TSS by itself does not 100% describe your training but I can’t think of another metric that describes training intensity/volume all in one except maybe TiZ (though that might be 6+ different metrics, one for each zone).
1 Like
Yup, that’s my point. I am not as deep into the analytics as many others here, so am happy to learn of a better, single metric.
But the fact that TSS can frame a single workout, and then grow to capture stress over time (on a weekly, monthly and annual level), seems to make it pretty far reaching.
That is the point, there isn’t one, full stop. If you don’t know all the metrics you don’t know any, essentially.
If you put a gun to head and said pick one, RPE would be it, but that would be self defeating with all the other tools at your disposal.
See above.
Yep, for base and build phases TSS does the job in “predicting” (modeling) your future but problem is it ends there.
My whole point is that you actually don’t need TSS for that.
If it were till the end of training plan ok, but it doesn’t.
I’m always suspicious of using the term “predicting your future” because what role does training load play in a periodized plan? Off the top of my head the answer I believe is that training load is intended to be progressively overloaded to force the body to adapt.
Both time and TSS are ways to quantify the progressive overload. The advantage of TSS is that it encapsulates both time and intensity. And practically speaking, say your weekend plans change and you are forced to shorten a longer zone2 workout. Another advantage of TSS is that it offers more help coming up with a shorter but more intense workout, while still working towards weekly progressive overload goal.
Sure time is pretty good at quantifying progressive overload in a traditional base plan where you are riding at zone2 from say 12 hours up to 25 hours/week. But as a time crunched 8-12 hours/week rider, all things being equal I’d rather use TSS than time at helping me plan and execute a periodized plan.
1 Like
Finally found this Coach Joe Friel article, here is another useful way of using CTL to estimate TSS for hard/medium/easy workouts during the week:
Typically athletes have three basic and general categories of workouts they do on a weekly basis. Let’s call them “hard,” “moderate,” and “easy.” What most of us do is follow a hard workout with an easy one and occasionally insert a moderate session. What should the TSS be for each of these general categories? Here’s a quick way to estimate them based on your CTL for any given day.
Hard workout—add 50 to 100% to CTL
Moderate workout—add 10-30% to CTL
Easy workout—subtract 20-30% from CTL
Again TSS and CTL are practical planning tools at several levels: annual, weekly, and for individual workouts. While you can plan simply using hours, I hope you see there are advantages to using TSS (hours+intensity) and CTL. Don’t be a slave to these numbers, it is not an exact science.
1 Like
A similar thing can be achieved by overlaying TiZ with TSS together. To give you a TSS for each “zone” essentially. I once hacked a spreadsheet together that did this. Seems Xert is defining three zones for this purpose, which is a solid approach.
1 Like
I guess these is far from accurate.
It depends if those same TSS are going to be achieved in Zone 2 or HIIT…
For the past maybe but I’m talking about the future.
This conversation is like teaching someone how to use a hammer, and when you need a screwdriver they pull out a hammer and complain the screw is broken.
TSS and CTL are tools, learn how to use them properly.
3 Likes
If anybody is interested in actual scientific research on the topic, Dajo Sanders has published several articles based on data from pro cyclists. On the whole, they show that TSS works about as well - or about as poorly, depending on your perspective - as various alternatives, e.g., TRIMP, iTRIMP, RPE, etc.