andydude

4h50 at the engen just up the road. Normally a fast and slower group. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Garmin vector 3 pedals [emoji106] Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

For those interested, I finally checked my power numbers for 5 and 20 minutes. Just average, not normalized. Started in &. Dropped on little Chappies. Because too much beer and too little training

Well done for yesterday [emoji106] Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Same weekend as SA Champs in Oudtshoorn. Choices choices.. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Cool so I can tag along behind you [emoji1] Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I see now. We caught the third E-G group pretty quickly. Second E-G group we caught at about 55km. Their times are about 2 minutes slower which makes sense because we finished together, but started 2 minutes after. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

We were gunning it to catch you E-G from H. Outriders & Sportsworld worked well together. Caught the main E-G through Atlantis, but I see the front guys of your group and us did about the same time. Was a nice ride [emoji106] Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Great! Most of you stay that side? Since my hill climb last sunday only gave me a 40 index seeding [emoji15] I won't be riding league. Normal ppa soup for me. Think F [emoji1]

Who is doing this? Might cycle through from durbanville for those interested. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Dude --- I think you were right!! But I am still confused I did a great 1h25 ride now at 0.95 intensity and my legs, lungs and brain worked! Looking at my excel sheet, I don't even calculate my weekly IF. Only my weekly time, average hr, and the other tss, atl, ctl, tsb scores. Can we do an example for my simple mind? Let's say one week you do 2 rides: (week 1 ride 1) 1h at 0.60 IF (week 1 ride 2) 3h at 0.90 IF The straight average IF by just dividing by number of workouts would be (0.60 + 0.90) / 2 = 0.75 But then let's assume the next week you do only one ride, but with exactly the combined time and IF of the 2 rides above. Thus you did exactly the same time and heart rate in total. (week 2 ride 1) 4h at 0.83 IF (1h at 0.60 IF plus 3h at 0.90 IF) But now this is where I'm struggling. The simple average for week 1 show an IF of 0.75, but the exact same rides combined gives an IF of 0.83. If you would "weight" the week 1 IF by time, it would be ((0.60 x 1) + (0.90 x 3)) / 4 = 0.83 and this is the same as in week 2. Can someone please help with what they understand by this?!

**** awesme! My explaining is not good! When I am home I will post the formula that trainingpeaks use (as far as I know) and the graph. Then I can see each part for my understanding.

No. NP is your average normalised power of the workout. Like an average heart rate. No time involved in the sense we are talking about. The TSS formula takes NP / FTP which is the same as your IF. Then you multiply that by the time. Then you have another number to take into account that the curve is not straight (meaning IF of 0.8 is more than double 0.4), but which is not important here. Edit: we might be talking past each other! If you say your NP was 200, it doesn't include how long you did it. Might be 1 hour or 4 hours.

IF is just a percentage. It says nothing about time. You have to include time to have meaning. And yes about TSS already including time.

Agreed [emoji106] I did send them some questions about the TSS which they said they will incorporate in a future podcast. It's a cool tool, but you have to know the problems/limitations.

You use TSS corrrect? TSS is a time weighted average of your workout. Since it's already time weighted you can just add for the week. IF is a percentage so you have to take the time into account extra.

I think there is only one way to calculate it. Using weighted time average. Weighting by workout doesn't make sense in my opinion as per the example given. What program/software does S2S use? And it's probably a question for them.

If I can try with my opinion.. I assume you know what the IF is, so for the week you should use a weighted average. You can't just add workouts together, because some might be 1 hour and some 3. So I weight by time. For example 1h at 0.80 IF plus 3 hours at 0.60 IF would be (0.80 x 1h + 0.60 x 3h) ÷ 4h total = 0.65 IF. If you only average by workout your average IF would've been 0.70. The IF is a bit difficult to plan for because how exercise is structured. For example, I can do a crazy VO2 max exercise but which includes slow warm uo, rest in between sets and cool down. For 1 hour my IF might only be 0.7 or even lower. But the stress would be large! Rather plan on time and use IF as an extra factor.

Ahh yes [emoji3] There were some difficult puzzles which I could only solve with the walkthrough!

Nice write up Jurgens. Thanks [emoji106] Lots to think about although I'm still of the opinion that we're trying to compare apples to oranges. One is cardiovascular, one is muscular. Have you found any papers looking at the benefit of doing weights to fitness, if any at all? You know what, let me read your post again, and think, read, and then we can continue the discussion! Thanks again [emoji108]

And how did it go?

Yeah kind of what I'm thinking as well. Do you or anybody have an example of a gym session and tss and if using hr? The tsb/form would be an issue though.

I like the way you are thinking. And thinking about my previous post now, you can do weights at a lower hr, thus the K is almost already taken into account. Using hr would mean your strength sessions won't have that much impact on fitness. E.g. one hour reps and rest would average a low zone 1/2 hr. But it will hurt you on your tsb/form which will show that your fatigue is low, but your legs will be dead. So you want something showing not a lot of tss, but showing worse tsb. Because if you take a week off of cycling and do five leg sessions, your fitness would not have deteriorated much and your form would be great! But your legs would be dead. Excuse me if it doesn't make sense. I am thinking out load.

That's the kind of things I'm also thinking about. I would say that there are two negatives in using your hr for strength training. One is that you will overestimate your fitness, because weights increase hr, but not really your cardio fitness. Two is that you will underestimate your fatigue/overestimate your form, for the same reason as one. The big problem is that you are trying to add apples by counting oranges. TSS works for all endurance sports, because the principle is the same. But how do you add a muscular orange to an endurance apple? Let me think and read a bit. Any ideas?

That's great, thanks. I have been reading a lot about the tss and pros and cons. Take for example cycling vs weights. Obviously both put stress on your body, but how to measure each? Cycling is easier, because the power/hr is a good proxy for cardovascular stress. Weights/strength is muscular so the hr won't be as good a proxy, but can still be used. But you can do weights in zone 3 and 'destroy' your muscles! And then also, your have stress from work and family and sickness that should theoretically be added to a type of overall stress. That's why it's important to make notes with your training to understand how the tss, atl, ctl and tsb numbers relate to you. You might perform very differently with the same training numbers due to other stresses.