can you share a link or screenshot? I’m guessing the Pa:HR is the right one, and the premium feature is that it lets you select just part of the workout to analyze. I just gave in after two weeks of free TP and bought the membership again. Couldn’t live without seeing my fitness number I guess. 😉
pa:hr on Training Peaks free version
December 8, 2019 at 1:33 pm #33934Brian VickersParticipant
I’ve read in several places that Training Peaks Premium is needed to get pa:hr analysis. I use the free version at the moment and when I click Map/Graph there is pa:hr data at the bottom. I’m wondering if this is the same pa:hr result I’d see on Premium but just without more detailed analysis. The data I get seems to correspond with the last track AeT test I did but since the article on HR Drift specifies thar pa:hr is only available on Premium I wondered if what I’m seeing with the free app is correct. Thanks!
Brian Vickers on December 8, 2019 at 4:41 pm #33959
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. I suspect you’re right. It’s ok for a general idea I suppose, but it would be nice to see both halves of a workout. Had premium for a while but let it lapse – maybe after Christmas….Scott Johnston on December 9, 2019 at 4:21 pm #34021
You can use that data to find Pa:Hr if the run was outdoors. If the run was indoors on a treadmill the GPS will not be picking up a signal and so pace will not be accurate. Then you will need the graph of HR vs Time that comes in the dashboard of the Premium TP account.
I hope this helps,
ScottBrian Vickers on December 9, 2019 at 8:28 pm #34032
Thanks Scott. I contacted TP and they said the same thing. I did a test today outside on a gentle loop and pa:hr was 1.56. So I think my AeT has improved quite well over the past months of following your guidelines for ADS. I’m edging closer to the 10% rule. I’m at around 12% and plan on sticking with running below AeT to get to 10. With that pa:hr, is it safe to assume that I could start my next test (in a month or so) at a higher HR? Since reading and following Taft UA I’ve seen improvement like nothing else I’ve tried before. I’m all in. Thanks!Scott Semple on December 10, 2019 at 2:02 pm #34082
Did you mean 1.056? 1.56 would be a 56% spread…
A ceiling of 5% is where you want to stay. I wouldn’t adjust anything if you’re right at the limit.Brian Vickers on December 10, 2019 at 2:42 pm #34091
Maybe I’m understanding it incorrectly. I mean a pa:hr of 1.56%, so under the 5% ceiling. BUT: As I reviewed the last test I concluded that I began too slow and with too low HR. I believe that accounts for the low pa:hr. So I retested and took better care not to have slow down between warm up and starting the test. Came out significantly higher pa:hr of 5% and change. So – if I’m understanding how the pa:hr percentage data works – I’ve still improved but just need to keep going as is. My AeT to LT Gal is 15%. I know that’s still high but it’s better than the 18% I started with.Brian Vickers on December 10, 2019 at 2:44 pm #34092
Sorry “Gal” is supposed to be “gap” – thank you auto correct.
Thought I might chip in here… I bought a Polar HR chest band a few years ago and when I run with my phone using the Polar Beat app my runs get uploaded to the flow.polar.com website. There is a feature that lets you find average HR over a portion of the workout, so using a treadmill set at a constant pace you can compare the average HR from the first half of your run to the second half of your run to assess your HR drift. Seems like a good free way to get the info.
On a related note, if I ran outside, uploaded the run and found the ratio of average pace to Hr from the first half of the run and compared it to the second half of the run, would that be equivalent to the training peaks info or does TP average a bunch of individual Pa:HR data points versus just the average of half the run? Thanks!Brian Vickers on December 13, 2019 at 9:26 am #34313
Thanks for the polar tip, JeremyG. I still have my older polar watch and HR7 strap. I’ll give it a try. I knew there would be a reason to keel it.Brian Vickers on December 13, 2019 at 9:32 am #34314
Thanks, rachelp. I tried to upload a screen shot but it didn’t work. Maybe I’ll go back to TP Premium too! ?
I’m using the premium version of TP and struggling to understand the Pa:HR measure.
I looked at a *section* of a training hike I did on Monday, selecting data starting at ~15mins and ending ~55mins later. I wanted to 1) allow ~15mins for warm-up, 2) only calculate Pa:HR during the time I was ascending and 3) try to take a section with a fairly consistent gradient.
Eyeballing the chart, it seems my avg HR in the first and second half of the workout would be roughly similar but TP shows Pa:HR (for the selection) of 30.54%. How do I interpret that number?
Same hike again on Fri, similar analysis.
If I take the starting point at 15:05 (closest I could get to 15mins warm-up) and the end-point at about 59:37 later (closest I could get to 1h), then I see Pa:HR of 56.58%. I don’t understand what that means.
When I do these hikes, I frequently check my HRM to ensure I’m staying in Z1 or Z2, so in a way I have designed the test to be rigged! As a result, I’d expect the 1H/2H split to be close by design.
In case of use to anyone else:
– Pa:HR will only return a meaningful number if you have configured TP to use rTSS and pace. I deliberately did not as I don’t think rTSS is helpful for hiking given pace is so dependent on terrain (e.g. 5kmh on a logging road might be slow, 1kmh bushwhacking might be fast)
– I exported the .fit files for the workout from TP then imported them to Garmin Basecamp, then copy-pasted the data into Google Sheets. I then averaged HR for two 30-minute blocks, starting after 15-minutes to allow for warm-up. That should have given me the data I needed for the AeT test. However, my HR was ~4bpm slower in the second half than the first, so I will need to re-run (re-hike?!) the test
So you are doing this test going uphill?
I thought the recommendation was to do it in a flat or gentle rolling ground.
I haven’t configured TP for rTSS and it still gave a meaningful result that most probably looks correct for my case when done on a flat loop basically
In theory choosing a consistent gradient uphill hike trying to keep steady HR should yield similar result but apparently not, judging from your findings
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.