Wouldn’t that then be Load, not Volume?
2 Likes
Load over time could be a way to describe Volume.
What’s your definition of Load?
My unpopular opinion:
Going against standardized terminology and vernacular is fun because it creates chaos and confusion!
7 Likes
It’s going to kick off on the running thread as well, maybe it’s time I took a break from the internet!
Unpopular running opinion: I have enough glycogen stored for about 1800kJ of running.
1 Like
1 cubic meter of lead is not the same volume as 1 cubic liter of water.
Because my definition of volume is not the amount of space occupied, mine includes both space and weight. It’s a new branch of science, WindWarrior science.
3 Likes
Your definition of volume only has an X axis, time…so nur nur ne nur nur. 
That’s not an opinion at all. It’s either a fact because it’s true, regardless of how you arrived at it, or an incorrect estimate. 
5 Likes
explain volume of sound:
Think of it this way… Volume is a basic quantity. Training time on your calendar is a basic quantity.
What volume of training have I done this week? Not much 
In other words, how much space on my calendar has been dedicated to training? Available space is 168 hours per week.
This is conventional use of the term volume in the context of training.
1 Like
… and worth remembering that (outside the extremes) IF trends towards about 0.7 to 0.8 for everyone, and so hours and TSS are pretty much in lock step.
No thanks 
I would’ve stayed on the Bu thread if I wanted to.
My unpopular opinion stands, and talking about training in the single dimension of time is meaningless. There can be no actual training without an intensity. There can be no actual training without time. Therefore Volume is a combination of these dimensions to have any meaning in reality.
In any case, time itself is an inextricable component of space-time which itself has four dimensions. If you can describe your Z2 obsession in a non-Newtonian Universe, training along the curvature of space-time, then maybe we have a debate on our hands…
3 Likes
I’m not trying to dissuade you from an unpopular opinion. Training load is volume and intensity, you are free to fly your anti-establishment flag and confuse everyone.
“Z2 obsession” - just being honest that piling on 6+ weeks of 9-12 hours/week volume, at a 35-45% ftp volume has delivered my biggest aerobic gains ever. I’ve even seen gains from doing HC climbs in zone1 - you know, the junk mile zone 
Maybe its better if you call it a “junk mile obsession” because I only recognize easy riding and trying to rack up more low-intensity muscle contractions. Intensity obsessed folks call 35-45% or 40-55% junk miles. Coggan calls that intensity active recovery, and apparently my body likes recovering
2 Likes
My brain got stuck trying to figure out “cubic liter”.
We’re talking like 6th dimension of space here.
6 Likes
1 cubic meter is about 3 cubic feet. A square box about 13 inches on each side. Just over a foot on each side. Seriously, how can a high tech society exist without basic math and science skills? This isn’t a 6th dimension discussion, and I’m not asking anyone to assign an aleph number to the cardinality of different infiniti sets…
1 Like
Mmm… closer to 3 feet (or one yard), cubed, i.e 3³ ft³, or 27ft³. But a metre is longer than a yard so a m³ is bigger than a yd³ or 27ft³.
Sanity check out of the way, 1m³ = 35.315 ft³, according to this page.
(edited because I’m a poor proofreader today & had written f instead of ft.)
5 Likes
I’m bored with the discussion, so please correct my math!
2 Likes
3 Likes
Ok, I’ll bite.
A cubic meter is closer to 27 cubic feet than 3. Technically since a meter is 39” it is actually just over 35 cubic feet.
4 Likes
Like ‘That thing on the back wheel, you know, ‘that thing’? Well, it was loose, and then fell off. Do you have another one?’.
Or like this: ‘That rubber thing, on the back brake. Do I need that?’ Um, ‘rubber thing’? Um… What? (Bleed rubber binky)
If using “volume” in the context of measuring the amount of training, I share the unpopular opinion that hours is a terrible unit of measure.
Nothing’s perfect, but expressing training volume in Kj’s, tss, or even miles is far more meaningful. Expressing training volume in hours isn’t explicitly wrong, it’s just not nearly as good as many of the alternatives.
4 Likes