Cyclist riding at a steady pace through a loading week

Summary

Acute versus chronic load

Free calculator · Training and load

Compare this week’s load with your four-week average and place the jump on a scale, with the published criticism of the model explained.

What you need
Your load over the last 7 days and the total over the last 28 days, including those 7 days, in the same unit. Use TSS, hours or kilometres without mixing them.
What it gives you

How far you have climbed above your own four-week average, not above anybody else’s.

The jump placed on a scale, with the band it falls into.

The published criticism of the model, explained next to the result instead of hidden.

What it does not do

This is not a traffic light and it does not predict injury. The acute to chronic workload model has serious published methodological criticism; what comes out here is a reason to look at the week carefully, never a permission or a prohibition.

5.0 on Google from 60 public reviews, verifiable on the laboratory listing.
All calculators

Free tool

Acute versus chronic load calculator

Compare what you have trained this week with what you had been training on average, and place the jump on a scale. It is useful for what it is useful for: spotting a sharp increase before it takes its toll. It is not a traffic light, and further down you will find why it is better not to treat it as one.

It runs in your browser. Nothing is sent, nothing is stored and no sign-up is needed. If you use the buttons below the calculator, the message is written here and opens in your own app: you decide whether to send it.

Calculator

Your load

It does not matter which one you use as long as it is the same in both fields. The ratio is a quotient.

The total of the four weeks, this one included. It is divided by four to get your weekly average.

Acute to chronic ratio

The bands and what they mean

Bands of the acute to chronic ratio
RatioReadingWhat it usually implies

What to do with this number

    Take the result with you

    Send us this calculation and we will tell you what to do with it.

    The button writes the message for you: what you entered, what came out and the name of the tool. It opens in your own app, already written, and you decide whether to send it. Nothing leaves this page until you do.

    Your message opens ready to edit. Nothing is sent automatically.

    Method and sources

    References · 3 primary sourcesView the full citationsGabbett 2016 · Impellizzeri et al. 2020 · Halson 2014

    Primary sources and position statements the method on this page relies on.

    1. Gabbett, T. J. (2016). The training—injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder?. British Journal of Sports Medicine.
    2. Impellizzeri, F. M., Tenan, M. S., Kempton, T., Novak, A. and Coutts, A. J. (2020). Acute:chronic workload ratio: conceptual issues and fundamental pitfalls. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance.
    3. Halson, S. L. (2014). Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Medicine.

    The load of the last seven days is divided by the weekly average of the last four. If the result is 1.0, this week you have done exactly what you had been doing. If it is 1.5, you have done 50 % more than your average.

    The underlying idea is sound and predates any formula: overuse injuries are associated more with the jump than with the volume. A cyclist used to 15 hours a week tolerates an 18-hour week; someone coming from 5 hours does not. What the ratio tries to capture is that jump, normalised, so it can be compared between people and between weeks.

    Why this is not a traffic light

    This is where this calculator departs from almost every other one that computes the same thing. The original formulation popularised a “sweet spot” around 0.8 to 1.3 and a risk zone above 1.5, and those figures were repeated for years as if they were clinical thresholds. They are not.

    Since 2019 there has been serious published methodological criticism of that model: the specific thresholds do not hold, the quotient carries statistical problems — it shares its numerator with its denominator — and the relationship with injury is much weaker than the original figure suggested. It has even been shown that a randomly generated chronic load produces a similar association, which says a good deal about how much signal is really there.

    So why keep it? Because the magnitude of the jump is still useful information even when the exact threshold is not. Knowing that you have gone 45 % above your average matters. Believing that 1.49 is safe and 1.51 is dangerous does not.

    Where it stops working

    • It needs four weeks of real history. If you are coming back from injury or from a holiday, the denominator is artificially low and any normal week will spike the quotient without it meaning anything.
    • It does not distinguish the type of load. Ten hours of easy riding and ten hours with three interval sessions give the same number and do not ask the same of the body.
    • It knows nothing about the rest of your life. Sleeping five hours, an intense week at work or a recent illness weigh as much as the load and do not enter the calculation.
    • A sharp drop is not free either. Coming down a long way at once loses adaptations, and that is the other half of the reading that is almost never mentioned.
    Cyclist riding at a steady pace through a loading week

    When the formula is no longer enough

    A number does not decide whether you train tomorrow.

    This ratio is one signal among several. What decides is the whole picture: how your power has responded, what your sleep says, how your variability is going, what is on the calendar and how you feel. Reading that week by week is what a coach does.

    See the training plans
    ONEPERFORMANCE FINDER
    Your next step starts here