Anyone use "Training load" plugin for sport tracks

danowat

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.

jibberjim

Yes, I find it extremely useful, and reasonably accurate. I actually find it more accurate than using TSS calculated from power. 90% of the time the values are in almost complete agreement, occasionally they're not, and when they're not the TRIMPs value from training load better reflects how I felt the workout was. (e.g. TSS being inflated by long periods of very, very low watts)

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.

danowat

Thanks for that, its nice to hear that you find the data usefull.

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.

ben16v

wow just installed this
is there an exlanation of the terms anywhere

here is my month so far
many thanks

http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww68 ... ngload.jpg

jibberjim

I wrote up a description some time ago on another forum.

http://www.tritalk.co.uk/forums/viewtop ... sc&start=0

jibberjim

ben16v wrote:

here is my month so far
many thanks

http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww68 ... ngload.jpg

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.

ben16v

cool cheers i`m on tt also so will have a good read and see what you mean, not sure what values you mean (yet) but i will (have BSc sports science - so should work it out lol)
only my first month of gps hr training and have just fitted the cadence sensor to my bike so we shall see

cheers
ben

danowat

jibberjim wrote:

I wrote up a description some time ago on another forum.

http://www.tritalk.co.uk/forums/viewtop ... sc&start=0

Great post that 8)

paggnr

You probably want to change your values, because a 45 minute run scoring 133 TRIMP is not usual

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

jibberjim

paggnr wrote:

You probably want to change your values, because a 45 minute run scoring 133 TRIMP is not usual

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

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)

danowat

An hour of all out effort?, don't like the sound of that!!!!.

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!

jibberjim

danowat wrote:

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 and a commute of 80 would be a significant effort to do twice a day! But as I said it's not really about the absolute numbers, they don't really matter. What matters is the shape.

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)

danowat

For me, a half marathon is pretty epic!.

Anyway, whats the best way to "massage" the setup to tweak the figures down to a lower level?

jibberjim

danowat wrote:

For me, a half marathon is pretty epic!.

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.

danowat

I'll have a fiddle with it tonight, although I was fairly happy that I had accurate zones already setup......

Gav888

Ive downloaded the Training Load plugin from the website in the link, but how do you actually apply it to SportTracks so I can use it??

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.

johncp

If you have it in the right place, if you go to "select View" somewhere on the lower left of the screen it should be there

Pross

Just downloaded the beta of Sport Tracks now and will give it a trial. Do you feel the full price version is worth upgrading to? Also downloaded the Power Track plugin. It's about time I started to get some structure in my training.

danowat

Full price worth it?, well, the trial version is worth the price IMO.

As for the power tracks plugin, I tried it, and wasn't overly impressed by it, seems a bit to much like guesswork.

johncp

ST3 trial is limited in some aspects but still almost as useful as the ST2 that I use. I think the main limitation is the number of plugins is limited to 2. All I use is Training load and Powertrack. Powertrack may not be very accurate but is useful to give a rough idea of progression - but then so is time over a given course, so take your pick!

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

GavH

Johncp wrote:

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.

danowat

GavH wrote:

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

amaferanga

Golden Cheetah is better than Sportracks IMO and its free.

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.

GavH

danowat wrote:

GavH wrote:

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

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!!

magliaceleste

amaferanga wrote:

Golden Cheetah is better than Sportracks IMO and its free.

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.

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.