Old 03-01-19, 05:47 PM
  #5  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,816

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by fstrnu View Post
Hmmm... I wonder if this would naturally happen correctly for both novice and trained athletes alike when using MSI because if...

The common way beginner training plans work is to start with short or easier training sessions, then add more time or intensity in subsequent workouts. The notion is that if you can run one mile this week, then your body will adapt and be able to run two miles next week, then three the following, etc. This also gets applied to interval workouts. This week you can do six hill repeats, so next week you can do seven, and the week after you can do eight. The term for this is ‘progressive overload. In the beginning, progressive overload works...

...then RPE for new athletes would decrease without progression while RPE would skyrocket with progression. And since MSI is based on RPE, then novices would naturally increase load via MSI while trained athletes would naturally decrease load via MSI
I'm not sure of that. I can get myself to do most anything. The question is: in retrospect, was that a good idea? How do we make progress? Is the straight line in the graph that way to go or should it be an upward curve? One has to have the ATL and CTL data and plot it. Or use TP where it's done for me automatically. Looking at my past data, sometimes I do it frontloaded, sometimes backloaded. My guess is that it depended on how I felt or the weather or other life factors, not a direct result of planning.

After reading the article, I'll try changing that. Next week's an easier week, so then . . .
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline