Hi David,
Following an interesting debate on the Trainer Road forum, could we change the term ‘fitness’ to something else? Unfortunately this becomes a very chaseable metric, when in fact fitness comes from adaptation via appropriate rest periods, not from ever increasing training load.
Maybe something like MATL (Moving Average Training Load)
I would love a fitness metric, but it would need to account for recovery not just training load.
Hmm I agree with your point but if I call it anything other than fitness no-one will know what it is 
Maybe “42d load”?
Did anyone link to a paper or something where someone has attempted to account for recovery?
42d load works too. Mind you, CTL doesn’t mean anything on it’s own, and fitness is incorrect.
No white paper for accounting for recovery - this is more of a personal wish. I could imagine you could use a combination of cumulative training load and freshness somehow, but I haven’t worked that out yet.
Hi guys,
I can see the point but it is just a name. a well known one.
I rather see a change in the TSS or any other name to account for high intensities like Alex from FastFitness mentions (TRIMP or whatever) because to be honest I’m not sure if I can consider this whole PMC thing any longer but just as guide, a mere reference.
How can I really known when I’ll be fresh (my Form) for another ride after let’s say a VO2 max interval workout? I can not once its all dependent of TSS and it is wrong (not wrong you know).
Regards,
Hi
I don’t like the term “fitness” for this measure either. I don’t think it really provides a measure of how well you can perform.
I use a Polar device and they refer to a similar training load (CTL) concept as “Tolerance” and is the measure of the amount of training your body can currently handle. They also call ATL or “Fatigue”, “Strain”.
The Polar terms “Tolerance” and “Strain” to me are more representative of what they are than “Fitness” and “Fatigue”. I don’t think Polar use an equivalent for TSB or “Form”
The main thing for me is that I don’t think there is a direct correlation between the “Fitness” number and performance. So always chasing a higher fitness number is a dangerous game and you should expect rising and falling as your training emphasis changes.
Regards
Hmm yes I called it “Fitness” to match Strava and because I can’t use CTL (TrainingPeaks trademark).
Yes this explains my concerns better than I did myself!
Tolerance is a really good term if you can use that.