Ran a tempo-paced (it really was supposed to be more of a Z2 and it felt Z2, but nevertheless) 8mi this morning. When I uploaded the session, I rec’d a 101 rTSS score. My threshold pace is set at 6:40/mile right now and it definitely seems accurate.
FWIW, I am getting back into volume building after having taken 5 months easy. I ran Tuesday morning w/ 4 hard miles—2mi@old 10k pace and 2mi@old 5k pace. It was definitely tough, but I followed on Wednesday morning with a 1x20@~105%FTP, 2x10@FTP and a super easy run later that afternoon. is TSS calculated with consideration of current fatigue?
I get about 10 tss points per mile running at an easy pace and a recent all out 5k was 43.6 tss (~14.5 per mile). If mine is right then 12.6 per mile for a tempo run seems to be in the right ballpark. One Hour cycling all out should be a tss of 100, running is supposed to be a little higher because of the added stress from impact and supporting your weight.
As far as I know run TSS uses Grade adjusted pace and your threshold to calculate a score with no consideration for fatigue.
If you believe in NGP–which I personally don’t, although I think it is much better on the terrain you ran than the terrain I run that makes it useless–and you feel that you were not running at absolute max during that run, then yes, you’re threshold pace is set wrong. Your NGP was 6:49 per mile, which is a hair off your threshold pace of 6:40 per mile. 100 TSS in 1 hour IS threshold pace (or NGP equivalent), which you were damn close to.
According to Hunter Allen on a conference last year rTSS gives a score of 100 for 45 minutes of threshold effort due to the increased biomechanical stress on the body caused by running as opposed to biking. This seems to fit with my runs where a steady 1 hr run about 30 secs/km slower than my set threshold gains 100 rTSS.
I didn’t mishear as we questioned him on it. It would t be the first time that the training peaks literature hasn’t totally agreed with what actually happens. Try a 1 hr run at your set threshold and see what score you get.
I didn’t mishear as we questioned him on it. It would t be the first time that the training peaks literature hasn’t totally agreed with what actually happens. Try a 1 hr run at your set threshold and see what score you get.
I don’t use TrainingPeaks, rTSS, or NGP as I think all are garbage. But Hunter Allen has nothing to do with rTSS or NGP. Those formulas were invented by Dr. McGregor, who wrote that article. Even AC defers to him on this subject.
I don’t need to go out and run when I can do math, and the math behind the OP’s effort supports both that article and precisely what I’m saying. 100 TSS = 1 hour at threshold pace normalized for gradient.
I don’t need to go out and run when I can do math, and the math behind the OP’s effort supports both that article and precisely what I’m saying. 100 TSS = 1 hour at threshold pace normalized for gradient.
I think that article is just a “conceptual” one and not describes the algorithm very precisely.
Without actually doing the run and just uploading a 1h run at threshold speed gives rTSS=110.7, also the algorithm is not linear with duration, rTSS increases in more than proportional way when duration increases at the same IF (proportional to hours^1.025 instead to hours, AFAIK).
When rTSS came out I asked for the rationale and the official answer was to account for the “exponential loss of running economy”, which makes sense IMHO. More info in this old thread: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Relationship_between_rTss_and_IF_in_WKO%2B_P1689389
What is with the black box algorithms from these guys? The more difficult they make it to see the math the less trust I have in the metrics, not that I have much trust to begin with. The “exponential loss of running economy” sounds like a load of crap to me, frankly, but you would know better than I so I’ll take your word for it