Ashamed to say I have a Stryd PM and don't use it. 😐️
I live in the southeast, so this time of year I train by past with the exception of truly easy runs, then I keep an eye on heart rate to hold myself accountable. As the temps warm up and the runs get longer and more race specific, I do start to monitor heart rate significantly more because completing a race pace long run is way more important to me than going out fast and imploding.
I should also note that I do a majority of speed work (threshold or higher) on a treadmill.
@Dave Tallo great question. I use Stryd and find it very good for running. However trail running is much more challenging. Last year I asked @Rich Stanbaugh if he could build a run tss calculator in WKO that would evaluate power, hr, and grade adjusted pace and choose the one with the highes TSS. I don’t think I was asking for too much do you? Apparently it’s not that easy!
ok and thanks all. I’m afraid my question might have been vague. Here’s what I want: back when I joined EN in 1974, the Clear Advice was “we train using run pace first, and HR as secondary. You should train by pace.”
do we still train nowadays as “pace first, hr second?”
(but to take it in the weeds, I think run power/stryd is essentially pace (?). Isn’t it just pace weight grade accelerometer and the Colnels 12 secret ingredient inputs gargled through an algorithm and spit out as a power number/output? It’s not power as measured by an actual strain gauge, right?)
@tim cronk - that’s a really neat idea for a WKO chart. Curious: why did you want to choose the option with the highest TSS? Self preservation? To establish the most conservative model overall?
@Dave Tallo yes stryd is a mathematical algorithm which calculates power , they even have a new version that calculates the wind (pitot tube), quite accurately . I find it very accurate and trainable on 100% runnable surfaces. If you use power vs. pace you can run up/down hills and different wind scenario's and actually compare/evaluate your run much better than if it were pace comparisons.
The issue with Ultra running. When the trails get really technical with lots of elevation the "power" recorded via the stryd algorithms is really off. I have had 4hr sessions of 100 -120tss with power which is really low and the same session shows 150-160 hrtss .... That is when I thought I wonder if we could use GAP, pace would not even be remotely close since my threshold pace is close to 7' min miles and on a rugged Ultrarun I can see a 30' mile .... Its not that I was looking to record the most TSS in each given situation , but to capture the one that felt inline with the work and usually that is the highest by far ! Lastly From what I understand TSS is metabolic stress which is different the physical stress one feels ultrarunning.
@tim cronk , Just thinking about your multiple TSS question. Could you use a manual tag?
So, for every run wko would calculate run power TSS, run hr TSS and run pace TSS. You could then manually look at each number and decide the best one for the occasion. Then create 3 tags; Best_TSS_HR, Best_TSS_Pace, and Best_TSS_Power.
if power TSS seemed best for the run, add Best_TSS_Power to the Details/Tag section of the file, etc.
The expression could be something like:
if tag = Best_TSS_HR, then add the Hr TSS, else
if tag = Best_TSS_Power then add power tss
else if tag = Best_TSS_Pace add pace tss.
That should give you a cumulative TSS based on the date range in the RHE.
if you wanted to automate it you could pick the biggest, smallest or average.
i think something like that would work if the entire run were using the same basis. If you were doing an ultra and part of it you wanted hr TSS and part of it you wanted power tss, you’ll would probably have to tag laps or sections somehow - and that would be even more complicated!
@Dave Tallo - it is a mixed bag for me... depending on what you mean by measuring run work.
I use TSS for my weekly accumulation of training work (both planning an historical). I like TSS because:
It accounts for time and intensity,
I have a basis of understanding it from years of recording it that way, and
It translates well across sports.
Recently, I use my critical power / FTP for the threshold when calculating IF (TSS). I honestly don't see much difference in the TSS numbers from using a pace threshold. I would use the Stryd number if it was easily accessible with al my other numbers... for me, it doesn't need to be exact.
I do focus on time in zone, with targets for for how much time spent in HI vs EZ zones. I try to make the hard days hard and the easy days easy and to accumulate plenty of EZ to to manage recovery & fatigue. I am not a slave to these numbers - more of just trying to color between the lines.
Speed & VO2 workouts are a combination of pace / power. I plan with a pace as primary / power secondary, then when workout starts I check what the power is and use power as the primary for the rest of the workout so that I am maintaining a constant level of effort regardless of terrain, wind etc.
** Caveat ** The downside of TSS is that I have seen some really wacky TSS numbers show up on people's workouts. GIGO. If you are going to use it, you need to make certain that the numbers you are logging are reasonable.
@Tom Glynn right over my head, I'm sure I could learn, but I really don't have enough interest, that is why I was trying to recruit @Rich Stanbaugh the guy really geeks out over this and thrives on it vs. my meh attitude LOL.
@Tom Glynn@Rich Stanbaugh@Dave Tallo Just to prove why I wanted to have that variable TSS, I recently did a really hard run KOM effort of 3hrs and 23 minutes up Mt. Lemmon , its in the forums if interested and missed it. Anyway power via stryd gave me 194tss and hr tss was 285.... Huge difference heh?
Just to prove why I wanted to have that variable TSS, I recently did a really hard run KOM effort of 3hrs and 23 minutes up Mt. Lemmon , its in the forums if interested and missed it. Anyway power via stryd gave me 194tss and hr tss was 285.... Huge difference heh?
Doing some quick math... if we assume that 285 is the right answer, then back into the IF, it says 91.8%. This is right in the realm of what an open marathon IF should be (88%-93%). This makes sense intuitively, since a 3:23 effort is about the equivalent of a marathon effort.
Taking the same IF, it would imply that your normalized power to achieve 285 TSS would have been ≈91.8% x ≈203w (guesstimating CP/FTP) ≈ 185w vs the Pavg of 154w (VI 1.20). For running, Pnorm is typically about the same as Pavg (VI ≈ 1.00 since we cannot coast / stop pedaling like we do on a bike). However, for this run, and any of your ultra runs, where there is some walking, serious hills, terrain, ..., I expect that Pavg << Pnorm. This could be what is throwing off the TSS that is based on power.
@Rich Stanbaugh Various TSS scores could also be off if CP wasn’t measured at the same time. For example if fitness is changing through the year and you test HR threshold one month, pace the next then power the next, then each of the underlying metrics will yield different results.
For many, although I suspect not @tim cronk , we tend to cling to old, higher CP and FTP numbers even as fitness declines, so again, TSS and other metrics tend to be misleading.
I’m leaning more and more to relying on modeling to estimate FTP and CP. Both WKO and Stryd can do this. It keeps you honest and as long as the model is regularly updated. mFTP does move through the season, and not always in the right direction!
@Tom Glynn I do try to keep my PMC numbers correct, the good news is I don't really fluctuate too much but I do adjust up and down appropriately through the season. Agree with modeling in WKO, as long as you do enough hard run/bike work , there is no reason to look any further than the model.
Comments
If we use run power, then it would be run kJoules.
Run (average) power * time (in seconds)
@Dave Tallo
Ashamed to say I have a Stryd PM and don't use it. 😐️
I live in the southeast, so this time of year I train by past with the exception of truly easy runs, then I keep an eye on heart rate to hold myself accountable. As the temps warm up and the runs get longer and more race specific, I do start to monitor heart rate significantly more because completing a race pace long run is way more important to me than going out fast and imploding.
I should also note that I do a majority of speed work (threshold or higher) on a treadmill.
@Dave Tallo great question. I use Stryd and find it very good for running. However trail running is much more challenging. Last year I asked @Rich Stanbaugh if he could build a run tss calculator in WKO that would evaluate power, hr, and grade adjusted pace and choose the one with the highes TSS. I don’t think I was asking for too much do you? Apparently it’s not that easy!
ok and thanks all. I’m afraid my question might have been vague. Here’s what I want: back when I joined EN in 1974, the Clear Advice was “we train using run pace first, and HR as secondary. You should train by pace.”
do we still train nowadays as “pace first, hr second?”
(but to take it in the weeds, I think run power/stryd is essentially pace (?). Isn’t it just pace weight grade accelerometer and the Colnels 12 secret ingredient inputs gargled through an algorithm and spit out as a power number/output? It’s not power as measured by an actual strain gauge, right?)
@tim cronk - that’s a really neat idea for a WKO chart. Curious: why did you want to choose the option with the highest TSS? Self preservation? To establish the most conservative model overall?
@Dave Tallo yes stryd is a mathematical algorithm which calculates power , they even have a new version that calculates the wind (pitot tube), quite accurately . I find it very accurate and trainable on 100% runnable surfaces. If you use power vs. pace you can run up/down hills and different wind scenario's and actually compare/evaluate your run much better than if it were pace comparisons.
The issue with Ultra running. When the trails get really technical with lots of elevation the "power" recorded via the stryd algorithms is really off. I have had 4hr sessions of 100 -120tss with power which is really low and the same session shows 150-160 hrtss .... That is when I thought I wonder if we could use GAP, pace would not even be remotely close since my threshold pace is close to 7' min miles and on a rugged Ultrarun I can see a 30' mile .... Its not that I was looking to record the most TSS in each given situation , but to capture the one that felt inline with the work and usually that is the highest by far ! Lastly From what I understand TSS is metabolic stress which is different the physical stress one feels ultrarunning.
@tim cronk , Just thinking about your multiple TSS question. Could you use a manual tag?
So, for every run wko would calculate run power TSS, run hr TSS and run pace TSS. You could then manually look at each number and decide the best one for the occasion. Then create 3 tags; Best_TSS_HR, Best_TSS_Pace, and Best_TSS_Power.
if power TSS seemed best for the run, add Best_TSS_Power to the Details/Tag section of the file, etc.
The expression could be something like:
if tag = Best_TSS_HR, then add the Hr TSS, else
if tag = Best_TSS_Power then add power tss
else if tag = Best_TSS_Pace add pace tss.
That should give you a cumulative TSS based on the date range in the RHE.
if you wanted to automate it you could pick the biggest, smallest or average.
i think something like that would work if the entire run were using the same basis. If you were doing an ultra and part of it you wanted hr TSS and part of it you wanted power tss, you’ll would probably have to tag laps or sections somehow - and that would be even more complicated!
@tim cronk - WKO expressions are not very user friendly... but if this quarantine lasts much longer, I may be diving into that project!
@Dave Tallo - it is a mixed bag for me... depending on what you mean by measuring run work.
** Caveat ** The downside of TSS is that I have seen some really wacky TSS numbers show up on people's workouts. GIGO. If you are going to use it, you need to make certain that the numbers you are logging are reasonable.
@Tom Glynn right over my head, I'm sure I could learn, but I really don't have enough interest, that is why I was trying to recruit @Rich Stanbaugh the guy really geeks out over this and thrives on it vs. my meh attitude LOL.
@Tom Glynn @Rich Stanbaugh @Dave Tallo Just to prove why I wanted to have that variable TSS, I recently did a really hard run KOM effort of 3hrs and 23 minutes up Mt. Lemmon , its in the forums if interested and missed it. Anyway power via stryd gave me 194tss and hr tss was 285.... Huge difference heh?
@tim cronk
Just to prove why I wanted to have that variable TSS, I recently did a really hard run KOM effort of 3hrs and 23 minutes up Mt. Lemmon , its in the forums if interested and missed it. Anyway power via stryd gave me 194tss and hr tss was 285.... Huge difference heh?
Doing some quick math... if we assume that 285 is the right answer, then back into the IF, it says 91.8%. This is right in the realm of what an open marathon IF should be (88%-93%). This makes sense intuitively, since a 3:23 effort is about the equivalent of a marathon effort.
Taking the same IF, it would imply that your normalized power to achieve 285 TSS would have been ≈91.8% x ≈203w (guesstimating CP/FTP) ≈ 185w vs the Pavg of 154w (VI 1.20). For running, Pnorm is typically about the same as Pavg (VI ≈ 1.00 since we cannot coast / stop pedaling like we do on a bike). However, for this run, and any of your ultra runs, where there is some walking, serious hills, terrain, ..., I expect that Pavg << Pnorm. This could be what is throwing off the TSS that is based on power.
@Rich Stanbaugh Various TSS scores could also be off if CP wasn’t measured at the same time. For example if fitness is changing through the year and you test HR threshold one month, pace the next then power the next, then each of the underlying metrics will yield different results.
For many, although I suspect not @tim cronk , we tend to cling to old, higher CP and FTP numbers even as fitness declines, so again, TSS and other metrics tend to be misleading.
I’m leaning more and more to relying on modeling to estimate FTP and CP. Both WKO and Stryd can do this. It keeps you honest and as long as the model is regularly updated. mFTP does move through the season, and not always in the right direction!
@Tom Glynn I do try to keep my PMC numbers correct, the good news is I don't really fluctuate too much but I do adjust up and down appropriately through the season. Agree with modeling in WKO, as long as you do enough hard run/bike work , there is no reason to look any further than the model.