As a proponent of TRIMPs and other similar models, you surely realize this is an oversimplification. Well yes and no. These models leave plenty of room for individuality.
Take Chris, put him on Skiba model. Take me and do the same, after 1 year doing nothing (probably enough to reset any model's value).
Chris will be able to carry on with greater ATL line, or negative TBS until he gets closer to the CTL he can really manage, the one that can get him to troubles.
Or, he is better off setting initial CTL/ATL high enough for this not to happen. Or to change the decay params of the ATL curve (making it less than 7 days), something like that.
In other words, if you don't mind me using an extreme example. Take Lance, put him off bike for a full year. Using Coggan's TSS. The numbers would actually start making more sense as he gets back to a CTL that is getting closer to what his Base can allow. And that, is wayyyyy over 100tss/d
That said I understand your point.
Here, let me phrase it otherwise, using Lance once again. These models put a lot of emphasis on what you've done in the last 45 days. Take a newbie rider, an avg rider, and Lance. Let both the newbie and the avg rider start building their Base say.... 5 months in advance. Their Base once they reach this point will certainly be way lower than Lance who haven't started training yet.
Again here, for semantic purpose, I define Base as being the amount of work that one can routinely perform (Chronic Training Load). That is because like you said, Lance's baseline is well over the maximal Base that most avg Joes can even dream of.
PS - If you like these models, I added some link to Alejandro Martinez's blog earlier in the thread, where you can download excel apps that compute data using several of these, including Skiba's if I am not mistaking. Skiba model is far better adapted to swimming, since it will give much much more weight to any short race pace training.
As a proponent of TRIMPs and other similar models, you surely realize this is an oversimplification. Well yes and no. These models leave plenty of room for individuality.
Take Chris, put him on Skiba model. Take me and do the same, after 1 year doing nothing (probably enough to reset any model's value).
Chris will be able to carry on with greater ATL line, or negative TBS until he gets closer to the CTL he can really manage, the one that can get him to troubles.
Or, he is better off setting initial CTL/ATL high enough for this not to happen. Or to change the decay params of the ATL curve (making it less than 7 days), something like that.
In other words, if you don't mind me using an extreme example. Take Lance, put him off bike for a full year. Using Coggan's TSS. The numbers would actually start making more sense as he gets back to a CTL that is getting closer to what his Base can allow. And that, is wayyyyy over 100tss/d
That said I understand your point.
Here, let me phrase it otherwise, using Lance once again. These models put a lot of emphasis on what you've done in the last 45 days. Take a newbie rider, an avg rider, and Lance. Let both the newbie and the avg rider start building their Base say.... 5 months in advance. Their Base once they reach this point will certainly be way lower than Lance who haven't started training yet.
Again here, for semantic purpose, I define Base as being the amount of work that one can routinely perform (Chronic Training Load). That is because like you said, Lance's baseline is well over the maximal Base that most avg Joes can even dream of.
PS - If you like these models, I added some link to Alejandro Martinez's blog earlier in the thread, where you can download excel apps that compute data using several of these, including Skiba's if I am not mistaking. Skiba model is far better adapted to swimming, since it will give much much more weight to any short race pace training.
