TSS & IF versus training adaptions

Roadie_scum

I have just started using TSS and IF to track my training and am wondering if someone can speak to the difference between training effect and TSS. That is, if I accumulate TSS points, can I presume there is a strong training effect, and, conversely, if I don't get many TSS points in a week, that there isn't a good training effect? I understand it primarily is a way of preventing overtraining and tracking training load. I am trying to understand the link between load and effect. It seems to me that a well structured 10 hour a week program can get more training effect than a poorly structured 20 hour a week program despite having less TSS points. (My training is closer to 20 hours, this is just an example). Similarly, it seems to me that the training effect is going to be dictated by the content of the training (Is it Tempo, Threshold, VO2max, Anaerobic Power, Sprints, etc) more than the overall load. I am obviously going to avoid weeks where TSS>1000. Is there anything else I can/should use them to monitor. Provided I focus on the correct things in my build (get the right intervals done at the right time), should i then go about accumulating more TSS points with tempo and endurance rides to enhance FT or is there an argument for just resting to maximize supercompensation from intervals?

frenchyge

Training Stress Score measures just that -- stress. The effect that the stress (or load) produces within the body depends on the nature of the stress (eg. IF). 2 rides with equal TSS values may produce quite different effects on the body if their IF values are dissimilar.

I think you should watch both IF and TSS for a typical buildup training plan. While the overall IF would probably build over time, TSS could either be steady, increasing slowly during the build phase, or a series of building steps with rest weeks in between mesocycles, depending upon your training approach. A nice thing about TSS is that it allows you to not lose track of your training load as the intensity changes or new workouts are substituted for others along the way. In that sense, TSS isn't the primary focus of a structured training plan, but keeping an eye on it helps you keep the mix about right when you start adding intensity.

RapDaddyo

Very interesting question. I don't claim to be an expert, but this is how I use the various charts and measures. My primary training objective is a target number of minutes in L4-L7 per ride and per week and I use a separate chart to track that. It can be misleading if I get minutes in a level that is not part of an interval (e.g., a brief acceleration on a short climb), but I manage that on the ride itself. I use IF to measure the intensity of a given ride, with an expectation of a degradation in IF as a function of total ride duration. Actually, I plan rides to attain a target NP and IF. And I use TSS exclusively to measure total stress, with a 1000 pt cutpoint for focus (i.e., <1000 pts, I'm not worried about overtraining so I don't really care what the actual number is).

RapDaddyo

I don't. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that matters is total time at L4-L7, unless I want to just enjoy the scenery.

Roadie_scum

Well I guess that focus is specific to whatever events you are targeting? I am concerned primarily to increase FT as this is the main limiter for my target events. Consequently I am doing the bulk of training emphasising NP ~L3 but without being tied down to a certain zone. For example, on rolling terrain I'll push quite hard up short hills, etc. I'll also do some 2X20's, etc. I'm going to do the more specific L5+ stuff later, though I end up spending some time in those zones anyway from riding rolling terrain and doing group rides.

This is what I'm all about for now: http://www.rongilcreast.com/ACoggan...evels_chart.htm

RapDaddyo

Well, to a limited extent, yes. But, like you, I am primarily focused on increasing FT and the core determinants are L4 and L5 intervals. I just don't believe I increase power at L3 or below. For me, the primary purpose of a training ride is time in L4-L7. Most of my rides are 3+ hours and an IF of .85 is pretty high relative to my MP/duration curve. But, if I rode for the entire ride at a constant power of 85%FT, I would consider it a largely worthless ride. My view of a training ride is it's a string of L4-L7 intervals with some other junk thrown in between the intervals.

frenchyge

Is there any basis behind that figure? The strain and volume curves appear to be somewhat arbitrary mirror images of each other, and the effect curve doesn't appear to be a mathematic combination of the other 2 curves at all. I'm sure it's intended as a diagram to point to the location of the 'Sweet Spot' but it could point anywhere on the figure depending upon how the effect curve is drawn. For example, the apex of the effect curve would be elsewhere if you multiplied the strain value by the volume value at each intensity.

I've considered taking my Max Power v. Duration curve and plotting it out as Max TSS v. Duration graph to see what intensity would allow someone to achieve the maximum TSS for a ride. Would that indicate an individual's 'Sweet Spot'?

RapDaddyo

Couldn't you just plot max IF vs. duration for the same result?

frenchyge

No, I don't believe so. That'd tell you that high IF's are possible for short durations and low IF's at long durations, but not much else. Essentially, that'd just normalize the Mean Max Power curve to FT.

beerco

In general, the higher the IF for a given TSS, the greater the training effect.

SST seems to balance the two really well.

frenchyge

Is that the inverse of TSS?

whoawhoa

sweet spot training

acoggan

It's a theoretical construct meant mostly as a teaching tool ("a picture is worth a thousand words"). That said, my gut says that it portrays reality fairly accurately, even if I can't prove it.



They are mirror images, but their shape wasn't chosen arbitrarily: they both are 4th order functions, based on the fact that not only does metabolic strain increase at approximately that rate with increasing intensity, but time-to-fatigue also decreases at approximately the same (inverse) rate.



I've played around a lot in Excel with how to best present the effect curve, but can't say that I'm really pleased (or set upon) any particular representation as of yet. The key point, however, is that when you consider the trade-off between intensity and volume that there seems to be a "sweet spot" that lies somewhere at or below 100% functional threshold power, but above the level 2/3 border.



No, what that would show is that as you ride for longer and longer periods, you "earn" more TSS, but not in a linear fashion since intensity must be reduced. There's a difference, though, between the stress imposed by training (which is what TSS is intended to reflect), and the resultant improvements in performance. IOW, more is not always better...

acoggan

In general I think you grasp the concepts: TSS is meant to reflect/help you manage your overall training load, but the "composition" of those TSS points is what determines how much you improve in terms of any particular ability. For example, a pursuiter might maintain a very high average daily TSS of ~120-130 points/d by doing lots of level 5/6/7 intervals, but that isn't necessarily the best way to prepare for, say, a stage race or longer TT. Conversely, the same individual might rack up the same ~120-130 points/d doing lots of "sweet spot" training and be essentially equally stressed, but would perform much better in longer events (but not as well in a pursuit).

To put it another way: training stress score does not = training performance score.