Harvieu25

The past couple of months Strava has been screwing up my data. The data on my Edge 520 and the data that Garmin Connect show are identical, but Strava keeps showing different data. The big thing now, Strava lets you set your HR max, or zones and that is suppose to correlate with your training stress score as it relates to HR.
The zones were off when I was using the HR max to base them off of, so I changed the setting in my profile to allow custom HR zones. This lowered Z3-5 so the following rides should have netted a higher stress score. It did the opposite and for 3 weeks Strava was giving stress scores less than half of what they were normally for a given roller session. Have returned to the HR max setting at a lower max (-5 bpm) and that the zones are closer to what is correct and the stress score for a given roller session is back to normal. But, the 3 weeks of NO stress score played havoc with my data, stress score, fitness and form chart (sky dived) etc.

Now Strava doesn't even show my ave/max HR for a given segment. They are quickly losing the chance of me renewing and I might even cancel before then.

My question is, what other sites are available that keep all of your data that are more reliable? Or are there any programs available to download or buy for my laptop that will do the same?

Thanks.

redlude97

golden cheetah

Carbonfiberboy 

TrainingPeaks. I use Strava to keep track of my on-road performance, for which Premium, or whatever they call it now, is useful. I use TP to track and predict my fitness and thus create sensible training plans which work for me. Performance only loosely correlates with fitness.

fstrnu

Golden Cheetah. Also consider other approaches to load monitoring.

Harvieu25

Read about a way to track it myself, involves calculating your time in zones and using that for your training stress. I might go back and do the math for the biggest rides this year but not for all. Will use that from this point on as a paper back up though.

Carbonfiberboy 

If you haven't yet, google "TRIMP fitness."

Harvieu25

Googled it and read up on it, seems there are as many trimp theories as nutritonal, ie: make it easy on me and tell me which one to use. Looks like strava is having many problems right now so I can't depend on it at all. Wouldn't mind having a program on the laptop to analyze all the data for training and just use strava for social stuff.

Right now leaning toward the easy one of time in zone X zone and add it up. Example: 60m in Z1 = 60 and 60m in Z5=300, although 60m in Z5 would seem a heck of alot more than 5x the difficulty level...

I don't know...

Seattle Forrest

Golden Cheetah.

If cycling is most or all of your exercise a power meter is great for training load.

Carbonfiberboy 

I can't figure out why your not already on TP or GC. Why not?

redlude97

also "elevate" plug in for strava on chrome, saves some steps since you already upload there and it has a built in trimp calculation and plots ATL/CTL/TSB

Harvieu25

I figured TP and GC were more 'power' based and I don't use one. Seriously thinking about getting one, but always hear people gripe and complain that they are a pain in the butt. Not sure if I want the hassle, unless the hassle is needed to improve...

Carbonfiberboy 

I don't use GC, but TP works great with an HRM. In fact, I prefer to use a HRM because then everything I do, lifting, skiing, running, hiking, biking, etc., gets a training stress score. It's worth it to get the TP Premium account. Then you get the Performance Manager Chart, which is kind of the whole point of training analysis.

Hermes

I use Cycling Analytics. It is subscription service and web based and the client interface is ones browser so CA can be accessed using different hardware - iPhone, iPad, Mac and etc. When I load to CA, it automatically loads to Strava. CA has a performance manager plus a number of other cool features.

Seattle Forrest

I've never felt like having/using a power meter was any kind of a hassle. But people have been improving their bike fitness since long before there were power meters, so it's definitely not needed.

rubiksoval

What hassle? How are they a pain in the butt?

fstrnu

There's also Internal:External-Load Ratio as described here:

https://journals.humankinetics.com/d...JSPP.2017-0208

Note this quote:

However, while practically attractive, the implementation of this approach is limited unless care is taken in controlling and quantifying the athlete’s external loads and the environment in which the exercise is completed.

...which are both beautifully accomplished indoors on a smart trainer.

Robert_Young

It is difficult to say, but the proposed options above may well be a good alternative.

fstrnu

To expand a bit about how I'm using the Internal:External-Load Ratio...

Structured training is about managing time at intensity at every level and intervals are how time at intensity is achieved all the way down to the atomic level.

Almost all training plans are about progressing on time up to a practical limit (often working backwards from this limit) and then increasing intensity.

Intervals address a single intensity which means progression within a given intensity is based on time.

The time at intensity of a given workout can be the same, more or less than the workout to which it is being compared within the same intensity.

This means the Internal:External-Load Ratio provides clear "more for the same", "same for less" and "same for more" relationships between internal and external load.

And this brings confidence in inferring assessing athlete training status.

Add to this, comparative analysis, simple techniques for analyzing disassociation among internal load indicators, the magic of cardiac drifting indoors, and longitudinal analysis and you have quite a robust system for load management.

rubiksoval

How has this "load management" benefited you in the last 15 years or so of training that you've done?

How much more power are you putting out now than you were way back when?

And do you have results from any other type of methodology with which you can compare, particularly any of the other "load management" systems that have been readily available since Bompa and Bannister and the like?

rubiksoval

I thought it was about getting better/faster/stronger.

fstrnu

ACWR is cute but no thanks, especially indoors.

caloso

Too complicated. I just subscribe to Training Peaks and plug my Garmin into it on a regular basis.

OBoile

Dude, it is. You need those atoms to adapt to your Internal/External Load something or other in order to have time at "intensity". If they don't, you'll never account for the magic of cardiac drifting indoors (but are still fine outside I guess). Please try to keep up.

rubiksoval

Exactly. You continually regurgitate all of this nonsense with absolutely nothing to back it up.

It's just vacuous silliness.

fstrnu

There's no more precise or practical way to understand the relationship between effort and power than how the body responds to fixed power indoors under controlled conditions.

Fixed power means there's nothing to normalize so indicators of fitness, fatigue and endurance are far more sensitive and reliable.

If you want to know how many times you can lift 100 lbs, you don't lift 50 lbs and then 200 lbs and then 90 lbs and so on. You lift 100 lbs.

Single intensity workouts enable clear same/more/less comparisons based on time as well as zone validation. 36 minutes of threshold is more than 30 minutes of threshold. Stress indices are irrelevant.

Same internal load for more external load, less internal load for same external load, less internal load for more external load and so on is referred to as indicator disassociation and useful for inferences on training status, i.e. improvement/fatigue/decline (see reference above).

Additionally, disassociation among internal load indicators, i.e. RPE, HR, cardiac drift, is indicative of fatigue because fatigue can suppress heart rate. Cardiac drift also reflects degree of fatigue accumulation and dissipation (PB Science + reproducible by anyone).

Cardiac drift (the more reliable fixed power equivalent of aerobic decoupling), is also an indicator of endurance, can suggest proper endurance workout duration for adequate stimulus, and indicate readiness for higher intensities / next phase of training (Training Peaks/Hunter Allen/Joe Friel).