[Land]

In the past, I have noticed personally and have seen others here mention that rTSS drastically underestimates TSS for steep uphill workouts because the average pace is so slow despite an increased intensity. For this reason, hrTSS more closely measures actual training load.

However, recently (today) I have noticed in TrainingPeaks that rTSS actually seems quite accurate, as though they have changed the algorithm somehow. Perhaps the calculation of rTSS is based on “normalized pace” which I think is the same as “NGP” (Normalized Graded Pace). This metric adjusts pace numbers to the grade climbed in an effort to more accurately measure intensity and training load.

For example, today I did a more intense workout involving lengthy Z3 intervals on a steep hill with some descents during the rest intervals as well as easy warm up and cool down run down the hill back to my car. This took about 2.5 hours total with almost 5000′ of vertical gain. TrainingPeaks shows hrTSS to be about 140 and rTSS to be about 180, which actually seems more accurate. Also, applying the “fudge factors” described by Scott in this forum, 140hrTSS + 10TSS/1000’gain=190TSS, not far off from the measured rTSS.

Curious if others have noticed a change and what you think about it?

Topic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on February 1, 2019 at 5:30 pm #16366

Has all of your threshold data in TP stayed the same?

If so, then it’s probably best to contact Training Peaks support to see if they changed anything. Let us know what they say.

[gmbloomer]

gmbloomer on February 4, 2019 at 6:03 am #16389

Just wanted to add to this.
I have noticed the same thing!
Should mention first that I know my AeT HR & LTHR Pace to be pretty much bang on.
I’m finding too that the adjusted hrTSS for gained elevation (10 per 300m) is always very close to the rTSS. Usually less than 5% difference between the two scores with the odd run 10% difference between the two scores.
rTSS is always the higher score.
Something I have thought about is descent speed? If you are a strong/fast descender making good pace with a HR to match would this contribute to the NGP and rTSS on steep or mountainous terrain being a more accurate assessment of stress?

[Henryhampton]

Henryhampton on February 6, 2019 at 11:02 am #16495

Honestly this is annoying.. having to go in and manually enter fudge factors to every workout is too much for busy people.. I just did the actual vo2 max/Aet/Ant test and recalculated the Tss and it went from 47 to 42.. I’m going to leave it as it is and not modify any of the rTss or hrTss settings and shoot for 100 figuring that if I can get there I KNOW im above the fitness targets for game day..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on February 6, 2019 at 6:04 pm #16519

There’s no way an algorithm will ever reflect the actual loads of every workout in an athlete’s training log. So to get closer to reality, adjustments will be necessary in any system. But yes, it does take extra time.

More important than what the numbers are is how you get there. If you don’t have the time for adjustments, then, by all means, leave them. But I would caution against increasing intensity to hit higher numbers. Long-term, that will decrease fitness rather than increase it, regardless of what the numbers say.

[Henryhampton]

Henryhampton on February 16, 2019 at 10:59 am #16762

Scott,, thanks for this reply.. it eventually gets to common sense.. feel it out right.. I looked through the different profiles for different workouts you can program in the Training Peaks software and there isn’t a Mountain Climb profile etc.. I was sure that there would be an algorithm that could account for the clients weight, carried weight, elevation gain, time and heart rate to get an accurate Tss.. perhaps not.. The software is super awesome regardless