DirePenguin

I know at lot of us here use Strava.

Is anyone else having problems with the Relative Effort being suddenly too low? I generally ride the same few workout loops. Before 9/24, all of my RE’s were in the 40’s and higher. As of 9/24, my RE’s for (essentially) the same workout rides are now teens or low 20’s!

Not only are the RE’s very low for similar efforts, but the Fitness graph shows me losing Fitness at a disturbing rate.

I’ve contacted Strava, but they’re all backed up on Support tickets and thought I’d check with other athletes....

Psimet2001 

5 seconds and google told me most of what I needed to know on the specifics of Strava RE.

Assuming there is no failure on the part of your data let me try and explain something that most riders fail to grasp when it comes to training.

RE in this case (CTL/TSS in traditional metrics) is an attempt for the analytics company to give a metric to how hard you are working. That is weighted. It becomes this sort of weighted average of the metric over your capacity to product the metric (measure of intensity).

If you keep riding the same route/workout all the time then you will often see a drop off in those metrics. Reasons are multiple but in essence you are doing the same workout in a body that has a larger reservoir or ability to produce work (most people call this "fitness"). Think of it this way - if you run a clunker of a car at 70 mph on the highway you're really pushing it to it's limits and there is a big change happening in the engine. When you start running a supercar on the highway at 70 mph you're not doing anything to the engine at all. Not even remotely taxing it.

These metrics are a measure of how much you are taxing your system. As your ability to produce work increases you are in effect not working as hard by doing the same workouts. You HAVE to step it up either in intensity or duration in order to achieve the same effect. Like an addiction.

This is usually the limit that most people hit when trying to improve at this sport. They either run out of time to extend the duration of their training so they keep increasing the intensity. Then they run out of the ability to produce the needed intensity in the time they have while including the proper recorvery needed to not burn out the body.

So if you want to constantly see those numbers improve (impossible to do forever) then you have to increase the duration or the intensity of your efforts. Doing the same thing is no longer going to help you achieve what you want.

DirePenguin

I’d buy that if it was a gentle decline, but the difference is dramatic. RE’s for the rides before: 68,39,60,42,69,67... REs after: 15, 17, 16, 12, 18. I don’t believe I’m suddenly working less than 1/2 as hard on my rides over one day’s time difference.

Andy Somnifac 

Did you recently update your FTP on Strava or anything like that? If RE is calculated similarly to TSS, that could be an explanation.

genejockey 

What's happening with me is that I'm simultaneously getting a lot of PRs, AND lower REs. I traced it to heart rate. Because I've been riding in the same are a for decades, I tend to duplicate routes. AND this season I've made a real effort to lose weight and work harder. That explains why I keep getting PRs on segments I've ridden as many as 300 times - I'm going faster than I was.

At the same time, it's like my whole Heart Rate Zone system has been shifted lower - my RHR dropped from 52 to 44, but also my LT seems to have dropped from 163 to 160 (this is based on when I switch from deep breathing to panting). But at the same energy output, my HR is lower.

So, for example, yesterday's ride is the same as one I did last year. Yesterday my average speed was 2.4mph FASTER than a year ago, but RE was only 62, whereas last year's ride was 133. And that's after readjusting all my HR zones to match the change in HRs!

DirePenguin

There was a new FTP right around the time in question, but it was the same as previous.

Andy Somnifac 

Run them through intervals.icu and see if they calculate the load any differently. Or download the files and upload them to Training Peaks. Checking Strava's calculation against another site's calculation is really the only way you're going to get to the bottom of this.

jadocs

I don't use premium features so it just tells me if a ride was harder than usual or not. Strava has marked some of my rides as "harder than your usual effort" ….and I know for a fact that it was not, some of them were zone 2 rides. I'm basing that off my power data (from power meter), distance and speed. I don't pay any attention to it.

Have you changed or updated any data fields besides the FTP you mentioned above? Bike weight, your weight, etc... not sure if it makes a difference or not.

surak

Pretty sure Strava uses HR or RPE instead of TSS and IF. I rode the same exact indoor ride two weeks apart that took me something like 2 hours and the second ride was mere seconds faster than the first one, but the Strava relative effort was almost twice as high the second time because my HR was a zone higher throughout (had lost fitness fast due to being completely off the bike during the bad AQI event affecting the West Coast). My FTP was unchanged and I don't ever bother reporting RPE in my rides.

I find Strava's fitness metrics to be a joke, and not just because of that. Let my trial premium sub end and haven't missed it one bit.

canklecat

Heart rate is a factor. Strava's guesstimates for relative effort changed after I got a Tickr and added more data. Then it changed in response to changes in my meds and caffeine intake that affected my heart rate. So the same perceived effort, segment speed and average speed, etc., still factored differently when my HR changed.

And when I compare Strava, the Elevate browser extension and intervals.icu graphs, they all look very different.

AndyGG

did you get any answer- i agree the sudden drop isn’t explained by HR metrics

DirePenguin

Yes, the Strava tech suggested that I reset my heart rate zones back to the default from max. heart rate instead of the custom zones I set to match my Garmin.

As soon as I did that, my RE’s went back to normal. And, they’ve been correct since.

AndyGG

thanks - hope to see the same!

MoAlpha

I that case, shouldn't it be TSS/CTL?

deacon mark

I find Garmin in particular is way off on calories when riding with a heart rate monitor. I upload to garmin and it goes to Strave. Strave seems t get my relative effort ok but picks up Garmin's calorie count. According to Garmin in don't burn many calories when using HR monitor. I have a low rest pulse of 40 and rarely get above 140 unless and all out effort. I can under the right conditions get close to my max HR predicted at 161 but I am at my limit for sure.

I routinely ride 50 miles at 17.5 mph and have a HR that will average out 118 for the ride and garmin will say I burned 1200 calories. I am pretty sure I am burning more that 600 calories an hour and yet it has me at 436 per hour. I sure would not go on anything either Garmin or Strava says.

WhyFi

FWIW, I think that the calorie estimates are ignoring your base rate, but if you really want a better idea, get a power meter.

guachi

My calorie estimates based on HR are usually ludicrously high, especially as my HR becomes elevated. At least a PM can give me kilojoules and provide a reasonable estimate of Calories.

deacon mark

So today on my Garmin I did 50.05 miles in 2:39 minutes and average speed 18.8 mph. My Cadence was 86 and heart rate 119. Garmin says I burn 1077 calories. Gosh I hope I burn more than that I know my daily calorie intake would have me gaining weight otherwise and I am not. I weigh the same as I have for years.

WhyFi

Garmin doesn't factor your base rate, just energy used to go forward. That estimate certainly seems within reason unless the course was hilly and/or windy. Riding with a power meter will give you a more accurate estimate.

deacon mark

My 40 plus years as runner/cyclist say it is too low. Based on heart rate calculators and my age and weight it suggest 1900 calories. To me that is maybe high but not so far off. I tend to think about 30-31 calories a mile. That says about 1500 and to me about right. Of course I will ignore garmin.

WhyFi

It might be right in the ballpark or it might not - it's making assumptions about rolling resistance and position, etc. Sustaining ~19mph on flattish terrain, with a good surface, with good tires and a halfway decent position doesn't take a lot of power but, again, that can/will vary a lot based on the above. I'd rather that calorie estimates err on the side of conservative as opposed to giving a green light to stuff my face when it's not warranted.

colnago62

Calorie estimates based on heart rate are not very accurate, so using the data from one source that was based on heart rate to compare to another source also based on heart rate really doesn’t achieve much. I ride with a power meter and rarely use a heart rate monitor. The numbers I get for calorie consumption are based of kilojoules. It also is an estimate, but a much more accurate one. My calorie output was much lower when the data was based on kilojoules.

rubiksoval

If you're not using kJ for caloric expenditure, you're just guessing. It's a pointless exercise.

Use a powermeter or don't worry about it is my advice.

sfrider 

I think it's low as well. 2:39 is 9540 seconds. 18.8 mph on flat ground... say 185 W. 185*9540/1000 = 1764 kJ. There's 0.24 kcal per kJ, but pedaling is only about 23% efficient, so those conversions largely cancel and you get maybe 1800-1850 kcal. 1900 kcal is not unreasonable.

The only way to really get really good energy estimates is with a power meter. Heart rate is meaningless unless there's power data to calibrate against.