Training Load

by mechgt

Downloads: 12,931 (48) • Reviews: 18

Version:

2.0.7

Updated:

Aug 26, 2015

Training Load Plugin

Postby racerfern » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:37 am

I don't stop training. I certainly back off and if a big ride looms, I do easy rides with one hard effort per week until my TSB builds. Don't forget to look at CTL (long term training effects) and ATL (short term training effects).

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/power411.aspx
Fernando
racerfern
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:49 pm
Location: East Atlantic Beach, NY

Postby texmurphy » Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:23 pm

Easiest to take it easy and let ATL do the job of balancing the TSB but long run best to take it hard and force CTL to correct TSB (maybe) :evil:
texmurphy
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Postby smaryka » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:37 pm

See my post earlier in this thread about hard/easy days and training cycles (e.g., 3 weeks hard, 1 week recovery). The natural rise and fall of CTL, ATL and TSB will take care of itself (hopefully with an overall rising CTL!) if you plan your workouts wisely, recover well, and back off *before* you feel overtrained

Basically:
-- hard workouts should be hard, everything else should be easy
-- try to put at least 36 hours between hard workouts
-- plan to ramp up over a few weeks, then recover with an easy week
-- take days off when necessary, or "active recovery" days with very light spinning on the bike or super easy swims (no running workout can be considered recovery afaic, running is just too much a weight-bearing exercise to not be hard on your body)
-- eat and sleep well and manage the other stresses in your life to limit their effect on your training stress

Have a look at some training books for more info, or just google it online. Lots of info out there for the reading.
smaryka
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:38 am
Location: United Kingdom

Weekly CTL

Postby fourbeer » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:43 am

Is there a way to view your weekly CTL cumulative totals?
fourbeer
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:12 am
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Postby Stumpjumper68 » Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:13 am

Hi fourbeer,

yes install the latest build and go to
the settings page.
Image
Stumpjumper68
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 1076
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Bad Vilbel, Germany

Postby fourbeer » Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:49 am

Stumpjumper68 wrote:Hi fourbeer,

yes install the latest build and go to
the settings page.


I only see:
Time Constants
HR Zone Settings
And two check boxes for Filter Charts and Forecast.

I am using 1.2.5
fourbeer
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:12 am
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Postby racerfern » Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:43 am

On the TrainingLoad display page, right click on the header area and select "CTL" and anything else you want from the list.
Fernando
racerfern
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:49 pm
Location: East Atlantic Beach, NY

Training Load discussions - why have they ended after 3/3/09

Postby kevs_running » Sat May 09, 2009 5:03 pm

[quote="mechgt"]New release of Training Load: 1.2.4
Changes since 1.2.3 :
- Added Status charts
- Copy table data to clipboard
- Forecasting fix for planned activities
- Polish language
- Several minor bugfixes and localization updates

Also note the new Training Load Forum.[/ :shock: quote]
kevs_running
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 3:09 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Switch » Sun May 10, 2009 4:18 pm

fourbeer wrote:
Stumpjumper68 wrote:Hi fourbeer,

yes install the latest build and go to
the settings page.


I only see:
Time Constants
HR Zone Settings
And two check boxes for Filter Charts and Forecast.

I am using 1.2.5

I also see "roling sums".
To get your weekly (rolling) CTL, set the rolling value to 7.

Good luck!
Switch
Switch
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:25 am
Location: Switzerland

Postby Jamie T » Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:54 am

Is there any consensus on whether you should use the percentage zones based on working heart rate (i.e. MHR-RHR) or just maximum heart rate? If I use the percentage zones on just maximum heart rate the lower zones are really low. If I use the percentage zones on working heart rate they seem to suit my exercise perception a lot better but I haven't seen an answer.

Thanks.
Jamie T
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:04 pm

Postby smaryka » Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:33 am

Jamie T wrote:Is there any consensus on whether you should use the percentage zones based on working heart rate (i.e. MHR-RHR) or just maximum heart rate? If I use the percentage zones on just maximum heart rate the lower zones are really low. If I use the percentage zones on working heart rate they seem to suit my exercise perception a lot better but I haven't seen an answer.

Thanks.


I have the zones set up to mimic the HR zones I got from Joe Friel's formula ages ago. Even though I train by power/wattage on the bike and pace on the run these days, I still use HR as a secondary training tool and also to help analyse my data.

Here's a good run-down of the zones, including how to test to determine them. They are based around not max HR but threshold HR, which is more or less the HR you put out at a 10k running race or a 40k time trial on the bike.

Since I have a powermeter on my bike to measure wattage, and a Garmin 405 that measures running pace on the fly, I've been able to compare the TSS/TRIMP numbers that Training Peaks/WKO+ software gets from those devices with what ST Training Load calculates based on HR. The one thing I've noticed is that HR for me varies greatly depending on how rested I am (the same wattage/pace produces zone 4/5 HR when I'm rested, but only zone 3/4 when I'm carrying a high ATL). If you're serious about TRIMP and training load, ATL/CTL, etc. you should do some similar observations on yourself and adjust accordingly. Otherwise you might find your TRIMP for a given activity will be too high/low.

Anyway, after messing about with the factors in Training Load to try and get them to be the same as what I get from WKO+, I've come up with the following (note my lactate threshold is different between running and cycling, and zone 1 is huge as it starts from zero):

Image

Image
smaryka
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:38 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby ildibad » Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:22 am

Smaryka,

I'm a little bit disturbed by your zones boundaries.
First zone upper limit seems so high !

Zones are supposed to give information to the trainee and help to achieve goals. You should not bend zone to fit your feeling of today, but you should train according "achievable" targets.

I agree with you on one point : The aim of good training in endurance activities is to unlink HR and wattage/pace.

A good training is also a training covering all HR zones and speed zones.

Draw your conclusion : set the boundaries according the next big target you have.

In Belgium, we have health checks for athletes with effort measurement on threadmill or bike. That give you an independant and more objective value.

regards,
Running with :
acics kayano 18 - Sports tracker pro (android) - polar wearlink bluetooth
my dog : Ithaq (border collee) (Shimly - a happy mixing - retired in 2012)
ildibad
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:56 am
Location: Belgium - Liege - 50°39N - 5°35'E

Postby smaryka » Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:17 am

ildibad wrote:Smaryka,

I'm a little bit disturbed by your zones boundaries.
First zone upper limit seems so high !


Well, like I said, I determined the zones from my lactate threshold which has been tested in numerous ways including lab-based blood lactate tests. As you know, HR numbers are very specific to each person and I happen to have a high max HR and low resting HR for whatever reason (genetics is a big part of it). This is why every serious athlete should take the time to do proper testing and not just use arbitrary numbers like 220 minus your age.

ildibad wrote:Zones are supposed to give information to the trainee and help to achieve goals. You should not bend zone to fit your feeling of today, but you should train according "achievable" targets.


Again, I don't train by HR anymore, partly because I've found that it is not very accurate -- HR can be influenced by so many things, some of which are related to training, some of which aren't. For example, when I'm training with lots of ATL fatigue, my HR is somewhat depressed at the high end. I can hit my running pace targets but if I used only HR to gauge how fast I should be running, I would be pushing myself way too hard! Pace is a much more reliable training tool than HR.

So to be honest I don't pay any attention to HR zones when training UNLESS I'm feeling particularly tired or bad -- then I will use HR as a secondary indication of effort level. 99% of the time I use only pace for running and watts for cycling. HR during exercise is generally something I look at later when I get home, more out of interest's sake than anything else.

I do however monitor my morning resting heart rate as an indication of overtraining or illness (more than 5 beats higher than normal means I take it easy for a few days).

With regard to "bending zones", I don't change my HR zones at all. Instead, I've manipulated the TRIMP factors for each zone (Training Load calculates them from HR) to better mimic the TRIMP/TSS values I get from WKO+ (which are done by pace/power, ignoring HR). I prefer Sport Tracks to WKO+ for tracking my overall training load, the interface is better -- in fact pretty much everything is better about Sport Tracks! WKO+ is really only useful for looking at peak power/pace values I find. So I prefer to use a mix of both software, with the bulk of my training load analysis done in Sport Tracks.

ildibad wrote:I agree with you on one point : The aim of good training in endurance activities is to unlink HR and wattage/pace.

A good training is also a training covering all HR zones and speed zones.

Draw your conclusion : set the boundaries according the next big target you have.

In Belgium, we have health checks for athletes with effort measurement on threadmill or bike. That give you an independant and more objective value.

regards,


Agreed that good training involves a variety of intensities and volumes. As an Ironman athlete and cycle racer, I do a mix of speedwork, endurance work, hills, etc. in my training. Obviously the type of mix depends on how far away my event is and what my current goals are (e.g., increasing FTP, improving hill climbing, gaining endurance, etc.)

Not sure what you mean by "setting boundaries according to the next big target"? Certainly my training schedule is geared to the events I'm doing, generally with more specific training closer to the event. But I don't adjust my HR/pace/wattage zones according to my race goals, only the time spent training in each zone. I only update my pace/wattage zones when I see marked improvement (setting a new PB for instance). With only minor changes, my HR zones are essentially the same as they were 5 years ago when I started taking triathlon seriously.

Keep in mind that I've spent a lifetime participating in sports at a reasonably high level. As a triathlete I fall between "really good age-grouper" and "mediocre pro". :wink: So yes, I train hard and take this stuff quite seriously, and I know what I'm doing. :)
smaryka
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:38 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby ildibad » Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:01 pm

As an Ironman athlete


respect 8) 8)

We are not playing in the same league. :P

I'm a modest runner with 20-25 miles a week schedule.

My next big target is to run my first marathon.

One thing that I have learned the hard way is that the rules that work for high level athletes doesn't apply for lay sportsmen like me.

On my level, I have to balance betwee HR and pace.

Regards,
Running with :
acics kayano 18 - Sports tracker pro (android) - polar wearlink bluetooth
my dog : Ithaq (border collee) (Shimly - a happy mixing - retired in 2012)
ildibad
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:56 am
Location: Belgium - Liege - 50°39N - 5°35'E

Postby Jamie T » Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:47 pm

Thanks alot for the prompt answers - I wasn't expecting a reply for a week or so :)

I've gone through a phase of training for mountain bike races with a heart rate monitor in specific zones and I then ditched it and just trained by feel. I've got a 705 on order and the training load plugin grabbed my attention due to the ability to show a number of factors so I am really keen to go back to heart rate zones (along with common sense).

Unfortunately I don't have a power meter so HR is the next best thing. I'll read Eric's article and see what my zones are.

I guess my question is the following:

Training loads uses TRIMP factors - these TRIMP factors are a number times the heart rate zone. The difference between using the percentage of MHR versus percentage of working rate is really big. Any suggestions?
Jamie T
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:04 pm

Postby mechgt » Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:01 pm

Jamie T wrote:...I guess my question is the following:

Training loads uses TRIMP factors - these TRIMP factors are a number times the heart rate zone. The difference between using the percentage of MHR versus percentage of working rate is really big. Any suggestions?


By default, Training Load uses the working HR range you have entered in the athlete profile (see athlete button at top of SportTracks window) to setup factors. If you have 'dynamic factors' checked, this means that this range can change over time, and if you input new factors it won't impact your historical data (but the trade-off is that you have to accept my factor algorithm :) )

IMO it doesn't make sense to simply use Max HR, instead of your working range.
Enhance SportTracks with Training Load, Fit Plan and more plugins at mechgt.com. Garmin FR310XT & iBike iPro
mechgt
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:13 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Postby Jamie T » Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:29 pm

mechgt wrote:
Jamie T wrote:By default, Training Load uses the working HR range you have entered in the athlete profile (see athlete button at top of SportTracks window) to setup factors. If you have 'dynamic factors' checked, this means that this range can change over time, and if you input new factors it won't impact your historical data (but the trade-off is that you have to accept my factor algorithm :) )

IMO it doesn't make sense to simply use Max HR, instead of your working range.


Excellent - thanks alot for the clarification. Out of all the plugins that I've played around with so far yours is the one that's got me really excited. Thanks alot for the hard work you have done. Hopefully I'll be able to hit some PBs in my races :D
Jamie T
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:04 pm

Postby smaryka » Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:53 am

Jamie T wrote:Out of all the plugins that I've played around with so far yours is the one that's got me really excited. Thanks alot for the hard work you have done. Hopefully I'll be able to hit some PBs in my races :D


Indeed, thanks mechgt for all the hard work on this plugin! It's by far one of my favourites too.

For the record, the TRIMP/TSS values calculated from the HR factors that I originally set up are more or less what WKO+ puts out, especially for "triathlon-style" workouts, i.e., solo rides and steady paced efforts. I have inputted all my paper logbooks going back to 2005 with only time, distance, avg and max HR and my TSS graph is very believable.

My workouts changed dramatically this year, coinciding with getting a powermeter/WKO+ and starting cycle racing, and those high-intensity/riding in a pack type efforts are where I notice WKO+ and Training Load start to differ. At the same time, my overall training volume and CTL has also gone up considerably this year, as well I've been carrying higher ATL more consistently. I believe this has depressed my heart rate at times, making the Training Load calculations a bit low at times, especially on long runs. Still it's a great plug-in and blows WKO+ away for interface and UI. :)

Now if only I can do a better job of using the data to get my Ironman taper right for my next race...
smaryka
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:38 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Jamie T » Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:44 pm

Could someone provide me with a suggested starting ATL and CTL? I have just started a four month training block after a one month rest.

Thanks.
Jamie T
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:04 pm

Postby racerfern » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:46 pm

I started with ATL 40 and CTL 60. In retrospect I should have started about 20 points higher for each. However, that was almost 9 months ago so the effect of those values has come and gone.

Although after a one month rest, that might about right.
Fernando
racerfern
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:49 pm
Location: East Atlantic Beach, NY

Postby Jamie T » Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:45 am

Thanks.
Jamie T
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:04 pm

Postby Zero » Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:33 am

How do people here typically deal with periods of missing data?

Because my logbook goes back to Feb 2007, I have periods where missing data (eg, when I lost my HR strap, or when the battery died) causes a plummet in CTL/ATL/TSB.

Also, TSB doesn't seem to be telling me a great deal - mine for the last three months seems to hovering around -15, so I really don't have any idea what's real and what's of concern.
eg, currently it's sitting on CTL=108,ATL=116,TSB=-8 (RHR=48 thismorning), with a taper date of 4/09/09 (for 20/09/09) reaching TSB=+40 on 20/09/09... but that's not really telling me much.

It'd be good to be able to make a bit more sense of it all.
Zero
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:24 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby smaryka » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:28 am

Zero wrote:How do people here typically deal with periods of missing data?

Because my logbook goes back to Feb 2007, I have periods where missing data (eg, when I lost my HR strap, or when the battery died) causes a plummet in CTL/ATL/TSB.


Your CTL/ATL will have levelled out since then so I wouldn't worry about it. However if you want, you can go back and enter workouts for those missing data days and estimate a TRIMP for it if you have no HR. Just type TRIMP=x (where x is the number you estimated) into the summary box and it will show up in Training Load.

Zero wrote:Also, TSB doesn't seem to be telling me a great deal - mine for the last three months seems to hovering around -15, so I really don't have any idea what's real and what's of concern.
eg, currently it's sitting on CTL=108,ATL=116,TSB=-8 (RHR=48 thismorning), with a taper date of 4/09/09 (for 20/09/09) reaching TSB=+40 on 20/09/09... but that's not really telling me much.

It'd be good to be able to make a bit more sense of it all.


Try reading these links:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... chart.aspx
http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2 ... wko-q.html
http://thewheelsonthebikegoroundandroun ... tltsb.html

Basically if your TSB is the same, it means you're training the same all the time (never really pushing yourself beyond, never really resting). Any improvements in fitness need to push your ATL higher then let it come down again (to bring your CTL up without overtraining).

Post a screenshot of your Training Load chart and I can tell you more about it if you want.
smaryka
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:38 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Zero » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:54 am

Two high-res copies of the PMC are at:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/97682/sportt ... -08-29.png
and
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/97682/sportt ... zoomed.png (last 5 months zoomed).

I had a bit of a think about this, looking at the way CTL keeps rising, and it occurred to me - basing this on TRIMP might not really work, if I understand correctly, as CTL wouldn't show an improvement. If RHR and MHR remain constant (as they generally do when you reach a certain level of fitness), then you don't have a measurable value which is changing as your fitness changes, whereas with TSS, which is based on FT, does.
So while I know my FT has increased from 230W to 305W between May and July (I stopped training after Nationals), my HR and LT have been more of less static.

Essentially I'm trying to figure out:
- How long it takes for me to fully recover empirically rather than just based on feel.
- How I can identify I'm falling into a pit and risk overdoing it leading up to major races (eg, National Marathon Championships on 20/09, State Marathon Championships on 4/10, SC6Hour on 24/10).
Zero
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:24 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby jibberjim » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:36 am

Zero wrote:Two high-res copies of the PMC are at:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/97682/sportt ... -08-29.png


You did an event with a TSS of ~1550 !! What was that? Looking at it simply without knowing more about your events I would say that the your numbers look inflated compared to "normal". Not that that matters in the slightest as long as you're consistent and only comparing to yourself.

Zero wrote:I had a bit of a think about this, looking at the way CTL keeps rising, and it occurred to me - basing this on TRIMP might not really work, if I understand correctly, as CTL wouldn't show an improvement. If RHR and MHR remain constant (as they generally do when you reach a certain level of fitness), then you don't have a measurable value which is changing as your fitness changes, whereas with TSS, which is based on FT, does.
So while I know my FT has increased from 230W to 305W between May and July (I stopped training after Nationals), my HR and LT have been more of less static.


Yes, but whilst your HR hasn't changed, the watts required for you to reach that HR has. So if you're training to power and were doing a 30 minutes at 230W workout in May your HR would've been higher than doing the same workout of 30 minutes at 230W today with the higher FTP. Of course fitness changes won't always be perfectly reflected in HR, but it will be enough for you to tell such a large increase in fitness.

Zero wrote:Essentially I'm trying to figure out:
- How long it takes for me to fully recover empirically rather than just based on feel.
- How I can identify I'm falling into a pit and risk overdoing it leading up to major races (eg, National Marathon Championships on 20/09, State Marathon Championships on 4/10, SC6Hour on 24/10).


I don't think you're going to be able to do that. There's no hard or fast rule, it's one of the individual variations in athletes. Some people are happy with a lot larger over-reach than others, you need to look back at your history and see if you can identify what was happening when you did overreach, or when you did well in an event etc. There's no hard and fast rule saying a -10% TSB pit is too big or anything.
jibberjim
Donated!
Donated!
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:15 pm
Location: Kingston-Upon-Thames

PreviousNext

Return to Training Load

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron