Anyone use "Training load" plugin for sport tracks
danowat
Posts: 2,877
Do find the information it gives usefull?, do you find the "fitness" and "fatigue" figures it gives you relevent and realistic?, do you find each session "score" relates to how you felt the session was?.
Been using it for a while now, and just wanted some feedback on how others view the data.
Been using it for a while now, and just wanted some feedback on how others view the data.
0
Posts
Also obviously I get the same score when I lose the power meter data, or aren't riding with power (or when I'm running, although I believe you need to look at sport specific CTL's particularly)
As to the general concept. I actually find Time in zone 4 and 5, which doesn't always map directly to TRIMPs or TSS better predicts my performance. This is of course not surprising since the one thing the models make no adjustment for is the specificity of your training. So it's easy to inflate your TSS / TRIMPs in a way that isn't useful to your event.
My fitness (CTL?) has stalled of late, suck at around 83, it seems that I need to increase the length and intensity of my sessions to get this up, however, it seems that my fatigue (ATL?) is too high (TSB? is around -11), so I wonder if I need a break to get that down, and then continue with the high intensity sessions.
is there an exlanation of the terms anywhere
here is my month so far
many thanks
http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww68 ... ngload.jpg
http://www.tritalk.co.uk/forums/viewtop ... sc&start=0
You probably want to change your values, because a 45 minute run scoring 133 TRIMP is not usual, so whilst the absolute numbers are irrelevant having ones which are within the normal range makes it more comparable.
only my first month of gps hr training and have just fitted the cadence sensor to my bike so we shall see
cheers
ben
Great post that 8)
In very general terms an all out effort for 1 hour should be clost to a 100 TRIMP. So play around with your values to get close to this.
:oops: just read the 'running' part - this comment was related to cycling
Pagey
"Don't buy upgrades; ride up grades." -Eddy Merckx
Still applies to cycling too, particularly if you plan on having running and cycling on the same graph (which is worth it for some reasons and not others)
My commute (which is always a race against the clock) comes in at 17miles, which on my hybrid I do in a shade under an hour, if I remember correctly, the TRIMP for these are around the 80 region.
All my half marathons, and my recent 3:40, 73+ mile sportive have been in the "epic" catagory!
An H/M shouldn't really be epic
Most people have it set up so that 1 hour all out is a 100, and a half marathon takes 120 or so (depends on the speed of course, 100-150 all perfectly reasonable for 1 to 2 hour range)
Anyway, whats the best way to "massage" the setup to tweak the figures down to a lower level?
See the references in my post on tritalk.
You just change the multipliers in the heart rate to be appropriate. However by default it suggests the HR zones you have are not really appropriate for you.
Ive had a search on the net and I cannot find anything plus had a good look on the SportTracks app and nothing there.
At present ive copied the downloaded content in the Zone Five folder in programs files replacing the existing folders.
As for the power tracks plugin, I tried it, and wasn't overly impressed by it, seems a bit to much like guesswork.
Training load is very much worth using as it allows you to track fitness and fatigue levels much like WKO+ does for power meter users, but it uses HR
That's the main reason I use it - as it stands currently, I'll be continuing to use ST 2.1 and won't be upgrading to v3 just yet.
When ST first hit my PC, it was almost all free. As plugins became more available and technical, donation-ware became the norm. I then noticed that not long after making a donation for one particular plugin, the full functionality I previously enjoyed was removed because with the latest update, the developer had saw fit to make the full functionality available only to those who had paid a certain amount (I had donated a few EUR less when no such 'limit' existed!). Naturally I felt a bit cheated and wrote the money off as wasted, resolving not to donate anything to them again. Now that I see ST3.0 is available and not really offering much more than 2.1 did, I'm at a loss to explain why I should pay for it, even with the small discount offered on their FB page.
Why?, because it costs money to develop software, should these guys really sit there and code a piece of software for you to use gratis, and not expect anything in return?.
I sure as heck know I wouldn't
I haven't used Sportracks in ages and haven't even looked at 3.0, but they really need to sort out the front end if they haven't done already as its a real mess.
Did you even read my post or just the last sentence you quoted??
I'll repeat: I don't see why I should pay for v3 when it isn't offering me anything I'M ALREADY GETTING WITH V2.1!!! Moreover, I already 'paid' for some of the features on V2.1 only to have them taken away again!!
Well not IMO, at least not yet. They do two different things. Where is the ability to sort by route in GC? or keep track of equipment usage for example? Sportstracks in more of a training log book rather than GCs hard analysis. The interface is fine once you get used to it too. GCs is hardly stellar. I wish there was some documentation for GC. On the ST front, I don't see any big advances in ST3 so I won't be upgrading to that.
If still using ST2 by the way try using Training plugin instead of Training load. It'll give you the Coggan statistics and allow you to track FTP over time and it's free. You have to ignore the training plan part of the plugin though.
Personally I'd ditch them both if Ascent did more power analysis.