CTL vs FTP
Comments
-
2 workouts, both involve doing 480kJ of mechanical work:
i. 1 x 40-min @ 200W
ii. 10 x (2-min @ 300W + 2-min @ 100W)
These are substantially different workouts, the latter being significantly more stressful, and this is where mechanical work done is problematic as an indicator/measure of applied training load or stress.0 -
I was responding to the OP who had a specific question, so providing him with direct source material to help understand a little more deeply what's going on.Typical Analytical wrote:Imposter wrote:This is the first sentence of Alex's first response:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
If that doesn't scare people away I don't know what will.
If anyone isn't really sure about what's going on, they can ask.0 -
Strawman. I don't see anyone here advocating that.Typical Analytical wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather people struggle to understand concepts like CTL vs blindly use generic plans based on a single number (which completely violates the principle of individualization) or silly automated coaches :roll:
Indeed just the opposite, and that CTL et al are simply tools to help understand one's training but it's not the only tool.
The article I linked to is very thorough and provides a really helpful guide to the practical use of the tool as well as identify its limitations.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:2 workouts, both involve doing 480kJ of mechanical work:
i. 1 x 40-min @ 200W
ii. 10 x (2-min @ 300W + 2-min @ 100W)
These are substantially different workouts, the latter being significantly more stressful, and this is where mechanical work done is problematic as an indicator/measure of applied training load or stress.
FWIW - I'm not using kJ as a measure of stress. I'm using is as a measure of work. My training is simple and consistently progressed so I just need it to tell me I have done more or if I have done less. It tells me if there are chronic disruptions in my training that I might otherwise miss. It reminds me when I had a recovery week or front-loaded work before forced recovery. It gives me a baseline for future seasons. It shows me when my phases begin and end or when I change up intensity, duration or frequency for some other reason. It's an indicator of improved fitness as long as it's going up and to the right.
It might also be worthwhile to imagine the implications of less variable, arbitrary and heterogeneous training.
For example, how important is normalization indoors under fixed power and controlled conditions? (rhetorical question)
It's understood that FTP is convenient for CTL, generic training plans and automated coaches, but I'm sure there are thousands of cyclists out there doing fine without them.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Strawman. I don't see anyone here advocating that.Typical Analytical wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather people struggle to understand concepts like CTL vs blindly use generic plans based on a single number (which completely violates the principle of individualization) or silly automated coaches :roll:
Indeed just the opposite, and that CTL et al are simply tools to help understand one's training but it's not the only tool.
The article I linked to is very thorough and provides a really helpful guide to the practical use of the tool as well as identify its limitations.
The comment about generic training plans was supposed to be a relative compliment, i.e. I'd recommend any system over generic training plans.0 -
I know and admit your post was somewhat convenient to my point, which was if what I was saying (which it wasn't) was the same as 7000 words then why not just use one sentence. Much more about others' challenges than you.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
I was responding to the OP who had a specific question, so providing him with direct source material to help understand a little more deeply what's going on.Typical Analytical wrote:Imposter wrote:This is the first sentence of Alex's first response:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
If that doesn't scare people away I don't know what will.
If anyone isn't really sure about what's going on, they can ask.0 -
Can you explain this last bit for me?Typical Analytical wrote:FWIW - I'm not using kJ as a measure of stress. I'm using is as a measure of work. My training is simple and consistently progressed so I just need it to tell me I have done more or if I have done less. It tells me if there are chronic disruptions in my training that I might otherwise miss. It reminds me when I had a recovery week or front-loaded work before forced recovery. It gives me a baseline for future seasons. It shows me when my phases begin and end or when I change up intensity, duration or frequency for some other reason. It's an indicator of improved fitness as long as it's going up and to the right.
I can see how kJ goes up/down (e.g. you've ridden more/less) but how does kJ go "to the right"?0 -
FWIW - I'm not using kJ as a measure of stress. I'm using is as a measure of work. My training is simple and consistently progressed so I just need it to tell me I have done more or if I have done less. It tells me if there are chronic disruptions in my training that I might otherwise miss. It reminds me when I had a recovery week or front-loaded work before forced recovery. It gives me a baseline for future seasons. It shows me when my phases begin and end or when I change up intensity, duration or frequency for some other reason. It's an indicator of improved fitness as long as it's going up and to the right.
CTL isn't normally used in isolation but along with ATL which would give you the same info?Tri Coaching
https://www.h3otriathlon.com0 -
Yeah sorry about that. I was referring to a chart of weekly kilojoules so up and to the right would just mean week over week increases. It’s really nothing more than a summary of mechanical work by week and it reflects improved fitness that I either already know about and am progressing my training based upon (for responsive progression) or shows that I am keeping up with planned progression. That’s all. It works because my training is consistent within a block and progression is always an increase in either working power or combined interval duration.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Can you explain this last bit for me?Typical Analytical wrote:FWIW - I'm not using kJ as a measure of stress. I'm using is as a measure of work. My training is simple and consistently progressed so I just need it to tell me I have done more or if I have done less. It tells me if there are chronic disruptions in my training that I might otherwise miss. It reminds me when I had a recovery week or front-loaded work before forced recovery. It gives me a baseline for future seasons. It shows me when my phases begin and end or when I change up intensity, duration or frequency for some other reason. It's an indicator of improved fitness as long as it's going up and to the right.
I can see how kJ goes up/down (e.g. you've ridden more/less) but how does kJ go "to the right"?0 -
kJ is a measure of work, whatever you use it for.Typical Analytical wrote:FWIW - I'm not using kJ as a measure of stress. I'm using is as a measure of work.
But kJ isn't a good measure of stress because of the existence of the phenomenon that FTP is a proxy for. And work isn't a good measure of fitness. So I guess your system probably isn't a good one.0 -
I don't think so because ATL is derived from TSS which is derived from FTP.lochindaal wrote:FWIW - I'm not using kJ as a measure of stress. I'm using is as a measure of work. My training is simple and consistently progressed so I just need it to tell me I have done more or if I have done less. It tells me if there are chronic disruptions in my training that I might otherwise miss. It reminds me when I had a recovery week or front-loaded work before forced recovery. It gives me a baseline for future seasons. It shows me when my phases begin and end or when I change up intensity, duration or frequency for some other reason. It's an indicator of improved fitness as long as it's going up and to the right.
CTL isn't normally used in isolation but along with ATL which would give you the same info?0 -
So my system is bad because kJ is a measure of work and I'm using it as a measure of work and because it's not a good measure of stress which I am not using for. Got it.paul2718 wrote:
kJ is a measure of work, whatever you use it for.Typical Analytical wrote:FWIW - I'm not using kJ as a measure of stress. I'm using is as a measure of work.
But kJ isn't a good measure of stress because of the existence of the phenomenon that FTP is a proxy for. And work isn't a good measure of fitness. So I guess your system probably isn't a good one.0 -
Typical Analytical wrote:I don't think so because ATL is derived from TSS which is derived from FTP.lochindaal wrote:FWIW - I'm not using kJ as a measure of stress. I'm using is as a measure of work. My training is simple and consistently progressed so I just need it to tell me I have done more or if I have done less. It tells me if there are chronic disruptions in my training that I might otherwise miss. It reminds me when I had a recovery week or front-loaded work before forced recovery. It gives me a baseline for future seasons. It shows me when my phases begin and end or when I change up intensity, duration or frequency for some other reason. It's an indicator of improved fitness as long as it's going up and to the right.
CTL isn't normally used in isolation but along with ATL which would give you the same info?
No, that is one common use for CTL and ATL. CTL is your long term training load and ATL short term, simply. All of the stuff in bold is what CTL, ATL and the difference between the two are used for (tbh I thought you were taking the p!ss when you posted that, because that is one of the main uses of the training load system, but apparently not).
I don't disagree that kJ is useful FWIW, I just personally find weekly TSS more useful than a gross measure of how much work I have done, because it takes more account of how difficult the workouts/rides have been - but if as you say your training is simple and progressive then total kJ could be just fine. However lots of people do some form of interval training, where gross kJ might not be as useful as Alex has pointed out.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:No, that is one common use for CTL and ATL. CTL is your long term training load and ATL short term, simply. All of the stuff in bold is what CTL, ATL and the difference between the two are used for (tbh I thought you were taking the p!ss when you posted that, because that is one of the main uses of the training load system, but apparently not).
I don't disagree that kJ is useful FWIW, I just personally find weekly TSS more useful than a gross measure of how much work I have done, because it takes more account of how difficult the workouts/rides have been - but if as you say your training is simple and progressive then total kJ could be just fine. However lots of people do some form of interval training, where gross kJ might not be as useful as Alex has pointed out.
This.
KJ doesn't drive adaptation. Those other things do.
If you want the metrics for "free", you can use a Wahoo with the free app. It accepts your ftp and you input your training zones. Then provides you with TSS, power in zones, etc... You won't get CTL/ATL, but I find it more than adequate for my needs.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:No, that is one common use for CTL and ATL. CTL is your long term training load and ATL short term, simply. All of the stuff in bold is what CTL, ATL and the difference between the two are used for (tbh I thought you were taking the p!ss when you posted that, because that is one of the main uses of the training load system, but apparently not).
I don't disagree that kJ is useful FWIW, I just personally find weekly TSS more useful than a gross measure of how much work I have done, because it takes more account of how difficult the workouts/rides have been - but if as you say your training is simple and progressive then total kJ could be just fine. However lots of people do some form of interval training, where gross kJ might not be as useful as Alex has pointed out.
TLDR - I'm not advocating kJ as a measure of stress nor am I using it to prescribe training.
Ah OK I was taking you literally when you said same info. Same/similar end I can agree. Of course. But that was never the issue though. I was merely pointing out that there is more than one way to skin a cat and some are simpler than others. Power x time is as simple as it gets. Back it up with consistent application of training fundamentals and you're good to go.
I do interval training and do not use kJ to prescribe that training. kJ merely reflects progression. It plays no role in determination of readiness/need for progression.
I think the misunderstanding has to do with my original point that not everybody trains by FTP or something like that in which I mentioned that I used kJ and then there was a misunderstanding that I was using it for kJ per hour when instead I was using it for weekly training load which then lead to a discussion of TSS and ATL but I've never used kJ for that purpose, etc.0 -
I'm not using kJ to drive adaptation. I use time at intensity for that.
The Wahoo Fitness App is the only training app I use but I don't use any of its metrics. Instead I upload the data to Interval Design Studio to trend the fundamentals like working power, combined interval duration, power to heart rate, drift, etc.burnthesheep wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:No, that is one common use for CTL and ATL. CTL is your long term training load and ATL short term, simply. All of the stuff in bold is what CTL, ATL and the difference between the two are used for (tbh I thought you were taking the p!ss when you posted that, because that is one of the main uses of the training load system, but apparently not).
I don't disagree that kJ is useful FWIW, I just personally find weekly TSS more useful than a gross measure of how much work I have done, because it takes more account of how difficult the workouts/rides have been - but if as you say your training is simple and progressive then total kJ could be just fine. However lots of people do some form of interval training, where gross kJ might not be as useful as Alex has pointed out.
This.
KJ doesn't drive adaptation. Those other things do.
If you want the metrics for "free", you can use a Wahoo with the free app. It accepts your ftp and you input your training zones. Then provides you with TSS, power in zones, etc... You won't get CTL/ATL, but I find it more than adequate for my needs.0 -
Edit - Nevermind this won’t work
I’m curious if normalized power x time would be a useful metric for my purposes.
It would account for variation in power vs pure mechanical work.
It would not require FTP.
It would not give you IF or any of the benefits from fitness level adaptation.
I'm wondering because, although NP = fixed power for my indoor workouts, it might be beneficial as "free" (i.e. FTP not required) but more accurate aggregate measure like I'm currently doing with kJ.0 -
Normalised power over a time interval is pretty much just FTP by another name as well.Typical Analytical wrote:Edit - Nevermind this won’t work
I’m curious if normalized power x time would be a useful metric for my purposes.
It would account for variation in power vs pure mechanical work.
It would not require FTP.
It would not give you IF or any of the benefits from fitness level adaptation.
I'm wondering because, although NP = fixed power for my indoor workouts, it might be beneficial as "free" (i.e. FTP not required) but more accurate aggregate measure like I'm currently doing with kJ.
It strikes me that youre trying to reinvent the wheel for slightly unclear reasons. It seems to be relating to cost? You can train using it for free if you want, it would probably mean making your own spreadsheet (ive done this anyway for forecasting, and from your posts I guess you have too for other things), but so long as you have access to normalised power figures from your rides it is pretty trivial.
FTP tests aren't hard to do either (well they are hard, physically, but technically they are easy). The paid-for tools just mean you don't need to do that spreadsheet stuff yourself.
The point I'm making is not that you should ditch everything else, but if these are training questions you want to answer then other people have done a whole load of work on the topic already, there's loads of guidance available and you get the benefit of everyone else's experiences with using it to inform your own training (including from professionals like Alex and Ric on here for example).0 -
Thanks for the clarification.Typical Analytical wrote:Yeah sorry about that. I was referring to a chart of weekly kilojoules so up and to the right would just mean week over week increases. It’s really nothing more than a summary of mechanical work by week and it reflects improved fitness that I either already know about and am progressing my training based upon (for responsive progression) or shows that I am keeping up with planned progression. That’s all. It works because my training is consistent within a block and progression is always an increase in either working power or combined interval duration.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Can you explain this last bit for me?Typical Analytical wrote:FWIW - I'm not using kJ as a measure of stress. I'm using is as a measure of work. My training is simple and consistently progressed so I just need it to tell me I have done more or if I have done less. It tells me if there are chronic disruptions in my training that I might otherwise miss. It reminds me when I had a recovery week or front-loaded work before forced recovery. It gives me a baseline for future seasons. It shows me when my phases begin and end or when I change up intensity, duration or frequency for some other reason. It's an indicator of improved fitness as long as it's going up and to the right.
I can see how kJ goes up/down (e.g. you've ridden more/less) but how does kJ go "to the right"?
For some the tracking of kJ of mechanical work done as an indicator of training progression is sufficient, e.g. for those with great control over the nature of the training and racing they do and who also have predictable or consistent training patterns and with not a lot of change in training intensity distribution. This is actually relatively rare for higher end racing cyclists (pros for instance) whose programs are often relatively chaotic. Only the very top riders get to dictate their program.0 -
Not reinventing the wheel but I do mix a bit of this with a bit of that. I'm a pretty big Friel fan and especially like how he's presented things in Fast After Fifty. Interval repeats, progression guidance, phase intensity dosing, readiness indicators. I love the way he pulls it all together and presents it. I wish that book would have come along sooner. What I ended up with was pretty close to his approach but of course I'm a looooong time Bible fan. I also REALLY like the way he calls things as he see them in his answers to questions on his blog ; especially when the answer's really simple ; it's refreshing. Of course he's always been like that.
I was just thinking today how I might structure my tool demo almost completely around Fast After Fifty (with a little decoupling stuff thrown in for good measure) because I think it would help new cyclists to understand how it's used because Joe's so good at communicating and structuring things.
Ah no lol ; no spreadsheets here. Can't have that. My tool automates all that. I just upload TCX from WFA straight to the website.bobmcstuff wrote:Normalised power over a time interval is pretty much just FTP by another name as well.
It strikes me that youre trying to reinvent the wheel for slightly unclear reasons. It seems to be relating to cost? You can train using it for free if you want, it would probably mean making your own spreadsheet (ive done this anyway for forecasting, and from your posts I guess you have too for other things), but so long as you have access to normalised power figures from your rides it is pretty trivial.
FTP tests aren't hard to do either (well they are hard, physically, but technically they are easy). The paid-for tools just mean you don't need to do that spreadsheet stuff yourself.
The point I'm making is not that you should ditch everything else, but if these are training questions you want to answer then other people have done a whole load of work on the topic already, there's loads of guidance available and you get the benefit of everyone else's experiences with using it to inform your own training (including from professionals like Alex and Ric on here for example).0 -
That's great to know. Thanks, Alex.
Yeah I do most of my training indoors using fixed power repeats very similar to much of Joe Friel's guidance in Fast After Fifty.
Interval repeats and very deliberate and consistent progression with guidance like (if you haven't done intensity in a while) 3 x 3 LT ==> increased EF ==> add an interval ==> increase EF ==> increase duration ==> increase EF ==> repeat until you are doing 20 minutes ==> ready for capacity 10x30 ==> etc.
All very straightforward, based on fixed power, indoors under controlled conditions, increasing combined interval duration and so on.
I'm thinking about changing the name on my chart to simply 'kJ' and just not make any claims about it to prevent confusion.
Edit - TypoAlex_Simmons/RST wrote:Thanks for the clarification.
For some the tracking of kJ of mechanical work done as an indicator of training progression is sufficient, e.g. for those with great control over the nature of the training and racing they do and who also have predictable or consistent training patterns and with not a lot of change in training intensity distribution. This is actually relatively rare for higher end racing cyclists (pros for instance) whose programs are often relatively chaotic. Only the very top riders get to dictate their program.0 -
The funny thing about training with power is, used wisely, it can release you from a perceived need to be overly structured or regimented. That however doesn't mean one can be ill-disciplined but rather it means there is a fair degree of freedom in how one can approach training and be successful, provided key fundamental principles are followed.
Being highly structured or regimented can also be successful but it is not a necessity. The trick however is to know when one's training is constructive and when it is not, and this is where tools such as the Performance Manager (CTL etc) play a helpful role. Structure and regimen are easy to plan/program but for many not always so easy to follow.
Pros with unknown seasonal structure ahead of them, people who have more important responsibilities than cycling and who are not in a good position to follow a strict regimen. These tools are really helpful in dealing with the unknown.0 -
Yeah I agree with you 100% and also for outdoor rides where power is variable and fartlek and more complex interval workouts and so on as well.
I’ve obviously dabbled in it as I’m in Golden Cheetah occasionally to confirm things. It’s definitely cool and would be even more so if there was a one pager on it.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:The funny thing about training with power is, used wisely, it can release you from a perceived need to be overly structured or regimented. That however doesn't mean one can be ill-disciplined but rather it means there is a fair degree of freedom in how one can approach training and be successful, provided key fundamental principles are followed.
Being highly structured or regimented can also be successful but it is not a necessity. The trick however is to know when one's training is constructive and when it is not, and this is where tools such as the Performance Manager (CTL etc) play a helpful role. Structure and regimen are easy to plan/program but for many not always so easy to follow.
Pros with unknown seasonal structure ahead of them, people who have more important responsibilities than cycling and who are not in a good position to follow a strict regimen. These tools are really helpful in dealing with the unknown.0
