Calculated Fieldsby camel Downloads: 23,682 • (9) • Reviews: 4 

mazoaguirre wrote:in the other hand i cant undertand your fomula
{Distance(Sum, 7)}/1000*.6213881 where Condition is: {Category}.Contains("Running")
is about the sum of the distannce for the last 7 days?
and how to configure the custom field fort this one?
GaryS wrote:mazoaguirre wrote:in the other hand i cant undertand your fomula
{Distance(Sum, 7)}/1000*.6213881 where Condition is: {Category}.Contains("Running")
is about the sum of the distannce for the last 7 days?
and how to configure the custom field fort this one?
The formula gives me the total distance just for running for the previous 7 days. Sometimes, I do my long runs on Saturday and sometimes on Sunday. So, if I just use the weekly total, it could look strange when I compare different weeks.
vax wrote:A simple formula to begin with, inspired from the tutorial but a little more meaningful:
({DISTANCE}+{ASCENDING}*10)/1000
It is usually assumed that an ascent of 100 meters is equivalent to running an additional kilometer. This formula give an estimated distance taking ascent into account.
GaryS wrote:vax wrote:A simple formula to begin with, inspired from the tutorial but a little more meaningful:
({DISTANCE}+{ASCENDING}*10)/1000
It is usually assumed that an ascent of 100 meters is equivalent to running an additional kilometer. This formula give an estimated distance taking ascent into account.
I like this formula and concept  I have been looking for a way to equate trail runs with flatter road runs.
Can you cite a source or two that supports the assumption?
On trouve parfois des équivalence du genre 100m de dénivelé positif sont équivalents à 0,5km (sur route) ou 1km (en trail) supplémentaire.
J'ai également trouvé des calculs plus précis :
"Pour les côtes, le surcoût énergétique est estimé (DILL, 1965) à :
DVO2 = % de pente x V x 1.31, DVO2 en ml/min/kg, V en m/s.
Pour PUGH (1970), le surcoût énergétique est de 20 ml/min/kg pour une pente de 8%, conduisant à une baisse de vitesse de 5 Km/h. Ceci est en concordance avec C.T.M. DAVIES (1980, 1981) qui trouve 2,6 ml/kg/min pour chaque pourcent de pente, correspondant à peu près à 0,65 Km/h.
Les résultats sont parfois assez discordants selon les auteurs (pour avoir égalité des résultats cidessus, il faut que le coureur aille à 7 Km/h dans la côte... ce n’est pas un coureur, c’est un jogger).
On peut néanmoins admettre une valeur assez standard fréquemment trouvée de 1 Km/h de perte de vitesse pour 1,5 % de pente, pour des vitesses moyennes et une pente pas trop importante, jusqu’à 12% environ (G. PUGH, 1970 ; C.T.M. DAVIES, 19801981)
Également, et d’une manière plus précise, on trouve un coefficient de coût énergétique, et donc de vitesse ou de distance (car sur plat, le coût énergétique au kilomètre parcouru est quasiment constant quelle que soit la vitesse, avec une approximation suffisante visàvis de la précision des côtes rencontrées) :
% pente 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Coeff 1,00 1,05 1,10 1,15 1,20 1,30 1,35 1,40 1,45 1,50
% pente 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Coeff 1,55 1,60 1,70 1,80 1,90 2,0 2,25 2,50 2,75 3,0
Selon V. BILLAT, mai 1993.
Cela signifie par exemple que 2 kilomètres de pente à 8 % (côtes des gardes pour ParisVersailles) font un équivalent de 2,8 kilomètres sur plat, ou que si on court à 16 Km/h sur le plat, cette côte sera montée à 11,4 Km/h.
A noter que ce tableau peut être utilisé si on cherche pour un dénivelé et une distance point à point donnés à minimiser le temps de parcours (course d’orientation par exemple). On s’aperçoit ainsi que si la pente la plus raide possible n’atteint pas 10%, on a intérêt à prendre le chemin le plus raide, mais qu’entre 10 et 20 % le coût énergétique sera à peu près équivalent. Une telle conclusion était loin d’être évidente au premier abord.
Pour les pentes négatives, C.T.M. DAVIES (1980, 1981) trouve une réduction du coût énergétique de 1,5 ml/kg/min, soit 0,35 Km/h en plus ; ceci n’est cependant exact que jusqu’à une certaine valeur de pente, pas trop importante, 12 % environ (PUGH, 1970 ; C.T.M. DAVIES, 1980, 1981)." (source)
camel wrote:Do you always wanted Recovery HR feature that polar has?
This formula:
{RECOVERYHR(60)}
Will find automatically place of 60 seconds in activity, where your heart rate has dropped at most. And it will return heart rate difference within this range of 60 seconds. For example for this activity it will return 31.41 as a Recovery HR.
Of course you can do a conversion to calculate from this number something like performance index for your actual condition.
mazoaguirre wrote:camel wrote:Do you always wanted Recovery HR feature that polar has?
This formula:
{RECOVERYHR(60)}
Will find automatically place of 60 seconds in activity, where your heart rate has dropped at most. And it will return heart rate difference within this range of 60 seconds. For example for this activity it will return 31.41 as a Recovery HR.
Of course you can do a conversion to calculate from this number something like performance index for your actual condition.
OK BUT WHAT ABOUT WHEN IS INTERVAL TIME
i did last week 3x4x300 con 60 seconds rest if a put the formula i get 59.6, i think i get an avg dont?
GaryS wrote:I have been looking for a way to equate trail runs with flatter road runs.
gerhard wrote:GaryS wrote:I have been looking for a way to equate trail runs with flatter road runs.
Offtopic, there has been other similar discussions about scores.
While such an index can be added to this plugin, I believe it should belong to a separate plugin.
GOVSS
http://www.physfarm.com/inside/articles ... govss.html
Seem the best bet in my opinion. mechgt consider adding it to TrainingLoad, I believe
rTSS
http://www.peaksware.com/personalediti ... cores.aspx
Used in TrainingPeaks. Maybe simplified variant of GOVSS. Less documented?
Estimated Power as in omb's GPS2Power
Gives a score for each point of a course, can be used to compare running/cycling
However, seem a little inaccurate
y = 0,0005x^3  0,0117x^2 + 0,1263x + 0,840
clackerz wrote:Say I'm training on Hills, and I have many throughout my logbook, but I'm looking for any hills with certain criteria  say avg grade of 5% that covers a distance of 5kms or greater.
gerhard wrote:GaryS wrote:I have been looking for a way to equate trail runs with flatter road runs.
Offtopic, there has been other similar discussions about scores.
While such an index can be added to this plugin, I believe it should belong to a separate plugin.
camel wrote:clackerz wrote:Say I'm training on Hills, and I have many throughout my logbook, but I'm looking for any hills with certain criteria  say avg grade of 5% that covers a distance of 5kms or greater.
Would it be enough to create similar function like FASTESTDISTANCE(1000) but
LONGESTGRADE(5)
And this function will just find longest distance where average grade is >= 5%?
or
something crazy I don't know correct english for this
HILLIESTDISTANCE(5000)
that will return biggest grade for 5000meters?
And is there a need from someone else to get similar function for something other or same?
Thanks
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest