TISS in GC3.1

[Martin Wifling]

Hi Mark,

following the absurd discussion in the wattage-forum which drifted slightly OT and seem to not coming back to the original question, there is already something included in GC3.1 in the version of 3/23, some metrics and caluclations which are producing some figures.
Can someone give a little more insight (more than listed here: http://physfarm.com/new/?page_id=995) here, without spoiling the hopefully upcoming papers?

Best regards

Martin

[Mark Liversedge]

Not really. Its a prototype !

I pushed into GC so we could at least play with it and get some feedback.

There are 3 metrics;

Aerobic TISS, Anaerobic TISS and TISS Aerobicity

The first two score differently weighting efforts above CP or higher differently.

The TISS Aerobicity is a percentage of Aerobic TISS of the total TISS.

There are also lots of other things being discussed by some crazy, crazy smart people. I'm hanging off their coat-tails trying to understand more than half of what they say. Suffice to say there are some incredible things coming regarding multicomponent models for stress/fatigue refining/unifying lots of existing models and science including the W'bal .. but its almost certainly not going to be in time for v3.1 :)

Mark  

[Rodrigo Loureiro]

Hello,

I’ve downloaded v3.1 and have been looking at the TISS, but the Anaerobic TISS seems to be always underestimated… From yesterday’s workout, I spent 16% above CP (Z5/6/70), but got 53 AnaTISS and 3 AerTISS, with TISS Aerobicity 96% …. Does that seem ok?

Have not looked at the code to see how each one is calculated but by what they should mean, this does not seem right. Anyone else looking at those metrics?

Thanks 

Rodrigo

 

--
--
_______________________________________________
Golden-Cheetah-Users mailing list
golden-che...@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/golden-cheetah-users?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golden-cheetah-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golden-cheetah-u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Martin Wifling]

Any ideas already in the pipeline on the layout of a PMC for TISS? I think that the standard PMC will not create the benefit TISS could provide.

Some thoughts (not sure if this is absolute nonsense):

Include interdepencies between aerobic and anaerobic workouts: gaining Aerobic TISS points should influence somehow (aerobic decreases anaerobic?) directly anaerob TISS and vice versa (anaerob increases aerobic?) as in Skibas article in figure 3 shown.

Aerobic TISS and anaerob TISS could somehow stack up to a performance profile in the PMC which should be different for crit racers or marathon racers or triathletes. Currently I am using the PMC only for tapering (this year I try the polarized approach), but if you know for a specific race profile your aerobic/anaerobic requirements, workout planning should become a lot easier. 

The calculation of TSB as a rolling average within a fixed timeframe of both adaptions seems not helpfull in this case.  As gaining and loosing of aerobic adaptions are slower than anaerobic, the progression/accumulation and reduction should be weighed differently, maybe by an adapted rolling average timeframe, as short anaerobic adaptions which are maybe 3 times faster. Somehow the PMC could be more linked to the real physiological adoptions which are different between both systems.

Hope that this is not complete nonsense.

regards

Martin

[Mark Liversedge]

On Monday, 31 March 2014 07:47:13 UTC+1, Martin Wifling wrote:

Any ideas already in the pipeline on the layout of a PMC for TISS? I think that the standard PMC will not create the benefit TISS could provide.

Yes I agree -- if tracking multiple systems or components then it gets very complicated, very quickly.

 

Some thoughts (not sure if this is absolute nonsense):

Include interdepencies between aerobic and anaerobic workouts: gaining Aerobic TISS points should influence somehow (aerobic decreases anaerobic?) directly anaerob TISS and vice versa (anaerob increases aerobic?) as in Skibas article in figure 3 shown.

I think we want to track components/systems separately and the type of training performed should see W' and CP (for example) move up and down in different ways.

I guess we really need to think how we might show that over time -- and if it is only CP and W' we want to track ?

I didn't respond to your other points because they are on the money, but I really don't know what the answer will be,I just know that there is lots of thought going into it :)

Mark 

[Andy Coggan]

On Monday, March 31, 2014 1:47:13 AM UTC-5, Martin Wifling wrote:

gaining and loosing of aerobic adaptions are slower than anaerobic

Just an FYI: that isn't really true.

[Graham Dunn]

If you were anyone else, I'd put up a "[citation needed]" :)

Can you elaborate? "isn't really true" -- meaning that at elite levels of performance, it isn't true, or that you object to drawing a hard line between the two "types" of fitness?

My n=1 study says that my power at a zone 2 HR doesn't decrease nearly as much as my top end has at the start of every season... would you refer to that as something else?

 

[Andy Coggan]

On Monday, March 31, 2014 12:53:02 PM UTC-5, Graham Dunn wrote:

On Monday, March 31, 2014 10:46:09 AM UTC-4, Andy Coggan wrote:

On Monday, March 31, 2014 1:47:13 AM UTC-5, Martin Wifling wrote:

gaining and loosing of aerobic adaptions are slower than anaerobic

Just an FYI: that isn't really true.

If you were anyone else, I'd put up a "[citation needed]" :)

Can you elaborate?

Sorry, don't mean to sidetrack any discussion, just felt it necessary to point out that the time constants for changes in aerobic and anaerobic fitness/performance are essentially indistinguishable.

For references, cf.:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7219130

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3182159

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20213468

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9351694

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11960926

etc.

FWIW, I think the reason that many people are under the impression that the anaerobic/neuromuscular system adapts more rapidly is because 1) the scope or magnitude of possible improvements tends to be less compared to the aerobic side, and 2) it is difficult to keep such training up for long periods (so as to continue to eke out small gains) w/o burning out or overtraining (although some athletes, e.g., track cyclists, rowers, do).

Now back to your regular programming... 

[Pete from AUS]

Just trying to understand all this.
Can anyone explain how to interpret the Ae v An Stress charts (I attach two for comparison)
I presume we are looking at the up/down trends and also convergence/divergence (?) just not sure what to make of it.
Thanks in advance for any help !

[Mark Liversedge]

Hi Pete,

It is really just trying to separate how you are stressing different "systems".

The Ae and An stress have different indexes - i.e. they do not normalise to a common banding. This is because they measure stresses applied to different systems.

You could, for example, plot them as completely separate PMs and track them separately like you would run vs bike vs swim.

It is interesting to plot W' and CP alongside as well as Aerobic / Anaerobic bests -- it gives a hint to the impact the training has had.

Its been added to explore the concept, I think its safe to say its not the finished article.

Mark

[Alon Lehrer]

Does anyone know how Anaerobic TISS is calculated?