Glad to hear you are going to be using Training Peaks. I think it is THE best training tracking/monitoring tool ever. And I have been trying different systems for over 30 years with myself and many athletes from junior level right up to Olympians. You have hit on its one failing… TSS (Training Stress Score) for strength, power, anaerobic capacity, anaerobic endurance work. As a cyclist and if you are using power to determine TSS it will do a excellent job for the aerobic work but still not for strength/power workouts. But if you are doing various modes of foot borne work especially in hilly terrain where pace become meaningless then you must use hrTSS (that is Training Stress Score based on heart rate). And since HR is not a good monitor of the work done in strength sessions the TSS measure will under report your actual training stress. Here is the work around I have evolved to. Bear in mind that this is more art than science, but if you are consistent across all these types of workouts then the arbitrary nature of what I am about to describe won’t matter.
For very high intensity (non-aeroibic) workouts like those mentioned above I look at how long it takes the athlete to recover from them then award a TSS to that work of the same level as he would have achieved in an aerobic workout of requiring a similar recovery time. In other words you fudge the TSS number around so that the TSS matches the fatigue level. Make sense?
As to a day of inbounds skiing of boarding, that is a tough one because not every day will be the same. How many runs are you getting in on a day? It is not like a standard strength workout where you can learn after a few weeks that this is like a TSS=80.
TP know this they just do not know how to fix it. It is like comparing apples to oranges. It will be highly individual and you are the only one who knows.
I’ll be discussing how I do this “fudging” in our Boulder training workshop on November 12 and 13th.