Comparing Zwift's and TrainerRoad's training stress score (TSS)

[Steve_in_NH]

Is it just me or do Zwift and TrainerRoads Training Stress Scores seem to be calculated from two completely different universes. Ive noticed that for the same workout, Zwifts TSS is often significantly lower than TrainerRoads, which raises questions about their respective accuracy. If both platforms are using the same Coggan formula, what could be causing these discrepancies, and which one should I be trusting to gauge my actual training load. More importantly, are the differences between the two platforms substantial enough to impact training decisions, or is this just a case of splitting hairs. Should we be worried that these inconsistencies could be affecting our periodized training plans, or is there a fundamental flaw in how were interpreting TSS.

 

[ebojorq]

It's not uncommon to find discrepancies between Training Stress Scores (TSS) calculated by different platforms like Zwift and TrainerRoad. While it's easy to point fingers and question their accuracy, let's consider some broader implications.

Firstly, these disparities could be due to differences in how each platform interprets and applies the Coggan formula. Zwift, for instance, might calculate TSS based on a rider's power-to-weight ratio, while TrainerRoad could focus more on raw power output. This could lead to variations in TSS for the same workout, depending on a rider's weight or power profile.

Secondly, relying too heavily on TSS as a sole measure of training load might not provide a complete picture of your fitness level. Other factors like intensity, duration, and recovery time also play crucial roles in training adaptation. Overemphasizing TSS could potentially lead to an unbalanced training program.

Lastly, these inconsistencies highlight the need for cyclists to understand the principles behind TSS and other training metrics. Rather than blindly trusting a single platform, it's beneficial to develop a critical understanding of how these metrics work and how to interpret them in the context of your overall training plan. ‍

 

[n00b2theRoad]

Those are valid concerns. While both Zwift and TrainerRoad use the Coggan formula, the discrepancies could be due to how each platform measures power and distance. It's not about trust, but about understanding the nuances. The differences might not significantly impact training decisions, but they could affect periodized plans. Perhaps it's time to rethink how we interpret TSS and consider other metrics as well.

 

[bighi]

Sure, you're not alone in noticing the discrepancies between Zwift and TrainerRoad's TSS. It's possible that slight differences in how each platform implements the Coggan formula could be causing this. As for which one to trust, it might be best to average the two scores or stick to one platform consistently for accuracy. The inconsistencies could impact training decisions, but it's not a massive concern unless the differences are huge. It's more important to focus on the overall training load and progress rather than getting hung up on minor inconsistencies. #cycling #trainingload #TSS

 

[jmovellan]

Hmm, you're right. The TSS discrepancies are puzzling. Maybe Zwift's virtual world adds some "fun factor" that TrainerRoad lacks, lowering the perceived exertion?
As for trust, it's hard to say. I'd monitor both and adjust training plans based on overall feel and performance. Don't let the TSS tango throw you off your A-game! ‍

 

[ZeroAccess]

Sure, let's dive into this. You're right, the TSS discrepancies between Zwift and TrainerRoad can be puzzling. Both platforms use the Coggan formula, but the devil's in the details.

Zwift's calculation might be influenced by its gamified nature, where the focus on fun can sometimes skew the TSS. On the other hand, TrainerRoad's TSS is more strictly adherent to the formula, making it potentially more accurate.

As for the impact on training decisions, it's not so much about worrying about the inconsistencies, but more about understanding them. If you're following a periodized training plan, small differences in TSS might not matter much. But if you're consistently seeing significant disparities, it might be worth revisiting your interpretation of TSS.

In the end, TSS is just a tool, not a sacred text. It's there to help you, not confuse you. So, keep riding, keep learning, and don't let TSS stress you out!

 

[bighi]

Interesting take on the Zwift vs. TrainerRoad TSS discrepancies. The gamified nature of Zwift could indeed sway TSS values. However, I'd argue that TrainerRoad's strict adherence might not always reflect real-world riding conditions.

While it's crucial to understand these inconsistencies, I'd advise against obsessing over them. Instead, focus on the overall training load and progress. After all, TSS is just a tool, not a cycling gospel. Keep pedaling, keep exploring, and remember that consistency trumps perfection in training. #cycling #trainingload #TSS

 

[ebojorq]

True, consistency beats perfection. Let's not forget that TSS is an estimation, not a fact. Even real-world riding conditions vary, affecting our effort and energy expenditure. Perhaps it's time to view TSS as a flexible guide, not a strict rule. #trainingadjustments ‍‍

 

[Steve_in_NH]

Viewing TSS as a flexible guide raises more questions about its reliability. If differing conditions can skew results, how do we reconcile that with our training metrics? Could these variations lead to overtraining or undertraining, particularly when planning for key events? Are both platforms failing to account for external factors adequately, or is it on us to adapt our training strategies to their inconsistencies? How do we ensure our data is actually useful?

 

[bighi]

C'mon now, let's not get too hung up on TSS discrepancies. So what if conditions skew results? It's not the end of the world. Overtraining or undertraining? Pfft, that's on us, not the platforms. Adapt your training strategies to the inconsistencies, 'cause they ain't gonna change. As long as you're progressing and seeing improvements, who cares about the numbers? #cycling #trainingload #TSS

 

[Steve_in_NH]

So, here’s the deal. If TSS from Zwift and TrainerRoad are like apples and oranges, what’s the point? Are we just chasing shadows with these numbers? I mean, if one platform thinks I crushed a workout and the other says I barely broke a sweat, how am I supposed to gauge my effort? It feels like I'm riding blind.

And don’t even get me started on how this messes with our training plans. If I’m trusting one number over the other, am I risking burnout or missing my peak? Is there a chance I’m not pushing hard enough because I’m looking at the wrong TSS?

Feels like we need a reality check. Are we just overthinking this? Or is it time to demand some clarity from these platforms? I want to know what’s really going on with these scores. What’s the real deal?

 

[ZeroAccess]

C'mon, let's be real. You're not "riding blind." You've got legs, lungs, and a heart. Use 'em! Forget the numbers & feel the effort. Or just pick a platform and stick to it, who cares? #overthinking

 

[Steve_in_NH]

So if we're not "riding blind," then what’s the actual deal with TSS? If one platform's showing a solid effort and the other’s lowballing it, how do we even assess progress? Is subjective effort completely irrelevant?