Estimating TSS

The key to estimating TSS is estimating NP. This is definitely feasible for trainer rides, but is very difficult (at least for me) for variable power road rides.

RapDaddyo said:

The key to estimating TSS is estimating NP. This is definitely feasible for trainer rides, but is very difficult (at least for me) for variable power road rides.

Hmmm, a conundrum. I have a library of PM ride files, so I can look up a similar ride and estimate TSS from that when planning.

Somehow I can't see how it would be any worse than diaries/TRIMPS/time/distance etc, so I'd keep going with it - at least that way you are staying on top of the conceptual elements, have some idea of training load (even if your estimates are slightly flawed) and will be in good shape to validate when you do make the leap.... but as RD says, NP can be quite variable on the road.

E.g. if riding an undulating course, you can have a higher Avg power when you are a little tired as you just try to maintain a steady rythym but when you're a bit fresher you might attack the hills and recover down the other side, dropping AP but probably resulting in a much higher NP. Same ride, roughly same ride time but quite different TSS.

I've also noticed that some new users of PMs find out how much of their riding is not at the intensity they thought it was (either way).

I agree with Alex, keep using the estimates for now. When you get your PM later in the year you'll at least have some decent idea of TSS history to seed the PMC chart.

Alex,

Alex Simmons said:

Somehow I can't see how it would be any worse than diaries/TRIMPS/time/distance etc, so I'd keep going with it - at least that way you are staying on top of the conceptual elements, have some idea of training load (even if your estimates are slightly flawed) and will be in good shape to validate when you do make the leap.

That's basically what I'm thinking. I've bagged the TRIMPS idea. First of all, nobody really talks about it so I'd be on an island with that one. And as you mention, the conceptual elements are good to know. I find the discussions about it thus far really interesting. As expected, I've been hesitant to chime in since I live in an estimated TSTWKT world.

Alex Simmons said:

E.g. if riding an undulating course, you can have a higher Avg power when you are a little tired as you just try to maintain a steady rythym but when you're a bit fresher you might attack the hills and recover down the other side, dropping AP but probably resulting in a much higher NP. Same ride, roughly same ride time but quite different TSS.

Hmmm...interesting. Could you actually expand more on this. I think right now I would likely put the first case in L2 and the second in L3. I don't really ride too many road courses that aren't flat, but I do once a week. Other rides are off-road, trainer, hills, or on a pancake flat course.

Alex Simmons said:

I've also noticed that some new users of PMs find out how much of their riding is not at the intensity they thought it was (either way).

You'll probably find it interesting that when I put in my numbers for the year it occured to me that I clearly wasn't training hard/long enough. This was evidenced by seeing a sub-50 CTL right before my last event of the year. TSB was like 15 or something. I didn't win. Surprised? 🙂

Another thing I note in the past week is that indeed, the intensity needs to be higher. Funny that when I try to quantify a lot of my efforts on the trainer it strikes me that I really haven't been going as hard as I might have imagined. That's good, since this year was supposed to be all about learning and making these realizations for next season.

Also, I came to the conclusion that I probably need to ride 5 days a week, not 4, to reach and maintain a CTL that will be where I want it to be. I think 2 days later acoggan posted something roughly to the same effect. The TSTWKT spreadhseet has been great for planning/forecasting. I'm not sure it's such a good analysis tool given the lack of quality training time this year.

Thanks for the input/thoughts.

normZurawski said:

Not yet having a PM, I've been estimating my TSS recently to get a ballpark figure of my workouts and so on. I like this better than the TRIMPS number, probably because more people here are using TSS/CTL/ATL/TSB plus I don't want to wear the HRM all the time. I have the tstwkt spreadsheet that Ale put together earlier in the year. I think my estimates are reasonable and I'm generally honest with my workout levels.

So the question is, how usefull (useless) is this approach? Plans are to get a PM sometime next year. But in the meantime, all I have are my estimates. Is this a partly faulty approach or entirely faulty? Even if I'm errant but consistent, it would seem to be a useful tool in looking at my overall training load.

May I ask you what you're trying to acheive? Getting into power training basics I guess?

For your information, there will be a paper published on TRIMPS soon ( :o euh soon... in 1 month).

SolarEnergy said:

May I ask you what you're trying to acheive? Getting into power training basics I guess?

For your information, there will be a paper published on TRIMPS soon ( :o euh soon... in 1 month).

Basically trying to quantify my training using CTL/ATL/TSB. Find trends, plan better, keep myself in shape through the offseason, possible peak/taper usage, etc. Figure out why this ride was so good and that ride was so bad. And so on.

Make sense?

normZurawski said:

Basically trying to quantify my training using CTL/ATL/TSB. Find trends, plan better, keep myself in shape through the offseason, possible peak/taper usage, etc. Figure out why this ride was so good and that ride was so bad. And so on.

Make sense?

Well yes.

Not in an argumentative way, I can't help but wondering about the impact of minor inaccuracies in data recording on performance manager charts. But moreover, I can't help but wondering if there could be a direct translation between TRIMPS and TSS (I guess not).

That being said, no matter how you do it, you're probably learning a lot and will probably acheive your goals.

normZurawski said:

Basically trying to quantify my training using CTL/ATL/TSB. Find trends, plan better, keep myself in shape through the offseason, possible peak/taper usage, etc. Figure out why this ride was so good and that ride was so bad. And so on.

Make sense?

Honestly, I don't see how a guesstimated PMC can be of any more value than tracking RPE and/or HR. Nor do I see how guesstimating TSS could possibly tell you anything about a ride you didn't already know.
😕

normZurawski said:

Hmmm...interesting. Could you actually expand more on this. I think right now I would likely put the first case in L2 and the second in L3. I don't really ride too many road courses that aren't flat, but I do once a week. Other rides are off-road, trainer, hills, or on a pancake flat course.

I think you'll just see it when you ride with the PM and take note of the variability between AP & NP. I'd post some examples but I'd have to dig 'em out and I'm at the office and .... 🙂

normZurawski said:

You'll probably find it interesting that when I put in my numbers for the year it occured to me that I clearly wasn't training hard/long enough. This was evidenced by seeing a sub-50 CTL right before my last event of the year. TSB was like 15 or something. I didn't win. Surprised? 🙂

No 😉

Indeed training more (or more effectively) is one of the first things many people realise when they i. get a power meter and ii. see their PMC for the first time.

I think I said it before on this or another thread - the PMC was scary when I first looked at it - it showed my training and racing history as it really was and it was like an epiphany. Suddenly many things fell into place in my mind.... All the "feelings" I had about the previous season became instantly quantified on a chart. I didn't have a bad season by any stretch but I saw where it could have been better and where conflicting priorities where shown up by the PMC.

I'll probably do a write up on it at some stage.

Now I still made mistakes after having the tool - best way to learn.

normZurawski said:

Also, I came to the conclusion that I probably need to ride 5 days a week, not 4, to reach and maintain a CTL that will be where I want it to be.

Yeah, the weekend warrior training cycle is not ideal but for some it is a reality. I'm now on 6 days/week but nothing super long (at least not yet). Have a look at my PMC since 1 August. Not a stratospheric ramp rate by any stretch but it is a fairly consistent gradient. I've set all time power PBs from 20 min up during this phase (especially in last few weeks).
alex-cycle.blogspot.commy performance manager chart.htmlOpen ↗

peterpen said:

Honestly, I don't see how a guesstimated PMC can be of any more value than tracking RPE and/or HR. Nor do I see how guesstimating TSS could possibly tell you anything about a ride you didn't already know.
😕

Maybe all this effort is me going from totally unstructured to partially structured, and getting a PM will be even more the case. It might just be nothing more than RPE with numbers, which I'm trying to translate to TSS. The score of a workout is better for me than just saying you did an RPE 4 workout today for 60 minutes.

Alex Simmons said:

Indeed training more (or more effectively) is one of the first things many people realise when they i. get a power meter and ii. see their PMC for the first time.

I'm sure that will be the case. I would say I'm going through a sort of preemptive eye-opening experience now. It gives me some time to ramp up and soften the blow when I do take the plunge.

Alex Simmons said:

I'll probably do a write up on it at some stage.

Look forward to it.

Alex Simmons said:

Yeah, the weekend warrior training cycle is not ideal but for some it is a reality. I'm now on 6 days/week but nothing super long (at least not yet). Have a look at my PMC since 1 August. Not a stratospheric ramp rate by any stretch but it is a fairly consistent gradient. I've set all time power PBs from 20 min up during this phase (especially in last few weeks).
alex-cycle.blogspot.commy performance manager chart.htmlOpen ↗

Certainly a handy tool to have. Do you find the slow & steady climbing approach equates to not needing rest weeks? Someone mentioned that was an advantage of closely tracking your CTL/ATL/TSB, that the 4th week of rest isn't as crucial.

normZurawski said:

Maybe all this effort is me going from totally unstructured to partially structured, and getting a PM will be even more the case. It might just be nothing more than RPE with numbers, which I'm trying to translate to TSS. The score of a workout is better for me than just saying you did an RPE 4 workout today for 60 minutes.

I think this is a very rational approach and takes advantage of a great tool (WKO+ with Performance Manager). You might want to think about your rides in terms of either IF or TSS per hour (e.g., 3-4 different intensities). You could then convert the ride duration into TSS points. The ride duration will put some constraints on the intensity conversion factor (either IF or TSS per hour), especially rides >1 hour.

normZurawski said:

Maybe all this effort is me going from totally unstructured to partially structured, and getting a PM will be even more the case. It might just be nothing more than RPE with numbers, which I'm trying to translate to TSS. The score of a workout is better for me than just saying you did an RPE 4 workout today for 60 minutes.

Fair enough. Seems like just a different scaling system for RPE, one that can be plugged into WKO. However, given the subjectivity of the data you'd be putting into WKO, I don't see how it could be useful. Garbage in = garbage out, and all that.

Personally (dons flame-proof suit) I'd just get a cheap HRM and use that until I got a PM. Maybe you couldn't toss around all the acronyms with us cool kids here on cycling forums :p , but I think it'd be more use for actual training.

peterpen said:

Fair enough. Seems like just a different scaling system for RPE, one that can be plugged into WKO. However, given the subjectivity of the data you'd be putting into WKO, I don't see how it could be useful. Garbage in = garbage out, and all that.

To be clear, I'm using the TSTWKT spreadsheet that is floating around, which only takes TSS and calculates CTL/ATL/TSB. It's the "garbage in" I'm trying to minimize. By using Coggan's IF estimates as well as what frenchyge uses to estimate his workouts in advance, I have a ballpark figure to work with. Obviously there are imperfections. But if I'm consistent across the same workouts, that's all I care about right now. Consistent junk is better than nothing.

peterpen said:

Personally (dons flame-proof suit) I'd just get a cheap HRM and use that until I got a PM. Maybe you couldn't toss around all the acronyms with us cool kids here on cycling forums :p , but I think it'd be more use for actual training.

Got room in that suit? I actually use the HRM for L3 and L4 workouts on the trainer along with RPE. I'm still working out the details but I don't think it's that awful of an estimate. I think L3/4/5/6 trainer work is the easy part in this endeavor. What becomes more difficult is variable road rides and off-road rides, not to mention group off-road rides.