This actually gets at one thing that I think is missing from these models. They all assume that there's only one "thing" being trained, even though we all know better, as we show by explicitly training different energy systems with different intensities (which was the point that started this thread off). To the models, though, a trimp is a trimp, regardless whether it came from 200 yards drill, 100 tempo, or 50 race pace.
Where these models work best is in modeling the parts of training & fatigue & performance that have half-lives of a few weeks -- exactly the energy systems that define "base" in the sense of that word that it is understandable by most on this thread. In my mind, saying that college swimmers have some residual "base" after taking time off is applying too much real-world significance to a model parameter. It may make the model work better for that athlete, but that doesn't mean it's real. And it tends to confuse those that would rather think about "base" as a training term instead of a model parameter.
I prefer to think that there are different components to performance that have their own response to / decay from training.
Aerobic energy systems and endurance are one of the most important factors for some races, and we can do okay (in training plans and in using models) by pretending that they are the only component. These decay on a 45-day schedule (for example).
Anaerobic energy systems are different, and you can't train one effectively by working (just) the other. We can do better (in training plans and in models) by acknowledging that.
But there are other components -- like technique and genetics -- that have an infinitely slow decay. Once you get them (through lots of training or good parents), you don't lose them. This is why Lance can beat you after a year off his bike, and why the ex-college swimmer who joined my lane 2 weeks ago can beat me after 10 years out of the pool.
If we got really fancy, we could define a different training stress for aerobic & anaerobic energy systems. Another for tendons instead of energy systems. Or one for my shoulders and one for my knees. Each might have a different response / decay time.
I do enjoy these models, as you have guessed. I haven't looked at the links you provided yet, although I plan to. I track something trimps-ish for my swim training, but it doesn't do a good job of factoring in intensity, because it's hard to quantify for swimming. I haven't deciphered Skiba's model well enough to implement it.
This actually gets at one thing that I think is missing from these models. They all assume that there's only one "thing" being trained, even though we all know better, as we show by explicitly training different energy systems with different intensities (which was the point that started this thread off). To the models, though, a trimp is a trimp, regardless whether it came from 200 yards drill, 100 tempo, or 50 race pace.
Where these models work best is in modeling the parts of training & fatigue & performance that have half-lives of a few weeks -- exactly the energy systems that define "base" in the sense of that word that it is understandable by most on this thread. In my mind, saying that college swimmers have some residual "base" after taking time off is applying too much real-world significance to a model parameter. It may make the model work better for that athlete, but that doesn't mean it's real. And it tends to confuse those that would rather think about "base" as a training term instead of a model parameter.
I prefer to think that there are different components to performance that have their own response to / decay from training.
Aerobic energy systems and endurance are one of the most important factors for some races, and we can do okay (in training plans and in using models) by pretending that they are the only component. These decay on a 45-day schedule (for example).
Anaerobic energy systems are different, and you can't train one effectively by working (just) the other. We can do better (in training plans and in models) by acknowledging that.
But there are other components -- like technique and genetics -- that have an infinitely slow decay. Once you get them (through lots of training or good parents), you don't lose them. This is why Lance can beat you after a year off his bike, and why the ex-college swimmer who joined my lane 2 weeks ago can beat me after 10 years out of the pool.
If we got really fancy, we could define a different training stress for aerobic & anaerobic energy systems. Another for tendons instead of energy systems. Or one for my shoulders and one for my knees. Each might have a different response / decay time.
I do enjoy these models, as you have guessed. I haven't looked at the links you provided yet, although I plan to. I track something trimps-ish for my swim training, but it doesn't do a good job of factoring in intensity, because it's hard to quantify for swimming. I haven't deciphered Skiba's model well enough to implement it.
