The foundations for successful riding
21 posts • Page 1 of 1
Just wondering how it compares to say TP or others.
Seems quite simple, but I notice the load if gives doesn't always equate very well to the rides. Seems more weighed towards steady state rides than criteriums for example.
Isn't it just a Performance Manager chart? Acute load - Chronic load = Training stress
I'm looking forward to the next generation of data, because I find my longer rides increase my chronic load enormously, even though I didn't find the effort overly stressful compared to a 60 minute crit.
Yes it says it is based on Coogan's model.
Actually not sure you can load in manual training loads into Strava. Pretty much demolished everything on my bike yesterday ... Including the wheel. Will have to be without numbers for a while!
I think the minor differences are because Strava's weighted power seems to give less weight to hard efforts than NP. In fact I had one ride where my average power was a touch higher than weighted which definitely looks buggy (it may have been a really short ride though, I can't recall)
I had a premium trial and used that chart for a while but have gone back to WKO+.
If I didn't have WKO then that chart would be very useful. Slightly different weighting on intensity vs duration compared to WKO, but overall very similar result.
They could be using a different measure, like xPower. I note that my xPower is normally quite a bit below my Normalised Power... and it doesn't necessarily match up with my TRIMP score (HR). Golden Cheetah will let you put togther a Performance Manager Chart from a number of different stats instead of TSS, and the overall effect is reasonably similar. End of the day, it's only useful for guiding your peaks and getting a nice visual for your periodisation. I dropped my Chronic Load from 75 down to 50 in three weeks, and a week later its back up to 63? Funny business I tell ya.
Don't really know what all the numbers mean but if my form number is anything less than -8 I can do a good ride.
My form has been around -20 to -40 for a while, probably hasn't set it's proper level yet.
Takes 6 weeks if they use the PMC maths.
I regularly run -35 to -40 form, but that's a sign of poor training scheduling. Few sessions that are too long.
I don't use the strava chart because only perhaps 2/3 of my ride are with a power meter - so the rest I just estimate and overall I track via another perfromance tracking system....
... which is my own, just in excel. Maths the same as allen and coggan, 7 day accute load time constant, 6 week chronic load time constant. I'm also used to looking at normalised power as per the std def everyone seems to use, which is not used in the strava aveage weighted power.
But anyway, it bothers very little and do it for amusment more than anything else. My chronic training load is usually over 150 TSS/day for years on end with too much shift up and down. Don't really plan it that way, just turns out a lot of hours at 60 or 70% intensity = a pretty high CTL. Not training for anything, probably gain a lot by cutting hrs and focusing, but I don't really care, just like riding. I look at the numbers because I'm a nerd by training and more numbers and charts for tracking makes me happier
On a related note, what do folk here think about Strava's FTP estimate? Looks a little generous to me but not having raced maybe I've never really worked hard enough over 30 - 60 mins
They probably utilise the WKO friel concept of normalised power over one hour equals FTP? Aka Weighted Average Power to avoid a lawsuit.
You will amaze yourself what you can do when you aren't worried about conserving energy. My FTP is around 270-280, I have not idea if I could TT that over 40km, but I do a lot of racing with that as my number.
On another forum Coggan said that he thought Strava used the CP model to generate the FTP. This would explain why it seems a little generous as (if I understand correctly) CP always comes in a little higher than FTP.
Cannondale Supersix Evo
Fuji Norcom Straight
Problem for me now is I don't think you can add a training load manually if you ride a few rides without a pm ( wheel took a hammering on Saturday ).
The aim was always to only use the pm for testing... But as you all know running a pm is addictive.
Strava gave me a FTP guesstimate of 330 after a 20m test... I think I could comfortably hold that for an hour so it wasn't too far off the mark.
Time to get my one and only power goal out of the way though!.
Strava power estimates seem very inaccurate when compared to riders power outputs who are actually using power meters. The Strava weighted power guestimations seem way to low. For example, I regularly ride the Zoo Hill segment and before I got the power meter (Stages) Strava estimated my average power output on this segment (calculated on the speed and rate of vertical ascent from the Garmin Edge) as being around 220-250watts. When I got the powermeter and rode the same hill at the same speed and the same overall time for the segment, my actual power outputs were about 80-100W higher, around 320 watts. This is a difference/discrepancy of about 20-30%. Huge. Comparing my outputs from my powermeter with other riders also using a powermeter who rode a similar time over the same segment seemed to confirm this.
However I do think the Stages may read a little high when compared to other powermeters.
Yeah I think the CP / Strava thing is just another way to 'triangulate' your FTP - my Strava estimated FTP always sits about 10-15 w (or so) higher than what I am using for FTP based on other data sources - and if you believe Coggan that 'gap' is about right.
Cannondale Supersix Evo
Fuji Norcom Straight
If it's any consolation (it helped me), it doesn't really matter a heap if your FTP estimate is out by 10-15W anyway. If you are doing 4x10 intervals at 90% this week, then 4x10 at 95% next week, 4x10 at 100% the next week, and aiming to hit that target hard on the final interval, then you'll quickly find your ability to hit the numbers regardless. If your FTP estimate was too low, then 90% will be easy and you'll probably stand and sprint the final minute on the last interval. Great workout. 95%, you'll do the same. 100%, same again... once you hit 105% you'll realise that you are probably hitting 100% of your true FTP, because you shouldn't be able to just keep blasting out that pace.
If you're aiming at building a base, it's not detrimental to go slow at the start. Ultimately nothing is lost, and you'll be upping your power target per interval even if you test properly every 4-6 weeks regardless. You could be adding 10W to your Z4 interval targets each fortnight regardless...
Once you're doing arthurdog's hours on the bike, you probably won't need to stress too much about FTP because you'll know what you can and can't do, without Strava and WKO and GC to help
Golden Cheetah is giving me an estimated ftp of 340 watts... close enough for me. I am not very structured, just go by how I am feeling. Anyway I have stuffed up my season already by not dropping enough weight so am a bit limited in what I can be competitive in . Can only race till June and then I am a pro for 3 months... I need to be reasonably strong by then, don't like getting dropped by clients .
So sträva has been using both HR and power meter data in the fitness/freshness/form charts for a while now making this graph a whole lot more useful.
I'm struggling to understand how to use these numbers however.
If I'm aiming to ride at peak capacity for me what should my form be?
Is my fitness number relative to me or will someone fitter than me have a higher number?
When I look at the plot for the last 12months I notice that my man flu's coincide remarkably with peaks in fitness and fatigue.
Then everything comes back to normal as I'm forced to go a week or so off the bike.
I suppose I should be aiming to keen these peaks below a certain threshold.
Can I ask how you guys are using this data?
You should be looking at some books from Joe Friel (power meter handbook I think it is). That will explain how to use these fitness/freshness charts. The book is more aimed at Training Peaks, those kinds of applications, but the knowledge can be used for Strava too I suppose.
From my distant memory, it's just like ATL/CTL and TSB. Acute training load I think is the immediate effects of your training, CTL is more longer term and the TSB is sort of like your form. So when your TSB is low, you know, like -40 or something like that, you are probably feeling pretty tired. You can use that figure to direct your training so that your form hits a peak at a particular time (so you are fresh at that point). I think you want that number to come back closer to zero.
These things aren't really my expertise though, so do some other research as well.
The Strava “fitness & Freshness” isn’t particularly accurate, and if you are gauging or planning efforts around this chart you might find yourself in a little trouble.
To give an example, the SRM I have been using wont connect to my Garmin for some reason, so occasionally I will ride with the Garmin in my back pocket to record HR data. On the occasions I’ve uploaded the Garmin file to Strava instead of the Powercontrol file the Training Stress figure is dramatically under stated using HR which leads to inaccuracies in the charting.
Training Peaks offers a similar thing for their premium subscribers, their “hrTSS” seems to be much more accurate; often only a few units above or below that of TSS calculated using power data.
My Training & Racing Blog -->http://mountainbikemediocrity.wordpress.com/
21 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users