@mcneese.chad any way to get that from within Z ? I can’t find anything… just the display.
Not that I know. You really need to dump that into Strava, Garmin Connect, TR or other actual analysis apps to get decent info. Pics are only good at a loose idea.
1 Like
Sorry have to disagree, it does and it is correct.
If you can send the file, anyone of us could 100% prove it. Not sure what else you are expecting, it is 69 TSS +/- 2
3 Likes
@Bbt67 buddy, I’m not trying to prove or disprove anyone, it’s really not the time to take me to task on this, or whatever!! 
I’m really really trying to understand, and most importantly, continue my training in a productive way. My legs were super shot, and the system is telling me “it was the same as Baird”… as far as I understand…
Trying to figure out what’s up / how to understand the system, and how it communicates about total stress / fatigue , if it is not “Total Stress Score”… and also, I guess, per @HLaB 's point, that races won’t influence AT, I’m trying to figure out a way I can “hijack” / “trick” AT into adapting after a hard race.
Thinking of just inputting it as a completed outdoor ride, ass. w a WO, w HR data only… or trying to DL the fit file and upload it manually…
Edit to add: To address your point; I mean, if you’re telling me it’s 69 TSS, fine, cool, I’m all for it.
But if the “Total Stress Score” of these two is the same… how does TR differentiate the massive difference in fatigue?
That hack will likely be worse. Per the graph, it looks like you held a stead HR for the bit included to that 35-38m time. Hard to know without the first bit showing your HR progression, but my guess is that is around your Threshold HR or a tad over given the power and duration. All of which would still get you to a similar place for TR’s estimated TSS per HR.
But per my hit above, the steady nature of your HR vs the reality of the power spikes (where NP is meant to really shine) mean the two will present a different picture to TR. The actual power data imported to TR is the best solution and I’m confused as to why you don’t seem to have that present vs some manual data entry?
Seems you are taking a very long way around the data to suit your RPE to me. We get that you were smoked and the best would be for TR to get that race data imported (via Strava or other), set the rating as “All-Out” for that race (which is possible even without linking it to a TR workout) and let RLGL work it out. That new feature is your best chance of TR to self-adjust AT (which it will do even without WLV2 editing your PL’s).
At this point, anything other than that direct link, survey and see what RLGL offers is a hack at best IMO.
3 Likes
Admittedly pedantic reference to definition and proper name: “Training”, not “Total”.
2 Likes
For lots of reasons, a race, even a B race, is likely to feel harder than a TSS based simply on power and HR, and, depending on the discipline, even those may not capture everything. After a typical 45 minute cyclocross race, where there’s sprinting, coasting, running, my power-based TSS will be around 60 because the NP is well below my FTP, with an IF of around 0.8, probably based on 45 minutes at very close to max HR. The cognitive burden of racing adds a lot of fatigue, too (I suspect that’s one of the reasons everyone talked about how draining the Glasgow Worlds were–tough course with constantly changing conditions with no radios to help make decisions). I’m don’t think there’s any AI out there now that’s going to be able to judge all that based just on power, HR, and a few other metrics. If I’m wiped after a tough race, I just change the next workout.
We don’t know all the magic, but TSS is only one part of the TR RLGL equation (per the few hints they’ve given). You can read the experience and comments of others with different results, but it seems to largely align for people even when they are using purely imported events (rides and races) without TR workout links.
I dont think you are, I was just being a bit more direct as the TSS is correct. Lets draw a line under that.
As for RLGL my understanding is it works without TSS, that isnt what its fundamentally based on, so maybe another reason no to get caught up in a distraction of TSS.
I get it, you got all you could out, a genuine well done, sounds like you could do no more, but that doesnt change the metrics.
Re adaptations what are you expecting, imo race shouldn’t affect PLs otherwise you’ll be racing your training 
. And if you had RLGL turned on and it gave you no yellow or red after that just tells you, you prepared well and it wasnt way beyond expected outcome.
4 Likes
@all: Again, really huge, massive thanks for your time.
100% understood and all wrapped up.
At the end, gotta mark it as All Out, completed, and see what happens. If possible, upload the actual fit file. If no AT, well…be smart, do what you need to do to not fry yourself. System can, after all, only do so much.
End point: I do actually find it quite shocking that the TSS is equal for these two… maybe TSS serves it’s own function, and should be equal, but if that’s the case, I do wish there was some kind of rank / score / mark that denoted total fatigue…because WOOOOOF !!! 
There was no waaaaaaay I was doing that next scheduled WO.
@mcneese.chad managed to upload the fit file, link below. If I’m reading it right… thirty seven all-times???
I get now that yes, TSS is the same. OK then! But… so what is different, per measurements / scores?
Your TR account is set to Private, so we can’t see the file.
1 Like
Regarding your RPE, maybe consider how you fueled for this race. If you weren’t well carb loaded before this level of effort, you’re going to suffer more for it, both during and afterward.
4 Likes
Some quick things to look at when comparing two events like yours:
- TSS (one measure of the power and duration relative to your FTP. Never all telling, but a really good data point)
- Duration (usually longer = harder, but is super relative to the data elsewhere)
- IF = Intensity Factor
- NP = Normalized Power
- KJ’s = some people can compare these in addition to the above in a “demand” sense as well.
Really, you need to look at most/all of those together to really understand each workout on it’s own, as well as compared. No single value determines the difficulty.
3 Likes
Thanks again, @mcneese.chad !!
I think you’re right; I think that’s just it: There is maybe no one metric to record / measure something like this. You gotta look at it all, as ingredients in the humble pie, but also take into account how rested you were, and as @BrianSpang said; fueled, etc.
Again… system can only do so much. I think I’m expecting too much on this, for it to show me ONE number, that summarized the entirety of the difficulty of these two events, relative to each other!
3 Likes
OK, so 194w NP over 40 mins vs your 195w FTP is why you also get 0.99 IF. Seems like a hard effort for that duration along with the Variability Index (NP/AP) of 1.1 indicating some real surges in power that can feel more demanding than steady to many people. TSS makes sense as does KJ to me.
Cadence is interesting at 84rpm Avg, I know I would have tired legs from that FTP level demand. No idea where that lands in your typical cadence range, but if it is lower than usually for you (especially around FTP power in your training), that could be another factor leading to smoked legs.
Add in your fueling before, during and after as key factors and you begin to see why this is all rather complicated 
2 Likes
Appreciate the additional thoughts, esp cad. Love the article on VI !!! That makes a ton of sense!!!
On cad: That’s just the avg, bc on climbs, I grab a super hard gear, stand up, and stair master it. Works for me; feels to me like it gives the primary muscle groups complete rest, and works an entirely diff set. Finish climbs feeling “rested”… sorta…!
On most of it, I was 92 - 100. [That’s the goal, anyways…
]
1 Like
I’d add in that the unpredictability of racing can make them much much harder that an prescribed workout.
In the workout (baird, IIRC) you can prepare yourself, psych yourself up, ready, set, go!, then you go until a predetermined time when you can then shut down, spin easy, and recover.
Much different than a race where you might be just on your limit and then someone attacks and you need to suddenly follow. But for how long? either until you can’t or they can’t. But you don’t know when this will be while you’re in it. You just have to grit your teeth and keep pushing. Then the all out sprint at the end will leave your last impression of the ‘workout’ as being completely drained.
For anyone interested, I recently read the book “Thinking fast and slow” by Daniel Kahneman. In one chapter, he talks about how humans remember painful events. 2 patterns that were observed in the studies were “Peak-End Rule” and “Duration Neglect”. Peak-End Rule means that in retrospect the overall rating will be heavily weighted by the peak pain level and the pain level at the end. Then Duration neglect means the duration of the events had little to no affect on the overall rating.
So those moments of barely hanging on to an attack and the final leg emptying sprint will dominate your retrospective memory and the fact that it was <45min won’t matter much vs a longer workout.
As for the TSS thing, the ‘Training Stress’ it is measuring was specifically designed for aerobic exercise. So time is heavily weighted in the calculation so a super super hard all-out 45 min effort that leaves your glycogen empty and your legs sore for days will have small number relative to a substantially easier but much much longer endurance ride.
Remember pain does NOT equal gain. Just because a ride was hard doesn’t mean you’ll have huge adaptations from it.
EDIT: this ended up being way longer than I intended…
7 Likes
Thanks again all, and @mwglow15 .
Just did want to re-mention that the one big reason this so boggled my mind is that Baird was an absolute walk in the park. I could have literally done it three times in a row, without struggle. The race was… race-y. LOL