When I do this nothing changes, and when I go back and look in Fitness days it has reverted back to 42/7 and not saved the values I inputted
Changing these factors needs to be done on the date from where you want to change them. If you change them today, all future activities will use the new factors. A change will be indicated on the Fitness chart.
in the calendar click on Add Entry, Fitness days and the set the factors AND date from which you want to change them. I’m not sure if you need to reprocess or recalculate.
1 Like
I’ve been doing that. I changed the date to 01 Jan 2021 and still it everts back to the current 42/7
Do you see this to indicate the change on 1/1/21?
And if so, do see any other change more recently that would overrule the 2021 setting?
A change should also appear on the calendar
Thanks for showing me where to look and yes I do see this so I guess it has applied the change. I’ve changed the parameters to fit those I use in XERT.
A slightly separate question. My CTL in training Peaks is 83, XERT 79 but in intervals it is 60. I am definitely at the fitter end of my fitness when I have podiumed in my age class in mtb events so think that the Intervals figure is too low. How can I amend it to track that in XERT/TrainingPeaks and is it recommended?
Loving Intervals.icu by the way so want to ditch TrainingPeaks
Having podiumed in your age class, you are almost certainly aware of the fact that CTL isn’t a performance indicator. It’s a planning and analysis aid for load. Just to make sure that you’re not looking at it in the wrong way…
But the difference TP - Intervals is big and you should be able to find a reason for that. A couple points difference can be explained by rounding errors and slight differences in formula’s, but not a 25% difference.
Since ATL/CTL is the result of a Load calculation, the cause is probably differing loads for your activities.
You are talking MTB, do you have Power on your MTB or are you tracking Load by HR?
If load is derived from HR, that should explain the difference quite easily. Intervals has different ways of calculating load from HR which will yield different load numbers. There’s Time In Zones, Average HR and Normalized TRIMP. I don’t use TP, so I don’t know what they use and if they have different ways of calculating load from HR. Start by checking load for several activities in the last 6 weeks and compare between the two analysis suites. Change the settings and see if you can find something that is closer.
If load comes from Power, the difference should be very small on the condition that you have your FTP set equally in both softwares. That is, at every point in time. Intervals calculates Load from Power (almost) exactly the same way as TP does.
The difference in absolute numbers is one thing, but the trend in both should really be very similar. If that is not the case, there’s definitely something else going wrong.
Set the Activity List view in Intervals and add the Load column. Compare that with TP results and correct or come back here to see if we can help further.
3 Likes
Thanks for the reply MedTechCD. OK will do. And yes I have a XT 4iiii left crank power meter on the mtb, which is my only bike apart from the trainer that obviously has power. I think I remember first seeing this when I started Intervals.icu and wondered if it had anything to do with the initial figures I seeded the programme with? But then you would have thought that over time the figures would have normalised towards each other.
I use the XERT Threshold Power figure as my FTP in both TrainingPeaks and Intervals so when I get a breakthrough or it changes downwards I adjust the figures
Yup, my CTL can remain pretty constant but my STRAVA times can come down especially if I have being doing plenty of LT1 sessions or Steve Neal high torque - low cadence intervals
It takes 6 weeks/42 days of history to fill.
1 Like
I’ve had a look and it’s interesting.
Comparing TrainingPeaks and Intervals. Rides are similar load, but load for my Core and stretching (I. have 2 bulging discs so do this daily) and Gym work (2xweek) is very different, with TrainingPeaks up to 50% more - not sure why that is. I could potentially adapt this within Intervals by changing the % effect Core work and Strength training have on my fitness
Comparing to XERT where it only records rides. Both are pretty similar on rides where I do hard intervals, but there is quite a difference in my zone 2 rides (majority of my riding). Obvious I suppose, as Intervals will be giving the same load score for a minute at 200w in minute 10 and minute 180. While XERT will give a higher load score for the minute at 180 due it realising that you are getting tired so pushing the same wattage is having a bigger effect on you.
In Intervals, by default, weight training does not contribute to fitness because it has no ‘cardiovascular’ outcome. It’s not like it is not contributing to strength and general health, it just has very little to no effect on your cardiovascular system. If TP counts it fully in your PMC, the best option to get similar results, is to set Weight training to 100% in settings. Keep in mind that this kind of training is calculated from HR, so there could still be considerable differences if the Load from HR calculation is different.
I’m not familiar with XERT’s way of calculating load. But my first impression on what you say, is that they are double counting fatigue since load goes up when riding longer…
The standard way is to count load referencing to FTP per time unit.
Thanks MedTechCD. I’ll look at changing the weight training settings.
XERT is different in that their XSS is a strain score rather than a stress score so calculated differently. I like XERT but it does lack a training plan function which is why I had been using TPeaks.
yup that does it. Now I know why I may change it back and just appreciate that Intervals is more cycling specific when it comes to load. Now no need for TPeaks! Though I would like to see if I can transfer some training plans I have on there over, or maybe it will just have to be the key workouts remade in workout builder
it may have started out as cycling specific, but I do beileve that now it’s getting better at RUn and Swim disciplines.
TP seems like a pain, from what I can find / info from the web, seems like one can’t upload FIT workout files, ERG/MRC workout files and you also can’t download workout files.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
1 Like
It is working in opposite direction for me: I set ATL days in the past to 9d (instead of default 7d), and the effect on the data is that I recover faster. The Form line moves up. I expected it to move down towards the red area. Has anyone the same problem?
Could someone check this please? I tried to post in the Bug reports sections but apparently I am not allowed to create a new thread.
Fitness days settings is not working as expected. If I increase the number of Fatigue days the Form curve indicates that I recover faster (the whole curve moves up), which is wrong.
Increasing fatigue days increases the weighing applied to past training load vs recent training load. So what it does to form depends on your recent training and it might move up. This is the code:
double atlWeight = Math.exp(-1.0 / r.atl_days);
r.atl = (float)(prev.atl * atlWeight + r.atlLoad * (1.0 - atlWeight));
So for 7 days atlWeight = 0.8668778998. For 9 days it is 0.8948393168.
ATL_today = (ATL_yesterday * atlWeight) + load_today * (1 - atlWeight)
So you can see that increasing fatigue days places a larger weighting on the historical fatigue i.e. recent training load counts less.
why can’t I find this option anymore?
much appreciated