Training load and expected average TP

Hello everyone!

I was wondering if there is some kind of information out there concerning training load and expected average TP or even fitness signature.
That would be a very interesting and easy way to find out, at a glance, if your training response is below or above average.

Obviously there will be countless factors influencing your results, but it should at least give you some information on if you should change something or if you are doing alright.

I guess I‘ll just give my numbers here as a starting point for what it’s worth:

Training Load: 94
TP: 241W
HIE: 22.1kJ
PP: 1070W
Weight: 70kg

Hopefully someone can point me somewhere or we just start collecting data here I guess!

1 Like

As you alluded to, I’m not certain that this analysis will be as helpful or informative as you think - there’s a large number of factors that will influence TP besides training load (weight, age, etc.). Even within a single individual, there will be a change in the observed signature at a particular training load across years/seasons.

That being said, I can still contribute…

I’m at a TL of ~73 (71 Low, 2 High, 0.2 Peak)
TP: 266 W
HIE: 24.3 kJ
PP: 1117 W
Weight: 67 kg

1 Like

I’m at a TL 42
TP: 205
HIE: 16.2 kj
PP: 700 W
Weight: 54 kg
this may show the pattern you wanted

Well let‘s make some sort of “efficiency factor” out if this, shall we?

For simplicity I will only use the TP for now but will update the OP with all of the datapoints later.

Me: 0.0384 W/kg/TL
Superman himself: 0.0544 W/kg/TL
Josh: 0.0904 W/kg/TL

Or without taking weight into account:

Me: 2.63 W/TL
Scott: 3.64 W/TL
Josh: 4.88 W/TL

So at least one conclusion from this could be, that Josh has been (for whatever reason) the best responder out of all of us, followed by Scott and then me.

Now let’s compare that to some “historical” data just to have a few more data points:

Me before my big TP jump: 0.0821 W/kg/TL (TL=36)
Me after my big TP jump: 0.0689 W/kg/TL (TL=48)

Now one pattern that jumps out to me is diminishing returns. Which is probably a pretty reasonable assumption. So TP doesn’t seem to scale linearly with an increase in TL.
Now all I’d need is hundreds of data points to make this statistically relevant :stuck_out_tongue:

What do you think? Is that relationship worth looking into? And will I realistically get enough of you to donate your data? :smiley:


very interesting ,i have been riding for a few years but this is my first bloc of proper structured training that i have done so makes sense that i may be the best responder

Interesting, but as mentioned, I’m also not sure if anything can be made of this analysis.
Take me for instance, for the last month my stats:
TL-ave of 75/week
TP- 190 (yes I’m a weak rider, near breakthrough had though this drop to 186)
HIE- 14 kj (also recently dropped on near breakthrough)
PP- 700 W
weight- 97 kg
looking at you’re final set of numbers gives me a 2.53 W/TL and a 0.026 W/kg/TL
Now I am 69 years old so maybe my age has a lot to do with potential, idk.

1 Like

Hi Luca.

I’ll play along

TL 64 , (60, 3, 1)
TP: 247
HIE: 19.3 kj
PP: 837 W
Weight: 60 kg

I guess you will see quite a lot of difference in these numbers as the focus of training will affect the TP and signature profile (of course). For same TL you should for “lower” HIE see higher TP (and vice-versa) , due to the relationship between W´ and CP. I’m aware/not sure that W’ and CP translates directly XERT HIE and TP, but the relationship is probably quite similar.

for racing it has been suggested that the 5 minute Compound Score is a good “predictor” for a succesful race outcome, and an analysis of 5mCS vs TL would in the race scenario maybe be more valuable. (maybe a suggestion for the ranking page?). The theory behind CS, W’ and CP is above my knowledge, and eg the CS study was done on Elite U23 riders, why it doesn’t necessary apply to amateur “grown ups” :slight_smile:

So apparently I can’t edit my original post anymore. Therefore I’ll just have to add all the data in this post instead:

Obviously we don’t have nearly enough data yet to make any meaningful statement, but interestingly enough, right now, training load does not seem to be a good indicator of performance at all. Like not even in the slightest :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Here’s my data…

TL 57
TP: 215
HIE: 17.9 kj
PP: 836 W
Weight: 82 kg
Age: 58

Age might need to somehow be taken into account. Perhaps some sort of weighted factor.

Hey George!
I have added your data to the sheet and also given you editing permissions.
I agree that age is a major factor that should be taken into account. But I‘m afraid I‘m simply lacking the insight to really do that without introducing some weird subjective bias that I’ve just come up with off the top of my head.

Once we have collected enough data we might be able to do something!

1 Like

Thanks Luca,

Just out if curiosity i’ve added in an HIE Ratio field.

@xertedbrain asked an interesting question a little while back - “What is the number you get when you calculate this equation for your signature: ratio HIE*1000/(PP-TP)” most people who probably have an accurate signature like Scott and Amando had a number between 30 and about 34.

If it is outside this range it is likely something is off on your signature. It might be that HIE is off or the gap between TP and PP is off. Since PP is usually pretty easy to get from an all out sprint then it is unlikely that PP is off by much meaning if the ratio is over 34 probably HIE is too high or TP is too high.The inverse may be true for a value less than 30?

That’s a very good input, thanks! A while back my fitness signature actually was completely out of whack and this ratio was therefore very low for me.

I really do hope that we‘ll get lots of data points here because this could actually be a good indicator of simply overtraining.

Looking at my data and comparing that to the rest of the (albeit small) dataset, I have a much higher TL than the rest, but I am not really seeing any returns for that. In fact, looking at the ratio of TP/Weight to TL, I‘m pretty much right towards the lower then as well.
Now it‘s entirely possible, that most of those other data points are genetic freaks so far, but it does make me think, that I might want to take things easy for a while!

1 Like

A TL of 94 is impressive for this early in the year - Chapeau.

Are you based in the southern hemisphere?

I couldn’t imagine getting to those number just riding indoors as I have been here in Scotland. I’m on about 8 to 9 hours a week, riding 5 times a week at the moment with a TL of 57 and probably won’t get above 10 until I get outdoors.

I’ve gone from a TL of 47 to 57 since the beginning of this year. (10 weeks). So I guess a rate of +1

1 Like

Well I started cycling in August last year and just never really stopped. Just kept on doing more and more volume. Pretty much all of it indoors as well since I was a terrible cyclist to begin with and actually scared of crashing all the time :stuck_out_tongue:

My current schedule is 7 days of riding and doing either ~1 hour sweet spot rides (or sometimes high intensity) or ~2-2 1/2 hours of zone 2 work. So I end up with about 11-12 hours a week currently (that has been going up steadily over time).

As you can see in my TP progression something is not quite going right in my training though, because I’ve hit a huge plateau. So I’m either overtrained or my training isn’t really all that effective. Interestingly enough according to both Strava and my form is quite alright so I assume it’s a problem with my training approach.

I’d probably be much better off only doing 5-6 days a week and doing longer rides on those days, but 3 hours on the trainer is really the most I can tolerate before it just gets super boring. And also fitting in 2 hours of training into my daily schedule is doable. Fitting in 4 or 5 just seems impossible to be honest…

1 Like

100% agree with you. 2 hours indoors is my Max.

LucMotz, I am in the same boat. I have been 3 stars and yellow status since the beginning of February. I kept training because I felt good and not so tired. I kept comparing training status between Garmin and Xert, when both agreed that I was tired (Garmin actually warned me I might be overtraining/overreaching and to take some time off training) I then decided to take a few days off. I had not realized how tired I was until I took those days off. Now feeling fresh (still have 1 day of yellow star status on Xert) so will probably get back at this coming weekend.

1 Like

What Decay are you guys using? That has quite a significant influence on the estimated parameters. With optimal decay I have:

TL 135 (133, 1.8, 0.3)
TP: 327
HIE: 25.8 kj
PP: 1003 W
Weight: 87 kg
Age: 40

Have you used the freshness feedback slider? Can you show your XPMC set to ‘Strain’ and Click on the ‘Low’ option to hide your Low XSS. This allows us to look at your daily high & peak XSS. Here’s my XPMC from last 3 months, with Low XSS hidden:

Throughout my base period, I was manually selecting a High Intensity ride about twice per week (the days with blue/green bars). This typically pushed me to yellow for just a couple days at a time, during which I rode pure endurance, below LTP (these days can’t be seen with low XSS hidden, but notice how there’s no blue/green outside of my high intensity days). Riding sufficiently low - below LTP - allowed my training status to return to blue before doing my next hard ride. I did a BT ride last Friday (which you can see above), and that made me yellow for 8 days. I rode easy the first couple of days but am returning to fresh sooner than Xert might think, so I moved the slider to make me fresh for tomorrow’s ride.

Often days/weeks on end of yellow indicates that either:
A) you’re not allowing your high/peak systems to rest adequately. This would be seen with high/peak XSS in most/all rides.

or B) Freshness Feedback is pushed to the left & forgotten about :sweat_smile: