Falling back on a somewhat tired but valid analogy, I don't think most people would be satisfied at looking at the training schemes of all Olympic runners, from 100m sprinters to marathon runners, and talking about the average volume of training of Olympic level runners. True that. That's probably why Jack Daniels also created his own scoring system.
Likewise, talking about the capacity to do work without qualifying it with regard to intensity strikes me as throwing away too much information. This concept dates back to 35 years ago, and has been submitted to *massive* pair review.
I can not think of a exercise training specific proposal that received more *heat* than Canadian Banister's TRIMP.
Trimp is duration*intensity. So it includes just about any sort of work (obviously). The downside with TRIMP is that it relies on HR data. And HR response to very short and very intense bouts is too slow.
Like Chris said though, the Base is not a performance indicator or predictor. It's just what it is: an indicator of the amount of work you can routinely perform.
Volumes don't mean much. Back to my parallel with the cycling world, which is far ahead of the swimming world in their ability to quantify work, educated people no longer wonder about how many kilometers or miles is required for later reaching this or that level of performance. We now wonder about how many TSS/d you can sustain routinely.
It is as simple as that.
Again, a tremendous amount of pair review, criticism, improvement over the last 35years.
The main difference between the power derived scoring models and that proposed by Q, is that the former calculates the relative intensity. Swimming on a 1:20/100 pace will tax more someone for whom this pace is close to their maximal effort over the duration. Newer models take this individual relative intensity into account.
To a certain extent, TRIMP too. It accepts your max and min hr and calculate your relative intensity based on these two inputs.
Falling back on a somewhat tired but valid analogy, I don't think most people would be satisfied at looking at the training schemes of all Olympic runners, from 100m sprinters to marathon runners, and talking about the average volume of training of Olympic level runners. True that. That's probably why Jack Daniels also created his own scoring system.
Likewise, talking about the capacity to do work without qualifying it with regard to intensity strikes me as throwing away too much information. This concept dates back to 35 years ago, and has been submitted to *massive* pair review.
I can not think of a exercise training specific proposal that received more *heat* than Canadian Banister's TRIMP.
Trimp is duration*intensity. So it includes just about any sort of work (obviously). The downside with TRIMP is that it relies on HR data. And HR response to very short and very intense bouts is too slow.
Like Chris said though, the Base is not a performance indicator or predictor. It's just what it is: an indicator of the amount of work you can routinely perform.
Volumes don't mean much. Back to my parallel with the cycling world, which is far ahead of the swimming world in their ability to quantify work, educated people no longer wonder about how many kilometers or miles is required for later reaching this or that level of performance. We now wonder about how many TSS/d you can sustain routinely.
It is as simple as that.
Again, a tremendous amount of pair review, criticism, improvement over the last 35years.
The main difference between the power derived scoring models and that proposed by Q, is that the former calculates the relative intensity. Swimming on a 1:20/100 pace will tax more someone for whom this pace is close to their maximal effort over the duration. Newer models take this individual relative intensity into account.
To a certain extent, TRIMP too. It accepts your max and min hr and calculate your relative intensity based on these two inputs.
