his was based on one of them...

I do agree partly. I tend not to use all of it. Nevertheless, what exactly would you rather cut out?

doyler78

Looks very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

SBezza

Setarkos wrote:

Well as long as you have a coach, you don't really need to worry.

How do you decide, how much volume and intensity, that is what amount of training stress, you set yourself to do for a given time period?
What do you mean when you speak of 'goals'? If that is mainly "doing well at races" and doing specific intervals, then there is really not much long term planning going on... not to say that it shouldn't work fine.

Well I would plan back from the target event(s), and base training around what is needed to do well in those events, CTL might well take a huge hit if I was doing shorter events, or possibly a big hike for longer duration events. Again I wouldn't say go on a 6 hour ride and expect to hit a certain TSS, I would ride as hard as I can for that 6 hours bearing in mind current tiredness, and planned workouts in the days that follow. The resulting TSS is what it is, I certainly wouldn't ease off if I reach a pre determined figure, and I certainly would make myself more tired by going longer or harder to get to it, as it is likely to affect future sessions.

With me goals mean results at target races, and only that, again with intervals I will aim to do them at the maximum level I can achieve on a given day, but always there is the knowledge of what you should be able to produce, again limitations are not set by TSS, the result is what it is. Obviously I know what sort of range a session is likely to produce on average. My year is planned well in advance, my coach had done my yearly plan the back end of last year for my target events this year, a fair amount of planning goes into my main target event.

SBezza

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

SBezza wrote:

Perhaps one for the coaches to answer, but why would you AIM for a specific CTL, I understand perhaps aiming for a TSB value in the build up to a target event, but surely you should base your training on your goals and let the CTL, and ATL take their course. You could target a CTL that was just unachievable and then end up training more and more to get there, whilst making yourself more and more fatigued without actually gaining anything.

I suppose it is good to predict what training sessions impact on the PMC would be, but to target certain values seems pointless in one respect, surely the nature of how you fit the training together has more of an impact on performance.

aiming for an approximate CTL is quite useful (at least in my experience). Your CTL is a product of the volume and intensity that you ride at (in a general sense), so by aiming for some approximate CTL allows us to know whether you've done a sufficient mix of intensity and volume.

On the other hand TSB is only likely to be manipulated for specific events. so, for say a 1km TT for a track sprint specialist i may aim for a very positive TSB. While for endurance riders doing a targetted long race a more neutral TSB maybe more appropriate. Additionally, it's only worth manipulating TSB when you reach certain CTLs. If you start manipulating with too a CTL you're just losing fitness and wasting time.

Of course, some CTLs are unachievable. Surely that's like me saying i'd like an FTP of 440 W; or want to do a 46-min 25mile TT. They're unachievable (for me). All these goals should be built around the athlete -- so, someone may aim for a CTL of 75, and a FTP of 270 W. they're all specific to the athlete.

The analogy for CTL is the forest, and you still need to work out what trees go in the forest.

Ric

Cheers Ric

Just one question, how do you know what CTL level an athlete can get to though, I can understand for athletes you have been coaching for a while, but for a new athlete surely the CTL they can handle is a deep unknown, and it is only by tracking it for a few years you can get any real idea.

ric/rstsport

SBezza wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

SBezza wrote:

Perhaps one for the coaches to answer, but why would you AIM for a specific CTL, I understand perhaps aiming for a TSB value in the build up to a target event, but surely you should base your training on your goals and let the CTL, and ATL take their course. You could target a CTL that was just unachievable and then end up training more and more to get there, whilst making yourself more and more fatigued without actually gaining anything.

I suppose it is good to predict what training sessions impact on the PMC would be, but to target certain values seems pointless in one respect, surely the nature of how you fit the training together has more of an impact on performance.

aiming for an approximate CTL is quite useful (at least in my experience). Your CTL is a product of the volume and intensity that you ride at (in a general sense), so by aiming for some approximate CTL allows us to know whether you've done a sufficient mix of intensity and volume.

On the other hand TSB is only likely to be manipulated for specific events. so, for say a 1km TT for a track sprint specialist i may aim for a very positive TSB. While for endurance riders doing a targetted long race a more neutral TSB maybe more appropriate. Additionally, it's only worth manipulating TSB when you reach certain CTLs. If you start manipulating with too a CTL you're just losing fitness and wasting time.

Of course, some CTLs are unachievable. Surely that's like me saying i'd like an FTP of 440 W; or want to do a 46-min 25mile TT. They're unachievable (for me). All these goals should be built around the athlete -- so, someone may aim for a CTL of 75, and a FTP of 270 W. they're all specific to the athlete.

The analogy for CTL is the forest, and you still need to work out what trees go in the forest.

Ric

Cheers Ric

Just one question, how do you know what CTL level an athlete can get to though, I can understand for athletes you have been coaching for a while, but for a new athlete surely the CTL they can handle is a deep unknown, and it is only by tracking it for a few years you can get any real idea.

it's *possibly* an unknown in some athletes (some will have already reached very high levels and reported the effects, good or bad). however, with the ones that haven't reached a ceiling you can, with experience, work out a ball-park ceiling for them by seeing responses from training (both absolute such as power data and perceived data such as thoughts and feelings)

ric

Setarkos

Updated version (only cleaned graphs) available - link in post #1