Intervals.icu interval detection and training tool

[Job]

Doing a Ramp test tonight, will see how far apart is the estimate from the actual.

[Job]

Interval ICU estimate FTP is 1W higher than the Ramp test

Doing a Ramp test tonight, will see how far apart is the estimate from the actual.

[JohanDiv]

Interval ICU estimate FTP is 1W higher than the Ramp test

That's pretty damn close!! If the estimate is that accurate then my FTP went doooowwwnn. Think I'll also do the ramp or long FTP test tomorrow morning to see how close it is

[davidtinker]

Interval ICU estimate FTP is 1W higher than the Ramp test

 

I'll take that Good to see "using max effort over 60s to fit you on FTP curve" gets close to a ramp test.

[davidtinker]

You can now bulk edit activities using the "Bulk Edit" option on the activities page.

 

 

Use this to fix up your history. It can take a little while if you have a lot of activities to update.

 

 

[JohanDiv]

That's pretty damn close!! If the estimate is that accurate then my FTP went doooowwwnn. Think I'll also do the ramp or long FTP test tomorrow morning to see how close it is

 

Did the ramp test this morning, but Zwift crashed on saving. If I log in now my FTP has changed to 261 Watts(Higher than I expected). Intervals.icu estimated FTP at 254Watts that sounds more believable to me. I've never done the long FTP test on Zwift, think I'll give that a go in a week or two to see how the results compare.

[davidtinker]

The Intervals.icu fitness chart now has a "Refresh" button that will fill in any gaps on the chart. New activities will get your current FTP and weight. If this is incorrect you can use the "Bulk Edit" button to fill in your historical FTP and weight.

 

[Frosty]

Two more weeks of "laziness" for me, then I can start working on my interval training, and putting this software to it's full use. Looking forward to seeing the progress.

[BikeisLife]

David, Using Chrome and every time i try and zoom in to edit an interval, the screen pops up blank and shows no data. 

 

[davidtinker]

Thanks for the report. I will sort that out tonight.

[davidtinker]

It seems to break if you drag out the zoom brush from right to left .. if you go from left to right it works. Anyway I will sort it out tonight.

 

I have been doing a lot of work getting Intervals.icu to work on touch devices (tablets, big phones). You can now touch expand / pinch to zoom in/out.

[BikeisLife]

It seems to break if you drag out the zoom brush from right to left .. if you go from left to right it works. Anyway I will sort it out tonight.

 

I have been doing a lot of work getting Intervals.icu to work on touch devices (tablets, big phones). You can now touch expand / pinch to zoom in/out.

Thanks for that! That works. 

 

 

[Frosty]

Hi David,

 

I have been through some data from some of my rides, as well as a few races. The graph below has me puzzled, and I'm hoping to get a better understanding of how the data is derived to display on the graph.

 

 

Power at 150bpm is understandable, but how do you arrive at 150bpm?

What makes this ride "bad" on the chart, versus another training ride where it shows "ok" or "good" for a similar power @ similar bpm?

 

For this specific event, I know that my FTP was incorrect, and it happened to be two years in a row where the FTP was below what it should have been - IF was 1.018 (2017) and 1.067 (2016) for 2:47 worth of racing. It's a race, so the HTFU metric was sky high both times as I was determined not to get dropped (bleeding through the eyeballs).

[madmarc]

Hi David,

 

I have been through some data from some of my rides, as well as a few races. The graph below has me puzzled, and I'm hoping to get a better understanding of how the data is derived to display on the graph.

 

graph.PNG

 

Power at 150bpm is understandable, but how do you arrive at 150bpm?

What makes this ride "bad" on the chart, versus another training ride where it shows "ok" or "good" for a similar power @ similar bpm?

 

For this specific event, I know that my FTP was incorrect, and it happened to be two years in a row where the FTP was below what it should have been - IF was 1.018 (2017) and 1.067 (2016) for 2:47 worth of racing. It's a race, so the HTFU metric was sky high both times as I was determined not to get dropped (bleeding through the eyeballs).

 

I've also been trying to understand this graph, so been doing a lot of research - Here's my take

 

The graph measures Aerobic Decoupling and according to online coaches and Joe Friel articles its measured by taking your HR/W for the 1st half and comparing it with the 2nd half of a + 2hr session at Aerobic level, which should be 65 - 70% of FTP. They say if there is more than 5% decoupling between your 1st & 2nd half then your Aerobic Endurance needs improvement. To improve Aerobic Endurance one needs to go back to Base Training until you get this measure below 5% - So its those long low intensity (65 - 70& of FTP) 2 - 3hr training rides. Anything above this does nothing to AE fitness.

 

They say that AE fitness is the foundation of any other fitness you try do, so if its bad then you will struggle to improve Power & VO2 levels, and if you do improve, you will lose it very fast like on a rest week. They use the analogy of building a house on a weak foundation, it will eventually collapse.

 

In fact one online coach does not allow his athletes to progress to next level training until he test their decoupling - He makes them do 2 X 20 min Aerobic and calculates their decoupling from that, if its higher then 5 - 6 % then they carry on with AE training.

 

Your graph shows 27.7% decoupling, but it was done at race pace, so i would assume this means nothing as it wasn't at Aerobic Endurance pace and has looooooots of HTFU in that number.

 

What confuses me about this chart is the "Model Fit" mine is always bad - David said that any session under 2 hours should be ignored as this graph only reads 2hrs + data. Which is understandable based on what i've read.

Last night i did a 2hr IDT session specifically for Base Training on TR - so 60 - 70% of FTP with a IF of 0.65 & TSS score of 85.

 

My graph today shows decoupling at 4.7% and a model fit of 0.07 (BAD) - WTF !!!!

 

@4.7% it should read very very very very good.

 

[Frosty]

I've also been trying to understand this graph, so been doing a lot of research - Here's my take

 

The graph measures Aerobic Decoupling and according to online coaches and Joe Friel articles its measured by taking your HR/W for the 1st half and comparing it with the 2nd half of a + 2hr session at Aerobic level, which should be 65 - 70% of FTP. They say if there is more than 5% decoupling between your 1st & 2nd half then your Aerobic Endurance needs improvement. To improve Aerobic Endurance one needs to go back to Base Training until you get this measure below 5% - So its those long low intensity (65 - 70& of FTP) 2 - 3hr training rides. Anything above this does nothing to AE fitness.

 

They say that AE fitness is the foundation of any other fitness you try do, so if its bad then you will struggle to improve Power & VO2 levels, and if you do improve, you will lose it very fast like on a rest week. They use the analogy of building a house on a weak foundation, it will eventually collapse.

 

In fact one online coach does not allow his athletes to progress to next level training until he test their decoupling - He makes them do 2 X 20 min Aerobic and calculates their decoupling from that, if its higher then 5 - 6 % then they carry on with AE training.

 

Your graph shows 27.7% decoupling, but it was done at race pace, so i would assume this means nothing as it wasn't at Aerobic Endurance pace and has looooooots of HTFU in that number.

 

What confuses me about this chart is the "Model Fit" mine is always bad - David said that any session under 2 hours should be ignored as this graph only reads 2hrs + data. Which is understandable based on what i've read.

Last night i did a 2hr IDT session specifically for Base Training on TR - so 60 - 70% of FTP with a IF of 0.65 & TSS score of 85.

 

My graph today shows decoupling at 4.7% and a model fit of 0.07 (BAD) - WTF !!!!

 

@4.7% it should read very very very very good.

 

Capture.JPG

Thanks madmarc, you explanation makes sense.

I'll compare the rides that meet the criteria you mention and see how they match up.

[davidtinker]

First up I have fixed the zooming bug. Tx for the reports guys.

 

On the power vs HR chart and decoupling. The model fit is just the r^2 value for the line vs the points it was derived from. Poor model fit doesn't mean you should ignore the chart, just look at it closely and see if the lines look good.

 

I need to do some more work to automatically exclude "bad" data from the model e.g. warmup when you can do 250w at 140 HR because you are still freezing (literally at this time of year). Same from descents though it does get rid of some of those. Then model fit will be better and the decoupling value better.

 

@Frosty your power vs HR is all over the place so the model fit is bad. You did 350w for more than a minute lots and sometimes that was 140bpm, sometimes 170+. Thats not going to make a good model. From what I have read people look at this more for 2nd half of long endurance ride compared to first, not so much racing.