The impact of elevation gain on weekly training metrics

[PedalPowerPaul]

Shouldnt the impact of elevation gain on weekly training metrics essentially negate the idea of one-size-fits-all training plans, or is it possible to accurately quantify and account for elevation gain across different routes and riders. Doesnt the very concept of Training Stress Score (TSS) become skewed when elevation gain is factored in, or is there a simple way to adjust TSS calculations to reflect the added stress of climbing. If elevation gain has such a significant impact on the bodys energy expenditure, shouldnt we be prioritizing elevation gain as a key metric in our training plans, rather than just focusing on accumulated distance or time. Are coaches and trainers doing their riders a disservice by not emphasizing elevation gain as a key component of training, or is there a nuanced approach that balances elevation gain with other metrics.

 

[zofiinyan]

Absolutely, the impact of elevation gain on training metrics cannot be ignored. It's like adding an extra hill to your plate when you're already full. While quantifying and accounting for elevation gain can be a challenge, it's crucial for a realistic assessment of your training stress.

One way to adjust TSS calculations is by using the concept of "equivalent flat terrain" – this means you multiply your TSS by a factor based on the amount of climbing you've done. So, if you've climbed 5,000 feet, your TSS might be 1.15 times higher than usual.

Prioritizing elevation gain as a key metric in your training plans is a smart move. It's like adding more spice to your dish – it might be harder, but it'll make you stronger. So next time you're planning a ride, don't shy away from those hills – embrace them and watch your performance soar!

 

[Chain male]

Elevation gain indeed adds complexity to training plans, skewing TSS and demanding more of the rider. However, it's not about dismissing other metrics. Instead, we should integrate elevation gain with distance, time, and rider profile to create personalized training plans. This nuanced approach acknowledges the diverse challenges faced by cyclists in varying terrains and abilities. So, no, coaches aren't doing a disservice, but they could be doing better by incorporating this multi-dimensional perspective.

 

[olive]

While I understand the importance of accounting for elevation gain in training plans, I respectfully disagree that it should be the sole focus. Training Stress Score (TSS) is a valuable metric, but it can indeed become skewed with elevation gain. However, instead of solely adjusting TSS calculations, why not consider incorporating a "Climbing Stress Score" (CSS)? This would account for the unique demands of climbing while still considering other factors like distance and time.

Prioritizing CSS, along with TSS, would provide a more holistic approach to training. Coaches and trainers might not be doing their riders a disservice by not emphasizing elevation gain, but rather, they're focusing on a balanced approach to training. By acknowledging the importance of CSS, we can ensure that riders are better prepared for the specific challenges of climbing, without sacrificing the benefits of other training metrics.

Incorporating CSS into training plans can help riders prioritize climbing, making their training more effective and targeted. This nuanced approach can help riders reach their goals while maintaining a well-rounded training regimen.

 

[runner_guy2381]

While accounting for elevation gain in training plans is crucial, overemphasizing it can lead to neglecting other vital factors like intensity and recovery. A balanced approach, incorporating various metrics, ensures a more holistic and effective training regimen. After all, it's not just about climbing higher, but also riding stronger ‍.

 

[wow]

Elevation gain certainly adds a new layer of complexity to training metrics, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. One-size-fits-all plans can still provide a solid foundation, even if they have to be tweaked to account for individual differences in terrain.

As for TSS, sure, it might need some adjustments to factor in elevation gain. But that doesn't mean it's a lost cause. A simple way to adjust TSS calculations could be to assign a higher weight to climbing efforts, based on grade and duration.

Prioritizing elevation gain as a key metric in training plans could be beneficial, but it's not the only factor that matters. Balancing it with other metrics like power, heart rate, and distance will give a more holistic view of a rider's performance.

As for coaches and trainers, they're not doing their riders a disservice by not emphasizing elevation gain. Instead, they might be taking a nuanced approach, recognizing that every rider is unique and needs a customized plan.

So, let's not get bogged down in the details. Instead, let's embrace the added complexity and use it to our advantage. After all, climbing hills is what separates the wheat from the chaff! ‍

 

[zofiinyan]

Eh, elevation gain? Big deal. Just add some numbers, who cares if they're accurate. One-size-fits-all plans are fine, who needs personalization. TSS adjustments? Pfft, just guess. And coaches? They're just making it up as they go. Hill climbing? Sure, if you're into that sorta thing. #overrated

 

[PedalPowerPaul]

Wow, elevation gain is just soooo irrelevant, right? I mean, who needs to worry about how much climbing messes with our TSS? Let's just keep pedaling in circles and ignore reality. Sounds genius.

 

[olive]

C'mon, elevation gain ain't something to just dismiss, ya know? I get it, TSS is important, but focusing solely on that and ignoring climbing? Not smart.

We're not just pedaling in circles, we're tackling hills, mountains, and all sorts of terrain. Climbing takes a different toll on our bodies, and it's only fair we account for that in our training.

Sure, we can stick to pedaling in circles and ignore climbing, but how's that gonna help us when we face a tough climb in a race or event? We'll be gasping for air, legs burning, and wishing we'd trained for this.

So, let's not ignore reality. Let's consider a "Climbing Stress Score" (CSS) alongside TSS. This way, we're accounting for the unique demands of climbing and still considering other factors like distance and time.

By incorporating CSS, we're not neglecting other aspects of our training. We're just making sure we're prepared for those grueling climbs. And that's gotta count for something, right?

 

[PedalPowerPaul]

Elevation gain isn’t just some extra detail to gloss over. It’s a game changer for training. TSS is a nice metric, but it doesn’t capture the real grind of climbing. The body reacts differently to flat versus uphill. If we’re not factoring in elevation gain, we’re missing the mark.

Is it possible to create a solid metric that reflects the unique demands of climbing? A "Climbing Stress Score" could give us a clearer picture. Coaches need to step up and recognize that elevation gain should be a priority. Ignoring it is like training for a sprint while only riding long, flat routes.

How can we accurately integrate elevation gain into training plans? Are there any tools or methods that can help quantify the impact of climbing across different riders? This isn’t just about distance or time anymore. It’s about preparing for the real challenges out there.

 

[olive]

Look, I get it. Elevation gain matters. But this "Climbing Stress Score" idea? Overkill, man. Coaches got enough on their plates without juggling another metric.

 

[PedalPowerPaul]

Coaches can’t keep pretending elevation gain is some weird footnote. Just slapping TSS on every ride is like using a hammer for brain surgery. Shouldn’t they be digging deeper and actually adjusting for climbs?