Bike and Run TSS from Recent IMs

cwhyte

 Does anyone have both bike and run TSS from some recent IMs. Just doing some research. I only started wearing a Garmin on the run at IMAZ so I don't have a lot of data. Anyway, here are my numbers at IMAZ:

IMAZ

Bike = 233 TSS (yes, I rode very easy)

Run = 250 TSS (yes, I ran really hard)

Thanks, Chris

 

Tom Glynn

IM LP 2008
Bike 265.5
Run 267.1

IM CdA 2009
Bike 250.9
Run 213.3

IM SG 2010
Bike 237.4
Run 199.3

cwhyte

Posted By Tom Glynn on 12 May 2010 01:18 AM

IM LP 2008

Bike 265.5

Run 267.1



IM CdA 2009

Bike 250.9

Run 213.3



IM SG 2010

Bike 237.4

Run 199.3

How accurate do you think your threshold pace was in '08? I ask because you had almost the exact same run split between IMSG and IMLP but radically different TSSes which can only mean your threshold pace was radically different.

mancona

IMWI 2009

Bike TSS: 255.6 (intensity factor 0.705) - about 20 TSS and 0.015 IF lower than I was targeting, but I'm glad I went easier then planned and will target slighlty lower than the chart says again this year
Run rTSS: 252.3 (0.814) - not a good run, had cramping issues, therefore was running for more time than planned.

I'm pretty confident that both FTP and vdot were pretty accurate as I tested/confirmed them multiple times during my IM build up using multiple methods.

Nemo Brauch

IMWI 2008

Bike: 6:53, TSS=260.1, IF= .619, NP= 108, VI= 1.13

Run: 5:03, rTSS= 358.4, IF=.786, NPG= 10.10, Avg Pace= 11:35

Thanks Chris- I haven't looked at those numbers in a really long time and they actually gave me just a tiny little bit of confidence going into IMWI training again for this year.

Coach Patrick

IMCDA 2008

Bike: 5:24, TSS=283.8, IF= .725, NP =232, VI= 1.08
Run: 3:24, TSS=253.8, IF= .808, NGP= 7:44, AvgP= 7:55

gilliatt

IMFL 2009



Bike 5:19, IF .70 TSS= 264 NP 190 VI 1.03

Run 3:28 TSS=239.8  IF .779 NGP 7:32 AvgP= 7:58

Dave Tallo

IMAZ '09 (I was the guy breathing down your neck!) 

 

Bike 263

Run 296.9

 

 

Al Truscott

 IM AZ 09:

Bike: TSS 290.1, NP 184, IF 0.725, time about 5:25 (I stood down for a 4 minute penalty just before entering T2)

Run: (based on 5K TP of 6:58, which is what I train from) TSS 260, IF 0.75; (based on HIM TP of 7:12, which is what I race from) TSS 279.2, IF 0.775. Time 4:03, NGP 9:17

I'll see if I can create some accurate numbers for CDA and AZ on 08 and 09; I have the data, but I only started using WKO+ and official EN racing protocol last fall, and I don't know how good the power data will be from the earlier races.

 

Tom Glynn

Posted By Chris Whyte on 12 May 2010 02:19 AM

Posted By Tom Glynn on 12 May 2010 01:18 AM

IM LP 2008

Bike 265.5

Run 267.1



IM CdA 2009

Bike 250.9

Run 213.3

IM SG 2010

Bike 237.4

Run 199.3

How accurate do you think your threshold pace was in '08? I ask because you had almost the exact same run split between IMSG and IMLP but radically different TSSes which can only mean your threshold pace was radically different.

 

Chris, threshold for IM LP 7:00 min/mile, CdA 5:56, IM SG 5:56.  I Did a lot of fast track work between LP and CdA.

tom

 

cwhyte

Dave, rTSS of 296!! Please tell me that's a typo. I remember you ran sub-3:30 so that means you ran well over 80% of T pace.

Patrick, I think your AvgP is off or it's a typo? That should be about 7:47. I'm glad you threw in your NGP too because it's interesting to see the run VI from some of these events.

For example, I'm trying to figure out Dan's numbers. How do you have an NGP of 7:32 and an AvgP of 7:58 on a course like IMFL? It certainly wasn't because of the terrain. ;-)

Coach Patrick

Posted By Chris Whyte on 14 May 2010 01:43 AM

Dave, rTSS of 296!! Please tell me that's a typo. I remember you ran sub-3:30 so that means you ran well over 80% of T pace.



Patrick, I think your AvgP is off or it's a typo? That should be about 7:47. I'm glad you threw in your NGP too because it's interesting to see the run VI from some of these events.



For example, I'm trying to figure out Dan's numbers. How do you have an NGP of 7:32 and an AvgP of 7:58 on a course like IMFL? It certainly wasn't because of the terrain. ;-)

Yes, 7:47, was on a plane...sorry!    re the difference, how much does aid station protocol play into the gap. What does 30" of walking every mile do to those numbers?

gilliatt

Chris,
I'm not that familiar with how NGP is calculated or even what it means. I did the aid station walk 30 steps thing and stopped to pee maybe 1x in a porta potty as well as tied my shoes twice as well. Plus the first six miles were the +30 seconds on the E-pace.

Tom Glynn

Posted By Dan Gilliatt on 14 May 2010 11:14 AM

Chris,

I'm not that familiar with how NGP is calculated or even what it means. I did the aid station walk 30 steps thing and stopped to pee maybe 1x in a porta potty as well as tied my shoes twice as well. Plus the first six miles were the +30 seconds on the E-pace.

Chris,  NGP is simply an algorithm that is run on the pace data to try and "flatten out the hills".  If you ran an 8:00 min/mile uphill, how fast would you run on the flats? The biggest problem with the measurement is that the Garmin devices use barometric pressure to estimate altitude changes and it can be error filled at times.  Try running on a treadmill or perfectly flat track and you'll see the Garmin picking up elevation changes.  Poor elevation estimates lead to poor NGP calculations.

WKO has an error correcting system that replaces the barometric pressure data with GPS data.  It looks at the Garmin GPS data, looks up the actual elevation on a map and recomputes the elevation and corresponding gains and losses in altitude.  It's much more accurate.

If you want NGP to be accurate, you need to error correct for elevation.

I think the real question though is why your NGP is materially different from your average pace.  I assume the Florida race is pancake flat.

I think if you correct the elevation data, your NGP may change and will get closer to your average pace.

Al Truscott

Posted By Tom Glynn on 17 May 2010 01:37 AM

If you want NGP to be accurate, you need to error correct for elevation.

Tom, I can't figure out how to do that. In my WKO+, the elevation correction menu choice is "greyed out". Also, does the FOrerunner 305 use barometric of GPS data to show altitude?

William Jenks

Forerunner 205/305 uses GPS. Edge series uses barometric.

Cheers.

mancona

@Al, To do the elevation correction you need to highlight the portion of the workout you want to correct. I just hit ctrl-A to select all. Also, I had to setup a training peaks account for it to work (the free account is fine though).

Dave Tallo

Posted By Chris Whyte on 14 May 2010 01:43 AM

Dave, rTSS of 296!! Please tell me that's a typo. I remember you ran sub-3:30 so that means you ran well over 80% of T pace.



Patrick, I think your AvgP is off or it's a typo? That should be about 7:47. I'm glad you threw in your NGP too because it's interesting to see the run VI from some of these events.



For example, I'm trying to figure out Dan's numbers. How do you have an NGP of 7:32 and an AvgP of 7:58 on a course like IMFL? It certainly wasn't because of the terrain. ;-)

 

Chris- nope, that's what it is.  Or was.  I tested to a 1:28:something half marathon earlier that month, putting me at a vdot of 51.  I did, however, adjust the bike TSS in my earlier post to 269, as WKO was calculating based on my old summer FTP. 

(Also, I remember coasting a LOT.)

I recall R And P set up a spreadsheet in the early EN days that tracked run and bike TSS's.  HAve you drawn from that to enlarge your pool of data?  No idea where it is, but there are probably some more numbers to look at in there. 

 

Al Truscott

 IM CDA 2008:

Bike NP 174, TSS 286, IF 0.687, Time 5:56 (riding time only)

Run Time 4:06.45, TSS 264.3, IF 0.748. I based the TSS off of my HM time 6 weeks prior.

The data I have from the bike at IM CDA 09 and IM AZ 08 are unreliable.

Matt Samojeden

IM LOU 2009

Bike NP = 161, TSS =290, IF = .693, VI 1.06 time 6:03 FTP = 230

Run time 4:54, rTSS = 227, NGP = 11:23 vDOT =43

gilliatt

Error corrected????


Entire workout (148 bpm):
Duration: 3:27:57 (3:38:01)
Work: n/a
rTSS: 237.4 (0.775)
NGP: 7:41 (209.4 m/min)
VI: n/a
Pw:HR: n/a
Pa:HR: 0.19%
Distance: 26.09 mi
Elevation Gain: 811 ft
Elevation Loss: 807 ft
Grade: 0.0 % (4 ft)
Min Max Avg
Heart Rate: 102 159 148 bpm
Speed: 0:37 0:00 7:59 min/mi
Altitude: 9 33 21 ft

cwhyte

Posted By Tom Glynn on 17 May 2010 01:37 AM

Posted By Dan Gilliatt on 14 May 2010 11:14 AM

Chris,

I'm not that familiar with how NGP is calculated or even what it means. I did the aid station walk 30 steps thing and stopped to pee maybe 1x in a porta potty as well as tied my shoes twice as well. Plus the first six miles were the +30 seconds on the E-pace.

Chris,  NGP is simply an algorithm that is run on the pace data to try and "flatten out the hills".  If you ran an 8:00 min/mile uphill, how fast would you run on the flats? The biggest problem with the measurement is that the Garmin devices use barometric pressure to estimate altitude changes and it can be error filled at times.  Try running on a treadmill or perfectly flat track and you'll see the Garmin picking up elevation changes.  Poor elevation estimates lead to poor NGP calculations.

WKO has an error correcting system that replaces the barometric pressure data with GPS data.  It looks at the Garmin GPS data, looks up the actual elevation on a map and recomputes the elevation and corresponding gains and losses in altitude.  It's much more accurate.

If you want NGP to be accurate, you need to error correct for elevation.

I think the real question though is why your NGP is materially different from your average pace.  I assume the Florida race is pancake flat.

I think if you correct the elevation data, your NGP may change and will get closer to your average pace.

Yeah, I understand how NGP works and certainly not all Garmin devices use barometric pressure as many use GPS. Either way, both can and will be inaccurate (the former usually a bit more than the latter). However, in Dan's case, a ~20sec difference on that course between his NGP and AveP is substantial and that difference would rarely be reflective of elevation recording inaccuracies. Elevation fixes usually only make slight corrections in the differences between the two in my experience.

What I don't have experience with is understanding how walking 30" every mile impacts that difference (which is essentially your run VI). However, I will readily admit that if walking 30" every mile impacts your VI as it did Dan's then it's an outright ridiculous strategy. Why? NGP is no different than NP. He's clearly wasting a ton of time if he's capable of running ~7:40, as his NGP indicates, yet ends up with a 7:59 AveP.

You see where I'm going with this?

Thanks, Chris

cwhyte

Posted By Dave Tallo on 17 May 2010 04:32 PM

Posted By Chris Whyte on 14 May 2010 01:43 AM

Dave, rTSS of 296!! Please tell me that's a typo. I remember you ran sub-3:30 so that means you ran well over 80% of T pace.



Patrick, I think your AvgP is off or it's a typo? That should be about 7:47. I'm glad you threw in your NGP too because it's interesting to see the run VI from some of these events.



For example, I'm trying to figure out Dan's numbers. How do you have an NGP of 7:32 and an AvgP of 7:58 on a course like IMFL? It certainly wasn't because of the terrain. ;-)

 

Chris- nope, that's what it is.  Or was.  I tested to a 1:28:something half marathon earlier that month, putting me at a vdot of 51.  I did, however, adjust the bike TSS in my earlier post to 269, as WKO was calculating based on my old summer FTP. 

(Also, I remember coasting a LOT.)

I recall R And P set up a spreadsheet in the early EN days that tracked run and bike TSS's.  HAve you drawn from that to enlarge your pool of data?  No idea where it is, but there are probably some more numbers to look at in there. 

 

Ok. Let's just say that I'm a little skeptical. Let's dig into this a bit.

First off, give me all of the run detail from the race. Secondly, a half marathon might not be the best data point. I assume you have many data points that tells you a vdot 51 is where you truly sit. Let's see some more data. How about 800s? Mile repeats? Etc...

Thanks, Chris