As grossly inaccurate as the Strava Fitness & Freshness graph is I find it super motivating to keep up or add in extra workouts when I see my form slipping. Would love TR to add something like this for us to check out from time to time. With progression levels being reset each month it would be nice to see something big picture. Thoughts?
FWIW I find it hilarious that Strava has me on a downward slide since starting TR.
I’m familiar with that chart but in all seriousness it gives me brain aids. So much going on and somehow, it seems to tell little. I also don’t see the significance of week to week TSS as one can add a ton of TSS without improving fitness. My projected TSS from TR from week to week doesn’t build either. Not sure why. I had assumed that there would be an increase of load from week to week but when I check the difference is minimal at best. Also t he’s chart doesn’t show a cumulative progression over the long term so I’m not inspired by say the little diamonds lost in the chart that you pointed out. Actually the first time I’m seeing them. Perhaps because I haven’t been with TR long enough. A line graph linking the diamonds of FTP over time might be cool.
Honestly though. I just prefer the simplicity of the Strava graph. That may be because I’m simple.
I guess I am confused. The Strava line graph above is nearly identical to the one in the TR TS graph. Sure, there are the green bars with TSS mixed in, but the bottom 1/4 of the Strava graph is that same basic data.
In those two aspects, they show the same info, just in slightly different ways (Strava = separate/stacked, TR = overlapped). Maybe TR could add the option to show one, the other or both with a radio button as one possible improvement to “simplify”.
That heads down the road of the new refrain “TSS does not equal Fitness” which is what Strava and others using the common related terms (CTL = Fitness, ATL = Fatigue, TSB = Form/Freshness). It’s disputed in some circles and considered misleading to the point that people can fixate on these details to their detriment.
This is a question best directed to TR support for review. A “progression” is related directly to the workouts and rides pulled into the data.
As you can see, I have a decent ramp present in my chart which is following TR plans (Low Vol this season) along with manually added Endurance rides and such. That also includes the results of AT tweaking the plan on my calendar along the way. So if you are not getting trends you expect, TR should be consulted.
I guess asking this in a different way, what metric(s) and/or method of tracking would you like to see that isn’t offered in the Training Stress chart at present? Or do you just want a stripped down version more like the Strava one?
I just find this interesting, because commonly we hear TR users lament how little info is offered in this area and ask for more. More than a few people add things like Training Peaks, WKO, Intervals.icu and the like to get deeper info. TR has insisted on keeping this more bare bones option compared to those, even if it’s a touch more info than the Strava version.
On a related note, it would be interesting to see PLs change over time. I understand they’re perpetually moving up, resetting, moving up, and resetting, but I’d be interested to see where I was last summer at this time, or right before that big race last spring, etc.
I could be wrong but Strava only seems to calculate on long frequent outdoors riding. When I have been doing that in the past the number has been sky high but now I am doing shorter more targeted TR stuff or shorter TTs, whilst I am arguably getting fitter results wise the strava f&f score has went down
I’ll need to check it out. It’s definitely one of those things where you’re not going to able to make everyone happy (not that I’m unhappy!). I’ll take another look at the graph. Maybe I’m not reading it correctly. Thanks.
Traditionally, CTL is a weighted average of your daily TSS for the last 6 weeks, with greater emphasis placed on more recent workouts. TrainerRoad uses a simplified equivalent calculation, displaying your rolling average TSS from the last 6 weeks with no exponential weighting applied.
So it’s a similar 6 weeks, but a slightly different calc excluding the exponential aspect apparently.
100%. When I put in more miles my fitness climbs. Now that I’m doing more focused work on TR is dropping. Hence why I said it was inaccurate. It would be nice to see something in the format with a better degree of accuracy. Perhaps that’s just a measure/projection of FTP or a cumulative score of PL’s. I don’t know. Food for thought!
I find these fitness graphs tell you little. They base themselves heavily on TSS. It fails heavily when trying to capture anything outside of cycling.
The first portion of this where my “Fitness” is at its best I was doing a triathlon plan sans swims. Due to life constraints I couldn’t get on the bike and just had to stick to lunch runs. I am not going to say the run I have highlighted is fast for me but it is a decent effort and yet my TSS is low continuing to lower my “Fitness”. Not to mention the fact that when calculating TSS it is only looking at pace. It doesn’t have power metrics or any terrain data. Not to mention the physical toll on the body from a run is greater than a road cycling workout at the same effort.
TSS is a relative metric just like everything everyone seems to get hung up on. Someone with a 400 Watt FTP doing the same workout as someone with a 200 Watt FTP will get the same score. I am working to get my weight back under control but overall I would say I am fitter than I was in the peak of this image although my fitness score doesn’t reflect that. I focus on consistently getting my workouts completed more than any fit score.