Discussion Board

[smaryka]

Apologies for the long-winded post, but I thought I should chime in with what I've been reading about Intensity Factors for calcuting TSS.

According to Coggan's book "Training and Racing with a Power Meter", the TSS value of 100 was derived as a baseline measure by using a typical cycling activity -- racing a 40km time trial -- done at threshold HR or watts. Generally speaking a good cyclist can do 40km in an hour, hence one hour at threshold = 100 TSS.

Coggan also lists some Intensity Factor (IF) values in his book to multiply against the base TSS for other workouts (either above or below threshold).

Level 1, Active Recovery = 0.75
Level 2, Endurance = 0.75-0-85
Level 3, Tempo = 0.85-0.95
Level 4, Lactate Threshold = 0.95-1.05
Level 5 and higher = 1.05-1.15 etc.

TSS = (s x W x IF)/(FTP x 3600)
where s is seconds, W is watts produced, IF is intensity factor, and FTP is your tested functional threshold power (you can assume that your threshold HR is a roughly equivalent measure to FTP). Multiply the fraction by 100 to get the actual TSS value.

Since mechgt's plugin for Training Load appears to be based on minutes (a factor of 60) rather than Coggan's baseline (a factor of 100) -- i.e., an hour at threshold would count for 60 TSS points in the plugin instead of 100 -- what I did was multiply each of the IF numbers by 1.67 to get my values for my HR chart.


To make things even more complicated for runners, I was reading a bit about rTSS here, http://kriskarsten.blogspot.com/2008/02/update-on-blog-format.html , and the idea that the cyclist's 40km TT is similar to the runner's 10k race. And that time spent at threshold as a runner is harder on your body than as a cyclist so that needs to be taken into account. Therefore, taking my 10km running time as 42 minutes (which is 70% of 60 minutes), I could then divide my calculated cycling intensities by 0.7 to get my running intensities for TSS.


For example, my zone4 has an IF of 1.0 according to Coggan. Translated for the Training Load plugin, my cycling zone4 is 1.67 X 1.0 = 1.67. For running, it's (1.67 x 1.0)/0.7 = 2.39.

Hope this makes sense for people (and I hope I've done the math right! But I did check my results against some 5k running races and 1 hour cycling races and the calcuated TSS scores seem to make sense).

[draystex]

I've been playing with the TL factors to match my WKO+ CTL/ATL/TSB results based on power. I've got things pretty close which allows me to use one as a proxy for the other when I don't have data (e.g. I only have HR when mountain biking). There's no magic formula, just trial and error and there are outliers but on average I'm getting close results. Two cases where I'm seeing outliers - both relate to the nature of power vs HR and the way TSS/TRIMP are calculated:

1. Short max effort (12x30 sec.) intervals on the trainer - power is easily recorded, while HR never gets a chance to rise given the short nature of the interval. TSS in WKO+ captures the intensity, TRIMP in TL does not. TRIMP < TSS by a significant amount

2. I had a week where my HR just did strange things - I cannot match the WKO+ and TL data at all without upsetting the rest of the data. I'm putting this down to the variability of HR which can be significantly influenced by environmental factors (fatigue, sickness, stress, heat, humidity etc.).

Interestingly, even with these outliers on specific workouts, the over result (as measured by current ATL/CTL/TSB values)is pretty close.

Current WKO+ CTL/ATL/TSB: 55.3/87.4/-32.1
Current TL CTL/ATL/TSB: 55/83/-28

Thought I'd share my results and see if anyone else is trying the same. The result is a stepped curve with inflection points rather than one that is perfectly smooth. Also note that given the time of year, I haven't been doing many workouts that take me above LTHR (161) so above the 160-165 zone has not been tested and compared yet (why those zones are missing).

Factors:

Zone HR Factor
1 0-100 0
2 100-105 0.25
3 105-110 0.3
4 110-115 0.35
5 115-120 0.55
6 120-125 0.7
7 125-130 0.9
8 130-135 1.1
9 135-140 1.3
10 140-145 1.4
11 145-150 1.6
12 150-155 2.1
13 155-160 2.2
14 160-165 2.4
15 165+ 3

Max HR (cycling) = 174, LTHR = 161 Resting HR = 50[/img]

[HENNES]

So Im reading, reading, reading as probably many people here do now - just to throw in a practical question.

This are numbers from 2 Marathons from me:



Can somebody who is familar with this indicators tell anything from the plain numbers of the outcome of the 2, i.e. which is faster/slower. Or would one need more data before the event to judge?

thanks
_________________
rgds hennes, duesseldorf/germany
- running with FR 305 and STs

runner´s map ... EURE Karte für Laufveranstaltungen - zum MITMACHEN!!!
>>> http://www.runnersmap.info ...mehr als 2.500 Laufveranstaltungen!

[smaryka]

Well Hennes, you left the min/km part uncovered so I could see which one was faster.

But I would say that the one with the higher TSB value should have been your better race, just based on your being less fatigued and more well-rested. The one that you ran with a -15 TSB means you probably weren't rested enough -- hence the higher HR yet slower time.

[Switch]

[Gunnar]

I would agree with Switch for the same reasons. And would go on to say that the heart rate and TrImp score was lower because his body was better conditioned, for the same percieved effort.

But, more info prior to the event would give a better indicator.

[mechgt]

[racerfern]

I too would say the 2nd event was the faster one. If this is a major event for you, then your TSB needs to be higher than -15 at the start. That indicates fatigue (not well rested).
_________________
Fernando

[ildibad]

problem report :

- while creating future events with TRIMP=xxxx , TSB doesn't accrue. (TSB before = 0)

- dynamic zone doesn't work : it is always using "norm" .
_________________
Running with :
New Balance 850 - Garmin Forerunner 305

[HENNES]

Before I come back to the marathon puzzle - i just ran into a different question:

See this chart:







I wonder why TSS does not go into the upper part of the scale. Ok, its says HIGH at the "1" and at the "2", but I think those were nearly ultimate session as

1. was a HM ran at PB with averaging 87% HFmax
(see for details in the table underneath the picture)

2. was 35km at 70% HFmax and lastet 3:08

Interesting to learn that both are judged for about the same level - which probably is right, but what shall I do to reach the upper part of the scale if thats not enough?


@mechgt:
BTW: as those numbers in the table and the grey square in bottom right are highly dependend on the user settings, which we are all experimenting with (and changing around all the time) I think it would be a good idea to list the actual settings (ATL CTL) in that grey square, so other people do notice and one can remember self, please - there seems to be enough space. Maybe aditional "data" from settings page, can be displayed there.
_________________
rgds hennes, duesseldorf/germany
- running with FR 305 and STs

runner´s map ... EURE Karte für Laufveranstaltungen - zum MITMACHEN!!!
>>> http://www.runnersmap.info ...mehr als 2.500 Laufveranstaltungen!

[Switch]

First things first: respect! Half marathon under 1:30
What strikes me as odd, is the small changes in TSB. Example: 29.11. where TSB only changed 5 points. If I remember correctly (can't check right now) my TSB changes are much higher.
@Hennes: what zone settings are you using?

Switch

[HENNES]

[clackerz]

I'm still only scratching the surface here on all the data and info available regarding reading, understanding and analysing the graph in this plugin.

However I'm currently attacking every ride differently and seeing how it affects the outcome.

So I'm sure I'm going to learn alot as I learn to utilise this plugin correctly.
_________________
Cycling with:
Fuji Team 06 - Garmin Edge 305
Analysing with:
SportTracks!

[IanPV]

[Switch]

[Stumpjumper68]

Hennes wrote:

[texmurphy]

[mechgt]

[texmurphy]

[mechgt]

[ildibad]

@mechgt:



normaly, Training load should take the last zone (dated 7/12/2008). In fact, it take the other end (norme)



Here, you can see what happend with the planned training

thanks for caring
_________________
Running with :
New Balance 850 - Garmin Forerunner 305

[mechgt]

[HENNES]

[mechgt]

[gerhard]