Power Meter Advice
Comments
-
Wrath Rob wrote:
You're thinking about this the wrong way. Ambient temperature will impact other physiological systems, e.g. your body's ability to cool yourself effectively. TSS measures the amount of cycling work you've done in relation to the intensity (vs. your FTP) and duration. To take your example, if you manage 300w for 5 mins then stop as its too hot you may only post a TSS of 5 but that's all the work that you've done. You don't magically get additional training effort relating to cycling just because the temperature is 20f higher, you'll just get a tiny, tiny bit better at cycling in higher temperatures, and probably loose some cycling fitness as you failed to complete your 1 hour (or whatever) workout.BigFatBloke wrote:And again I ask does 300 watts at 85f on a turbo with no fan give you the same TSS score as 300 watts outdoors at 65f?
So to answer your question, the TSS will be the same as TSS relates to the cycling work, not the additional cooling work. And if you're trying to measure how much cycling work you do, it works as a metric.
Exactly my point, to do 300 watts for 20 minutes indoors with no fan at 85f is far more stressful because the body has to deal with the heat. It is the physiological systems we are training and any scores should take into account the total stress on the physiological systems not only the output in watts.
The additional cooling work should be taken into consideration. TSS does not do this.
Many people can hold less power on a turbo even with all the cooling sorted, possibly due to inertia, yet TSS gives the same score.0 -
How and why?BigFatBloke wrote:The additional cooling work should be taken into consideration.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
How and why?BigFatBloke wrote:The additional cooling work should be taken into consideration.
Ideally a combination of heart rate and power. But heart rate alone is a very reliable indicator of the total stress on the body.
You can also use heart rate across different sports.
Under heat stress there is a reduction in stroke volume, there must be an increase in heart rate to maintain the oxygen demand from the muscles and maintain work rate.
As to why, the whole point of training stress score is to keep track of training stress, only measuring power out gives an incomplete picture.
Example, a weeks training going up Mt Teidi, power will be down due to the altitude but for a given power, heart rate will be higher than at sea level. Heart rate better reflects the true training stress than power. Ideally you would still want both numbers though. But if you had to choose one or the other, heart rate would be better.0 -
Whatever, Trevor. All I am interested in is what the legs are doing. The heart can do what it needs to.
HR has its place. I honestly don't know how you can think it is more useful than power data. Both have limitations, but the limitations of power are easier to work around.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:Whatever, Trevor. All I am interested in is what the legs are doing. The heart can do what it needs to.
HR has its place. I honestly don't know how you can think it is more useful than power data. Both have limitations, but the limitations of power are easier to work around.
I don't think heart rate is more useful than power, but I think it better suited to measuring overall training stress. As I said ideally I would want both. Power for measuring watts, feel for measuring leg sensations which are different at 300 watts low cadence high force and 300 watts low force high cadence and breathing and fatigue hunger etc.
The heart does do what it needs to do, that in itself makes it worth monitoring.
Best we agree to disagree. I'm interested in what the whole system is doing not just the power output by the legs.0 -
"Under heat stress there is a reduction in stroke volume, there must be an increase in heart rate to maintain the oxygen demand from the muscles and maintain work rate."
What cause the reduction in stroke volume ?
I use both HR/power during race and the past few weeks where i have raced power as been down (more than normal) where as HR has still at threshold for the first hour.
i do understand that heat stress (like you said above) does have an impact on power output ie; same HR, power will be less and for the same power HR would be higher, but not so sure on the physiological reason on why (apart from the fact the body is trying to cool its self down).I do science, sometimes.0 -
mentalalex wrote:"Under heat stress there is a reduction in stroke volume, there must be an increase in heart rate to maintain the oxygen demand from the muscles and maintain work rate."
What cause the reduction in stroke volume ?
I use both HR/power during race and the past few weeks where i have raced power as been down (more than normal) where as HR has still at threshold for the first hour.
i do understand that heat stress (like you said above) does have an impact on power output ie; same HR, power will be less and for the same power HR would be higher, but not so sure on the physiological reason on why (apart from the fact the body is trying to cool its self down).
In an effort to keep core temperature down the vascular system increases blood flow to the skin. As more blood goes to the skin there is less blood to return to the heart. As there is less blood stroke volume decreases, so, to keep supplying the required oxygen to keep up the same work rate, heart rate must increase to compensate for the lower stroke volume.
I also note you mention your threshold heart rate was relatively stable. Now which reflects overall training stress best? Power or heart rate?
In my opinion, if you only monitored power and used power to evaluate the training you have done and put a score to it you will have underestimated the true stress. This may not matter for the occasional hot day, but if there is a week or more of very hot weather, or if you do a lot of training sessions on a turbo you could end up with weeks of underestimated training, or weeks of pushing harder than you should be in a forlorn effort to keep within power zones. Add to this any power loss on a turbo due to inertia, different position, poor bike set up, or any number of factors and your TSS based on output watts can give you a very misleading idea of where you are.0 -
Maybe, to keep Trev happy, TSS should be re-named to TWS (training work score).CAPTAIN BUCKFAST'S CYCLING TIPS - GUARANTEED TO WORK! 1 OUT OF 10 RACING CYCLISTS AGREE!0
-
Herbsman wrote:Maybe, to keep Trev happy, TSS should be re-named to TWS (training work score).
It should be called TWS, Training Watts Score.0 -
No-one has said that you should be able to hit the same power figures in all conditions. TSS is a measure of work done, not how much work you should do.BigFatBloke wrote:In my opinion, if you only monitored power and used power to evaluate the training you have done and put a score to it you will have underestimated the true stress. This may not matter for the occasional hot day, but if there is a week or more of very hot weather, or if you do a lot of training sessions on a turbo you could end up with weeks of underestimated training, or weeks of pushing harder than you should be in a forlorn effort to keep within power zones. Add to this any power loss on a turbo due to inertia, different position, poor bike set up, or any number of factors and your TSS based on output watts can give you a very misleading idea of where you are.
What you are saying might make sense if the effect of heat on HR was large and consistent enough to outweigh the inherent variability, but it is nowhere near that IMO. Even if it were, you can make the exact same argument as you do for power - training to an elevated HR turns easier sessions into junk and a low HR makes you go harder than you want to.
Training is sometimes compromised by external factors. HR may help to recognise this in some cases but I think it introduces more problems than it solves.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
No-one has said that you should be able to hit the same power figures in all conditions. TSS is a measure of work done, not how much work you should do.BigFatBloke wrote:In my opinion, if you only monitored power and used power to evaluate the training you have done and put a score to it you will have underestimated the true stress. This may not matter for the occasional hot day, but if there is a week or more of very hot weather, or if you do a lot of training sessions on a turbo you could end up with weeks of underestimated training, or weeks of pushing harder than you should be in a forlorn effort to keep within power zones. Add to this any power loss on a turbo due to inertia, different position, poor bike set up, or any number of factors and your TSS based on output watts can give you a very misleading idea of where you are.
What you are saying might make sense if the effect of heat on HR was large and consistent enough to outweigh the inherent variability, but it is nowhere near that IMO. Even if it were, you can make the exact same argument as you do for power - training to an elevated HR turns easier sessions into junk and a low HR makes you go harder than you want to.
Training is sometimes compromised by external factors. HR may help to recognise this in some cases but I think it introduces more problems than it solves.
I'm not sure about a low heart rate making you go harder than you want. I suppose on a recovery ride you might be tempted to push harder but then you should be able to feel well enough to keep it easy.
If you do a session and heart rate is low and you are riding at threshold power or above, if the legs feel the pace is sustainable and your breathing feels sustainable surely it would be a lost opportunity not to push on?
If the legs felt like you can't sustain the pace or power or your breathing felt like you could not sustain the pace but heart rate was still low and not getting up to normal levels then it would be a pretty good indication you should ease off. Feel should override both power and heart rate, all you can do is alls you can do etc.
Tom, that is my first thought, but I will post a more considered effort tomorrow. I'm off now to do some serious training, without a power meter or even a heart rate monitor, just a cheap watch, but I am on 10 gears tonight.
Cheers.0 -
"In an effort to keep core temperature down the vascular system increases blood flow to the skin. As more blood goes to the skin there is less blood to return to the heart."
This is not the case, the same amount of blood returns to the heart,in your scenario less is available to the exercising muscles, because some is diverted to the skin.0 -
FatTed wrote:"In an effort to keep core temperature down the vascular system increases blood flow to the skin. As more blood goes to the skin there is less blood to return to the heart."
This is not the case, the same amount of blood returns to the heart,in your scenario less is available to the exercising muscles, because some is diverted to the skin.
Ted, I'm not a cardiologist, but from what I have read the working muscles still demand the oxygen supply / blood supply to maintain the work being asked of them. At some point there will be a time when the heart is unable to continue to supply blood to the muscles and keep you alive as well, but it will continue to supply blood to the muscles as the muscles demand it for as long as it can. So yes if you do not ease off, you will reach a point where the heart is unable to supply the leg muscles with enough blood, because it is having to divert so much to the skin to keep you cool etc etc. The end result is the same, to do the same amount of watts in very hot conditions, the heart has to work much harder.
Us fat blokes tend to struggle in the heat more than thin blokes due to the smaller surface area in relation to our bulk. Little skinny runts have even more of an advantage in hot weather.
I don't have time now to search out again the papers I have read, but these explain it in simple terms - probably a lot better than I can.
http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/ca ... rcise.html
During prolonged exercise, plasma volume can decrease by 10-20% and by 15-20% in 1-minute bouts of exhaustive exercise (10). Resistance training with 40% and 70% one repetition maximum can cause a 7.7% and 13.9% reduction in blood plasma respectively (11).
http://www.tricoachdara.com/pdf/heat_response.pdf
Under everyday conditions, body temperature will increase with exercise,
but when the same exercise is conducted in heat and humidity, body temperature
increases even more. In an attempt to cool the body and keep core temperature
within normal and healthy limits, the vascular system will increase blood flow to
the skin where it can dissipate heat more easily. When more blood goes out to
the skin, less is available to return to the heart. When less blood gets to the
heart, stroke volume decreases. However, since you have not stopped
exercising the oxygen demand stays constant, and to keep blood flowing to the
working muscles, the heart rate must increase to make up for the decrease in
stroke volume.
http://www.multisportsolutions.com/unca ... erformance
Increased blood volume to your skin in order to facilitate cooling: Say you are in the starting stages of the IM run and it is cloudy and 75 degrees, you are running smoothly and all is well. All of a sudden everything clears and it is 105 in the shade. Watch out! Your body will divert as much blood as required to the skin to assist in cooling. This blood will come primarily from non-essential sources such as your legs and arms. Basically your brain is telling your working muscles to tone down the party and give some of that blood back to your skin or else the party is over for everyone. Reduced blood volume available for working muscles means that the remaining volume has to circulate faster (increased HR) at a given workload to feed the muscles oxygen and carry away waste products.0 -
And this proves that TSS is a load of rubbish?CAPTAIN BUCKFAST'S CYCLING TIPS - GUARANTEED TO WORK! 1 OUT OF 10 RACING CYCLISTS AGREE!0
-
Herbsman wrote:And this proves that TSS is a load of rubbish?
No, but it is just one example why TSS does not reflect total training stress. TSS does not take many important things into account like, sleep, stress at work, standing all day at work, walking the dog, running up stairs, family problems, diet, hormones, other sports or activities, when the training was done, how well you were recovered before each session, decorating, brick laying, alcohol intake, caffeine, etc etc.
The whole idea of basing and planning your training on the output numbers alone, which do not take into account how hard you were trying or how easy it was or how much it hurt, or if you were bored stupid or chasing your most hated skinny runt up a steep hill, or hot or freezing cold, or hydrated, or dehydrated, or starved and bonking, or had eaten too much, or hand the worst hangover since 1975, or had a nasty saddle sore, or had one ankle in plaster, or were riding sitting up going up hill, or on the drops or on the tri bars, on the turbo or on the road, I could go on.
It is not just the training you do, it is when you do it in relation to rest & recovery and the circumstances in which you do the training.
You can use TSS as an output number to help you make decisions but you need to remember the context in which those numbers were achieved.
In my opinion, heart rate is as important, if not more important than the output numbers as it reflects the total stress on the whole athlete.
So TSS is not rubbish, it is valuable data, but it is only one part of the total picture. It can be rubbish if you estimated FTP wrong or the power meter is not calibrated properly.
One of the major advances people like Alberto Salazar have made is in judging when and how much an athlete has recovered from certain sessions. They analyse heart rhythms and do blood tests etc so they know exactly how the athlete is stressed how he is recovering and adapting.
I would put money on Sky using far more than TSS alone. Recovery and timing of sessions is probably one of the areas they are so advanced in.0 -
The reason it does not take these into account is that they are not training stresses. It is meant to be a measure of how much training you have done, not how much coffee you have drunk.BigFatBloke wrote:Herbsman wrote:And this proves that TSS is a load of rubbish?
No, but it is just one example why TSS does not reflect total training stress. TSS does not take many important things into account like, sleep, stress at work, standing all day at work, walking the dog, running up stairs, family problems, diet, hormones, other sports or activities, when the training was done, how well you were recovered before each session, decorating, brick laying, alcohol intake, caffeine, etc etc.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
The reason it does not take these into account is that they are not training stresses. It is meant to be a measure of how much training you have done, not how much coffee you have drunk.BigFatBloke wrote:Herbsman wrote:And this proves that TSS is a load of rubbish?
No, but it is just one example why TSS does not reflect total training stress. TSS does not take many important things into account like, sleep, stress at work, standing all day at work, walking the dog, running up stairs, family problems, diet, hormones, other sports or activities, when the training was done, how well you were recovered before each session, decorating, brick laying, alcohol intake, caffeine, etc etc.
There should also be a different TSS depending on what kind of dog you have walked. Obviously, a chihuahua would have a lower TSS score than a German Shepherd. And decorating should obviously take into account whether you used a brush or a roller, as the actions are quite different...0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
The reason it does not take these into account is that they are not training stresses. It is meant to be a measure of how much training you have done, not how much coffee you have drunk.BigFatBloke wrote:Herbsman wrote:And this proves that TSS is a load of rubbish?
No, but it is just one example why TSS does not reflect total training stress. TSS does not take many important things into account like, sleep, stress at work, standing all day at work, walking the dog, running up stairs, family problems, diet, hormones, other sports or activities, when the training was done, how well you were recovered before each session, decorating, brick laying, alcohol intake, caffeine, etc etc.
It measures watts, nothing more. It measures the watts you have done. To use it without putting those numbers into context, and use those numbers alone, to decide how much, what training and when to train is stupid. You need to take into account the whole body and mind and how that body and mind is responding to and recovering from the training before you decide what how much and when.
I want to know how much training was done and how easy or hard the person found it and how much coffee they drank and what their heart rate was etc etc, before deciding if that person should train hard , easy, long short, recovery ride level 3, 4, or 5 or stay in bed all day.
I would not ever rely on an algorithm using watts.
I know you would not rely on it in isolation so I'm not sure where we differ really.0 -
Imposter wrote:Tom Dean wrote:
The reason it does not take these into account is that they are not training stresses. It is meant to be a measure of how much training you have done, not how much coffee you have drunk.BigFatBloke wrote:Herbsman wrote:And this proves that TSS is a load of rubbish?
No, but it is just one example why TSS does not reflect total training stress. TSS does not take many important things into account like, sleep, stress at work, standing all day at work, walking the dog, running up stairs, family problems, diet, hormones, other sports or activities, when the training was done, how well you were recovered before each session, decorating, brick laying, alcohol intake, caffeine, etc etc.
There should also be a different TSS depending on what kind of dog you have walked. Obviously, a chihuahua would have a lower TSS score than a German Shepherd. And decorating should obviously take into account whether you used a brush or a roller, as the actions are quite different...
If you were to walk my dog for an hour up the hills we walk and run up, and saw my heart rate, you would understand why I take it into account when I'm planning my training.0 -
Power output / TSS is just an objective measure to base your training around. There are other factors to take into account when deciding how to train. I think your mistake is in thinking that these are necessarily measurable and that HR is a reliable way of doing this. Do you actually have a system you could explain?
RPE is always there so it is never in isolation. Where we differ is that I don't think people are so stupid as to think otherwise.BigFatBloke wrote:I know you would not rely on it in isolation so I'm not sure where we differ really.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:Power output / TSS is just an objective measure to base your training around. There are other factors to take into account when deciding how to train. I think your mistake is in thinking that these are necessarily measurable and that HR is a reliable way of doing this. Do you actually have a system you could explain?
RPE is always there so it is never in isolation. Where we differ is that I don't think people are so stupid as to think otherwise.BigFatBloke wrote:I know you would not rely on it in isolation so I'm not sure where we differ really.
Tom,
I do not think these other things are measurable, certainly not in any mathematical way where you could put numbers to them, you might try adding up stress points and giving scores to exams or divorce or bereavement but everyone is different and everyone is affected differently by stresses. How do you put numbers on a postman's walking all day? How do you measure digging a ditch? You may well opt to use heart rate if you do more than one sport. But would anyone use a heart rate monitor at work or laying paving stones in the garden?
I do think some people are that stupid. If you read TrainingPeaks you get things like this,
"There is no need to remember CTL, ATL and TSB, just remember the blue line represents your fitness, the pink line shows your fatigue, and the yellow line shows how fresh you are."
and
"Everyone has a different 'breaking' point and that is most likely something you will have to discover for yourself. We are gathering general CTL guidelines for each of the levels of riders(Cat 4, pro, masters, etc), but by no means have a definitive answer to helping you with finding that CTL which makes you completely explode."
They are in effect saying, use our software and go away and break yourself.
Nowhere that I can find does it say that fitness, freshness and form can ever be affected by anything other than the training as measured by watts.
This is the bit that is the biggest laugh,
"When we examine his PMC, we see that his very highest wattage numbers occurred in January, coming off of an intense C-X season and then his first solid 'build' cycle. This was unplanned and while it occurred at an early season stage in which he placed top 3 overall, it wasn't until we looked back at the season and realized that these were his peak wattage numbers for the year. The next thing to notice are the two times that he got sick this year. Both of these times you can see that his TSB became very positive, from the lack of riding. Unfortunately, the first time he was sick, was right after his second main build in March. We can ask ourselves the question, "What this increase in CTL too rapid?". During this time period, not only did his CTL increase at a relatively quick rate, therefore he was under a high load of training stress, but he also got sick the week after a very hard race in which it rained and snowed, and he became slightly hypothermic. So, the stress of the race, coupled with the high CTL, his body's immune system was likely compromised and he picked up a cold. Of course, this was poor timing to have him 'on form' for Tour of Gila. Another thing to notice is the dramatic slip in CTL from 122 points to 90 points while he was sick."
Perhaps if they had been looking at the athlete and his life as a whole rather than just his numbers they would have prevented him getting sick twice. Furthermore the software, the numbers, did not spot that his peak wattage numbers for the year occurred in January until the end of the year so they did in fact de train him. If they had been looking at the athlete and paying attention to how he was recovering and dealing with his training, they would have spotted that his increase in CTL was too rapid, if it was, or they might have spotted a blip somewhere which compromised him. Fact is they were using the system and they cocked up big time, then they have the gall to sell software which they are unable to use properly themselves.
I do have a system. I don't sell it. You can PM me and we can exchange emails or you can give me a call.0 -
BigFatBloke wrote:If you were to walk my dog for an hour up the hills we walk and run up, and saw my heart rate, you would understand why I take it into account when I'm planning my training.
maybe you should get a powermeter?0 -
Imposter wrote:BigFatBloke wrote:If you were to walk my dog for an hour up the hills we walk and run up, and saw my heart rate, you would understand why I take it into account when I'm planning my training.
maybe you should get a powermeter?
I don't need another one.0 -
yet another power meter thread ruinedCAPTAIN BUCKFAST'S CYCLING TIPS - GUARANTEED TO WORK! 1 OUT OF 10 RACING CYCLISTS AGREE!0
-
Herbsman wrote:yet another power meter thread ruined
it's what Trev would have wanted...0 -
Shame, the thread actually started off quite well.0
-
Before the performance manager was available, the ability to quantify such scenarios was far more difficult. This was made readily apparent when we retrospectively analysed power meter data using the performance manager, and were able to nail down more clearly what the likely cause for such responses (e.g. injury, illness, good form etc) was (e.g. was it due to training load and the manner in which it changed, or other factors, or a combination).BigFatBloke wrote:They are in effect saying, use our software and go away and break yourself.
The mere fact that one is able to quantify and parse out the training load component from the entire "rest of life" factors is extremely helpful and provides excellent insight into one's training.
With retrospective analysis, I have been able to
- see training patterns that typically resulted in trouble, and use that to help an athlete avoid repeating those mistakes
- determine and apply guidelines for what are the most likely best training patterns, which we then adjust/adapt for the individual to suit their own specific circumstances
- combine with other qualitative and quantitative information to assess the relative impact of these other factors
Do they explicitly state this isn't the case? No, of course they don't.BigFatBloke wrote:Nowhere that I can find does it say that fitness, freshness and form can ever be affected by anything other than the training as measured by watts.
e.g. if you become ill, suffer an injury or are suffering from a chronic lack of sleep, obviously your performance will be affected.
No where do they suggest such factors should be ignored when considering what training one should next prescribe. It is so axiomatic it is unnecessary and a ridiculous assertion designed only to be misleading and mischievous about one of the most helpful training and performance management aids available.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Before the performance manager was available, the ability to quantify such scenarios was far more difficult. This was made readily apparent when we retrospectively analysed power meter data using the performance manager, and were able to nail down more clearly what the likely cause for such responses (e.g. injury, illness, good form etc) was (e.g. was it due to training load and the manner in which it changed, or other factors, or a combination).BigFatBloke wrote:They are in effect saying, use our software and go away and break yourself.
The mere fact that one is able to quantify and parse out the training load component from the entire "rest of life" factors is extremely helpful and provides excellent insight into one's training.
With retrospective analysis, I have been able to
- see training patterns that typically resulted in trouble, and use that to help an athlete avoid repeating those mistakes
- determine and apply guidelines for what are the most likely best training patterns, which we then adjust/adapt for the individual to suit their own specific circumstances
- combine with other qualitative and quantitative information to assess the relative impact of these other factors
Do they explicitly state this isn't the case? No, of course they don't.BigFatBloke wrote:Nowhere that I can find does it say that fitness, freshness and form can ever be affected by anything other than the training as measured by watts.
e.g. if you become ill, suffer an injury or are suffering from a chronic lack of sleep, obviously your performance will be affected.
No where do they suggest such factors should be ignored when considering what training one should next prescribe. It is so axiomatic it is unnecessary and a ridiculous assertion designed only to be misleading and mischievous about one of the most helpful training and performance management aids available.
Alex,
I know you use the data properly as a tool. If you read the info on the site, it does not in my opinion explain how it should be properly used. It gives the impression the system gives you all the answers. Perhaps this is because they are selling the software, but the general tone is along the lines of this line shows you how fit you are, this one shows you how fatigued you are and this one how fresh you are. It does not point out that the data should be used as a tool and be taken into consideration with all the other factors.
I know you do use the information properly my point is that someone self coaching and using the system will not use it properly and as the site says, go out and break themselves.
And as we know, the whole system is based on FTP, how many people have got the wrong FTP number?0 -
BigFatBloke wrote:
And as we know, the whole system is based on FTP, how many people have got the wrong FTP number?
This is not the power meter's fault though, is it (no question mark there, because the question is rhetorical).0 -
I don't know, do you?BigFatBloke wrote:And as we know, the whole system is based on FTP, how many people have got the wrong FTP number?
But funny enough, there is plenty of information provided about how to get it right, or at least close enough for the purposes of guiding training and using the performance manager effectively.
Yes, even if one uses the 95% of Hunter's 20-min power test as described, it may not be perfectly accurate for a given individual, but it's not going to be so far off that the training principles outlined are not going to work.
e.g.:
How hard to ride? Yep well the general aerobic training levels are pretty broad so no issue there. say FTP overestimated a bit, so you find that you tend to ride at the lower end of the suggested level for a while until fitness improves. That's pretty normal. Try to ride at upper end and struggle? Well guess what, you adjust and ride a little easier. Rides seem too easy? No problem, up the ante a little.
Intervals? well they are based on what you can actually do, so no problem there. A % of FTP is only used as an initial guide, after that they are self-regulating. Get through a set comfortably? You up the power next time. Couldn't complete the minimum number of efforts? Well drop the power target next time. Simple. And exactly what the information provided suggests.
The performance manager? well the absolute numbers might vary a little but all the essential training patterns shown by the PM chart will be the same. Try it. Change your FTP setting and see if the patterns are so badly wrong it would cause you to misinterpret the overall pattern of your training season.
At what rate should CTL increase for good training effect but not so quickly to cause early over reaching/undue fatigue? Well one might might find with a wrong FTP value they have a 3.5 TSS/day per week increase in CTL instead of 4. Whoopdie do.
Now that's not to say that when you really start to monitor and get into the micro matters of performance improvement that paying a little more care to such things isn't helpful, but it is misleading to suggest that such a thing is going to ruin people's training.
Trev, it's just a storm in one of your power stirred tea cups.0
