My numbers for Normalized Power and TSS and always higher on Training Peaks than Strava. Which is more accurate?
I like to say, ‘Strava is for fun, TrainingPeaks is for business’ referring to the analytics .
Not sure why you are noticing the diff - I don’t even look at power data in Strava - 100% of the analysis I do is in TrainingPeaks
Strava uses Dr Phil Skiba’s xPower and BikeScore instead of Dr. Dr Andrew Coggan’s NP and TSS.
- xPower uses a 25 secs rolling average instead of the 30 secs rolling average of NP.
- Replace NP with xPower, you get BikeScore as opposed to TSS with NP.
Also, Strava also doesn’t maintain a history of your FTP. Every time you update your FTP, your CTL & ATL is recalculated based on that FTP (aka, bs). It’s setup for HR not power.
Strava has done a lot of changes recently… but I still get less TSS per ride and most importantly a much faster recovery rate than Training Peaks. Looking at the Form number in Strava makes me feel lazy even though I FTFP.
Which brings me to an important subject: I can tell that the default TSB rate is 7 days … I’m going to be 45 in a few days, is there a way to calibrate that value? For me this is important if most of the plans are fatigue based…
Will appreciate any feedback.
If you click on the menu on the performance manager chart it will bring you to the settings. Then you can adjust the ATL value up and down.
Fascat has a lot of great charts that are very helpful on how to set our zones for HR/Power etc. , is there one for setting the constants on CTL/ATL given a athletes age etc.? I am going to be 54 in August and not sure what the numbers should be. They are now set to CTL 42 and ATL 7 but that must be the default.
On a side note I want to give a big shout out to the 18 weeks of sweet spot plan (intermediate). I am now on week 13 and definitely seeing results. FTFP everyone as it really works!
Here is our Training tip on the performance manager chart
Our plans are designed with the master athlete in mind. That is who these plans are built around the most. So you will have proper training load and rest built in regardless of what the model comes out to be.
If you do find yourself still fatigued coming off rest weeks then you may want to look to lower your ATL to a 5. But even doing this does not change the overall workload you do during our prebuilt training plans. This would require a coaching service either one on one or maybe even our coaching subscription.
What you want to do is look for trends. What is your TSB when you perform your best? Typically this is around +5 to +15. We have are plans built up so you get to this point come the event dates, i.e end of gravel plan, Fondo plan or etc. But if you are getting to these points and in the positive but still feeling fatigued you would want to look to adjust your ATL constant and your overall workload so you do get to these numbers and actually feel fresh.
Thanks Jake… I’m more concerned on how to find the right value… wonder if there’s a table or a correlation to other data that can help…
I’m not sure I can be sensitive enough to determine if I can match my Form level (number) to an actual perception.
Hi @gabrielflores_saiffe - I think you are kinda getting too far into the weeds because if you just concentrate on following the plan, the plan’s design will take care of the rest.
We do not use Strava for data analysis because it is inferior to the analytics TrainingPeaks provides. I like to say, ‘strava is for fun, trainingpeaks is for business’
Above all #FtFP
- “I think you are kinda getting too far into the weeds because if you just concentrate on following the plan, the plan’s design will take care of the rest.”
I can definitely attest!..
I guess I have a “fine tuning” mentality that sometimes gets in the way of the fundamentals…
It comes from the feeling that I should be somewhere between the basic and intermediate plans.
I will keep the trust on the plan and just try to be more aware of the perceived exhaustion / performance.