Jump to content
BogFrog

Training Peaks, ATL, CTL,TSB & ABC

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stikman said:

Try today's CTL - yesterday's ATL.

Close but still not as per the graph numbers eg:

Mon CTL is 148, Sun ATL is 204 = -56 (Could be rounding) as the score is -55, however if I repeat for previous day:

Sun CTL is 150, Sat ATL is 193 = -43 ( number for TSB on Sun is -47) and this continues for the previous days as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blobby said:

Hi - Still learning this stuff, as I leave it to the coach, however the above statement appears to be a little incorrect - not sure what affects it however my current state is ATL - 187, CTL - 148 which should leave the TSB as being -39, however my TSB is actually -55, that seems to be quite a variance.

image.png.b18da70d34a2bd9f4a4e9b9d12dbcaf8.png

thanks Stephen

That’s was off the top of my head - refer to training peaks for exact science 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's TSB = Yesterday's CTL - yesterday's ATL

Those are very high ATL and CTL values. A CTL beyond 140 is not normally sustainable for long.

If the training is not all that hard, it's quite possible/probably your TSS values are being inflated (perhaps threshold is set too low).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alex Simmons said:

Today's TSB = Yesterday's CTL - yesterday's ATL

Those are very high ATL and CTL values. A CTL beyond 140 is not normally sustainable for long.

If the training is not all that hard, it's quite possible/probably your TSS values are being inflated (perhaps threshold is set too low).

Thanks Alex and agree with comments on levels / thresholds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Alex Simmons said:

Today's TSB = Yesterday's CTL - yesterday's ATL

Those are very high ATL and CTL values. A CTL beyond 140 is not normally sustainable for long.

If the training is not all that hard, it's quite possible/probably your TSS values are being inflated (perhaps threshold is set too low).

Thanks Alex, that now makes sense.  As for the high ATL/CTL values this is a heavy training block, and agree that I won't be able to sustain it. My coach is Gerard Donnelly and we are building up for 3 Peaks, with Geelong 70.3 this weekend (not much taper as its not a key race, more just to work on bike pacing as I start to build my running back up after injury timeout.)  Regular FTP tests, the last one was slightly lower than expected so there could be a small impact there, but currently slowly improving and learning heaps especially about road riding.

Cheers

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'd like to really nerd out on this stuff, look up any of Tim Gabbett's academic work on training load.

For decades we have known "training error" is responsible for a large proportion of non-traumatic injuries across a number of sports. Gabbett's work has tightly defined that and used the ratio of acute to chronic exposure to quantify risk of injury. The ACWR (acute to chronic workload ratio) is now a key metric tracked by high performance staff world wide.

Divide your acute workload (7 days) by your chronic workload (28 days) and if the number remains above 1.2 for any length of time you are at increased risk of injury or illness. i.e. increase your training load by more than 20% in a week on what you've done over the last month and you are asking for trouble. This has been validated across numerous sports now.

To quantify training load you can use metrics like power, km's run etc or use internal load like HR impulse (HR and time) but the standard used across a number of sports is session-RPE expressed as arbitrary units. 60 minutes of training at RPE of 5 equates to a session RPE of 300aU. Total these for the day and take a rolling average for 28 and 7 days and  calculate the ACWR.

Exceeding a value of 1.2 doesn't guarantee injury or illness. In a sport with a baseline risk of injury incidence of 4% per player hour, exceeding the ACWR threshold might double or triple the risk, leaving you with 8-12% chance of getting injured. In players worth millions of dollars, very educated decisions informed by data are made, not arbitrary "rotation" choices. It is very interesting to learn about.

Edited by Parkside
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point Gabbet has made on the occasions I’ve seen him present this stuff. 

I used TRIMP and Sports tracks plugins to monitor this info 10 years ago. Monitoring is certainly much more sophisticated now using GPS and accelerometer data in field and contact sports. Players are tracked for high speed running metres, G forces and heavy contacts and managed accordingly in professional football codes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pieman said:

Do you guys pay $20 a month for this or have you used discount codes? Seems pricey...

If there is a cheaper option I'd be happy to use it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use WKO4, which is a one off licence fee and the free Training Peaks for data sync. Golden Cheetah is cheapest option $ wise since it is freeware. There will be a time cost of course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Alex Simmons said:

I use WKO4, which is a one off licence fee and the free Training Peaks for data sync. Golden Cheetah is cheapest option $ wise since it is freeware. There will be a time cost of course.

Yeah I used WKO3 but the wko4 scared me when i was on the trial so didnt upgrade. wko3 now seems largely useless and didnt play well with a number of my devices so am on TP basic and strava

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blobby said:

I have a discount code that was around $100py.

This - TA Australia have a 20% discount code on their website or you can find one from USA Triathlon teams online easy enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another pinch of saltis needed when interpreting your readiness to race depending on your lifestyle. 

I'll be going in to my next race with NQR numbers.  

But I'm doing fieldwork the 2 weeks leading in which is fatiguing in a way that isn't reflected as part of my training load. 

We've had to modify what would be a normal taper period to account for the work I'm doing - so the numbers make it look like I'm more rested than I really am. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Turts said:

Another pinch of saltis needed when interpreting your readiness to race depending on your lifestyle. 

I'll be going in to my next race with NQR numbers.  

But I'm doing fieldwork the 2 weeks leading in which is fatiguing in a way that isn't reflected as part of my training load. 

We've had to modify what would be a normal taper period to account for the work I'm doing - so the numbers make it look like I'm more rested than I really am. 

Yes. Actual physical fatigue from work is hard to account for. My job is more mentally fatiguing, serious concentration for 6hrs on the bike. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, FFF1077 said:

Yes. Actual physical fatigue from work is hard to account for. My job is more mentally fatiguing, serious concentration for 6hrs on the bike. 

Indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×