TSS and training hours???

fergie

As a coach I think a power meter is an excellent tool to monitor training. While I am not a big fan of TSS as I don't feel it takes into account the different effects of fatigue in individuals I do think that a good coach can use it to judge the effects of training and make plans.

I base my programmes on a type of training that improves ones performance. If performance is not improving (ave speed, speed at HR, time for course, results or ideally power output) then the programme needs to change. I always start with basic fitness and then take into account the riders goals. The programmes starts with endurance and ends with speed. The rider needs to be able to ride for race duration. Once they can do this they need to be able to ride that duration at a fast pace. Once this is accomplished they move into developing the top end endurance required for the last 20% of the race. Once this is done they move to developing the top end speed required for the last 4% of the race. In the final weeks they will do a little max speed work required for that 1% of the race where the finishing sprint or breakaway power is developed.

All through this process one can measure power and see if the rider is improving from week to week. If they are not improving then you need to try something different. Ave speed or TTs are good but power is better.

I was tracking a rider doing intervals with power and could see he was fatigued but knew he was bouncing back as his power started to shoot up during efforts. Sadly he crashed and broke his collar bone on the weekend so it's back to square one.

The NZ Track Team use SRM data to determine how well riders are going and to pick the strongest team and to select who is going to start the team and who will be strong towards the end of the 4km.

As for TSS I think there needs to be additional measures that allow the rider to make adjustments for cumulative fatigue.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

Dini77

I take your point and i'm coming to the point where i think i need to have this level of detail (hence my reason to buy). I've never really felt that need previously and have seen positive/steady improvements under current coach (i have lab tests and race results to support that). The approach used is quite similar to what Hamish described in his post. What has been different in the last 1.5 years compared to before is the better structured program i have now with current coach - ie doing the right type of training at the right time with respect to key races. I didn't have this before and don't know if having a PM would have been able to help me better structure my overall program - may be completely wrong on this??

Going forward, armed with PM and coach i hope i can take it to another level.

acoggan

Again, however, w/o direct measurements of your performance ability, you don't really know if you've been doing precisely the right type of training at precisely the right time with respect to your key races. This is what a powermeter enables you to do (and why they tend to be less useful to track cyclists, who can more readily rely on speed-vs-distance to judge the efficacy of their training).

acoggan

Not to beat a dead horse, but:

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3331

IOW, I think you're failing to realize that "the answer" isn't in TSS, but what you do with that number. (And in fact, the idea for "TSTWKT" came first, with TSS being borne from that goal/concept.)

SolarEnergy

I agree Hamish.

Percived effort and level of fatigue data is mandatory in my mind, but it can be maintained in parallel.

In a plan, I always include expected PE scaling. Then I gather athlete's log and reinput their feeling for reconciliation between the actual , and the expected.

I can't work without it.

acoggan

I'll bet that if you sent me complete power data for an athlete, I could predict the discrepancy between their actual and expected PE with a correlation of at least 0.7. (I know I can predict discrepancies between actual and expected heart rate with that much certainty.)

RapDaddyo

This byproduct of training with power is often overlooked in discussions of the merits of training with a PM. Most people want to focus on the workouts and it is true that one can do workouts similar to most simplistic workouts such as 2x20s or 6x5s. Such workouts sort of assume that one is riding on a velodrome and can maintain a constant effort somehow (e.g., speed). And, these workouts can easily be done without a PM. Thus, focusing on this very narrow question, one can easily conclude that a PM is unnecessary. But, it is the testing of one's performance anytime, anywhere that is of huge value and differentiates riding with power. And, NP raises the bar another notch. The ability to ride a variable power interval and have a measurement of its physiological constant power equivalent is, IMO, huge. I exploit these two features of riding with a PM every single week -- testing my performance and riding variable power rides with NP targets for specific segments (intervals) and the total duration of the ride. And, soon I will be able to ride precisely scripted rides on each of my training routes. I have mentioned this on several occasions and I am astonished that the coaches on this forum have not been more curious as to what I am talking about. Just interpreting the data myself, I already know there is huge value in knowing whether I am able to ride a given segment of my courses at my target power. Early in my rides, it is a piece of cake to ride at my targets. But, after 2-3 hours, those same or equivalent intervals are much harder. In fact, I have two long climbs on one of my standard rides that I use to gauge my performance and fitness. The first is 3.3 miles ~5% grade that comes at ~35 mins into my ride. The other is a 5 mile 5% grade that comes at ~2 hrs into the ride. I can ride the first one at anwhere in the range of 95%-105%FT. The second one is a real bitch at 95%FT and when I get to the top of that climb and have maintained power I feel like I'm pretty fit. My main problem is that I am now doing the first climb in 13 mins and soon it won't even qualify as an L4. That's okay. I'll just up the power and ride it as an L4 1/2.

As to TSS, I have a question to those who think it needs to be supplemented with parallel data. Do you actually use TSS?

whoawhoa

To add to RD's question, how are you using/viewing TSS? I get the impression you're looking at it as basically as possible, looking at each day as a separate, raw score instead of combining into long term averages.

acoggan

In fact, I've made a point at the beginning of various talks I've given for USAC that I see a difference between training BY power, and training WITH power. Training BY power, i.e., using a powermeter as a substitute for other means of gauging intensity (e.g., perceived effort, speed, heart rate) when attempting to execute a specific workout doesn't really provide much, if any, advantage. OTOH, training WITH power, in which you integrate the powermeter data into the overall evaluation and adaptation of your training plan, can be extremely beneficial.

For anybody who might still be sitting on the fence, I recommend reading this article here, in particular John Verheul's astute comments. I find them especially on-point because John is responsible (inadvertantly) for initially inspiring me to formalize and share my ideas about training with (not by) power, by commenting one time that he wanted to translate the Cycle-Smart heart rate based training zones into power zones. As I think is clear from his comments, his perspective has changed considerably since then, due largely to the eye-opening experience of training with a powermeter (it doesn't hurt that John is also a very sharp guy, and an excellent communicator).

asgelle

Where? The link didn't come through for me.

RapDaddyo

I have said this before, but it is your invention of NP that elevates training with power to another level, Andy. Even this discussion of the value of TSS in monitoring and managing daily, weekly or monthly training derives from NP. TSS and IF are built on top of NP. I think even you may not be aware of what you have created with the invention of NP. That's okay. I'm not sure the inventor of GPS fully appreciated the future applications of the technology. Power + NP forms the basis of a "perfect" ride, training or race.

SolarEnergy

I am a triathlon coach. I need to take swimming and running work load into account as well, bring everything down to a commun unit of measure. That is a bit more complicated. Plus, those units, I schedule them at the Yearly plan level, then distribute them accross the mezzo-cycles, micro-cycles, sessions. So a lot of room for error.

If you don't use TSS in the context of mid term planning, then matching it with PE may be irrelevent. But when you have 15 and more athletes to take care of, schedule mid term, honnestly, I am just not good enough as a coach to not having to reconcile their input with my plan.

Planning is important for me, but reajusting the plan is even more important.

I haven't start working fully with TSS yet, all that is pretty new for me.

I am learning a lot from you guys.

acoggan

Sorry - http://www.competitivecyclist.com/pdf/power_v1.pdf

SolarEnergy

To be honnest with you RD, I monitor your works more than you could think.

I am a dormant coach, not an active one. I am slowly adapting my methodology, and pay close attention to the way Frenchyge, yourself and some others manipulate and interpret power data.

I can't talk for the other coaches, but I am amazed by the level of knowlegde you guys have acheived.