By viewing "base" as the capacity to do work, you're saying only the aerobic component is relevant. Hmmmm, that was not my intention. Because that would imply that I know with accuracy where aerobic ends, and anaerobic begins (impossible). It would also imply that I know up to which point anaerobic work helps aerobic, and vice versa(Also Impossible).
That said I agree that the Base is always mostly aerobic. Weight lifters, and to a large extent 100m sprinters (running) could not probably care less about this data. throughout history, I think it is fair to state that TRIMP failed to impose itself to, for instance, among body builders. That, despite several attempts.
But that doesn't mean the same score will tell you the status (fatigue, fitness, performance potential) of your anaerobic energy pathways, or that doing LSD is good training for a 50. No. It will tell you the status of your overall system (glyco availability, muscle freshness, nervous system recovery status etc....). That's enough for most coaches.
That way, a rider specializing over the Kilo could analyze the data as follow: "For this season I built a base up to 60tss/d, took me 24weeks, then spent 12weeks targeting anaerobic capacity work, did cost me 15tss/d (base is now down to 45tss/d) then I tapered for the World Championship, my Base felt down to 30tss/d and yet I achieve my personal best and won a medal."
Base per metabolic system is often referred to as training distribution. That portion of my Base is made of 85% of mostly aerobic work / 15% of mostly anaerobic work. We constantly keep an eye on it. Very useful, but that alone doesn't make overall ability to perform work useless, even for sprinters.
Of course, it's all semantic. If you guys are not comfortable with the idea of considering your CTL (Chronic Training Load) as your Base, it's really up to you. CTL though is there to stay. And it will always include all your work, obviously. Your proposal of splitting this in 2 chunks would involved, in terms you could easily relate to, creating and maintaining two Excel TRIMP application, logging all your aerobic in the Aerobic Trimp sheet, all your anaerobic in your Anaerobic Trimp sheet. I really see no use of doing this but you may see one use. It's fine.
Maybe it's what you already do?
By viewing "base" as the capacity to do work, you're saying only the aerobic component is relevant. Hmmmm, that was not my intention. Because that would imply that I know with accuracy where aerobic ends, and anaerobic begins (impossible). It would also imply that I know up to which point anaerobic work helps aerobic, and vice versa(Also Impossible).
That said I agree that the Base is always mostly aerobic. Weight lifters, and to a large extent 100m sprinters (running) could not probably care less about this data. throughout history, I think it is fair to state that TRIMP failed to impose itself to, for instance, among body builders. That, despite several attempts.
But that doesn't mean the same score will tell you the status (fatigue, fitness, performance potential) of your anaerobic energy pathways, or that doing LSD is good training for a 50. No. It will tell you the status of your overall system (glyco availability, muscle freshness, nervous system recovery status etc....). That's enough for most coaches.
That way, a rider specializing over the Kilo could analyze the data as follow: "For this season I built a base up to 60tss/d, took me 24weeks, then spent 12weeks targeting anaerobic capacity work, did cost me 15tss/d (base is now down to 45tss/d) then I tapered for the World Championship, my Base felt down to 30tss/d and yet I achieve my personal best and won a medal."
Base per metabolic system is often referred to as training distribution. That portion of my Base is made of 85% of mostly aerobic work / 15% of mostly anaerobic work. We constantly keep an eye on it. Very useful, but that alone doesn't make overall ability to perform work useless, even for sprinters.
Of course, it's all semantic. If you guys are not comfortable with the idea of considering your CTL (Chronic Training Load) as your Base, it's really up to you. CTL though is there to stay. And it will always include all your work, obviously. Your proposal of splitting this in 2 chunks would involved, in terms you could easily relate to, creating and maintaining two Excel TRIMP application, logging all your aerobic in the Aerobic Trimp sheet, all your anaerobic in your Anaerobic Trimp sheet. I really see no use of doing this but you may see one use. It's fine.
Maybe it's what you already do?
