currently we can choose training load for running either based on HR or Power. It’s accurate for road running on flat surface, but for trail running we miss the elevation impact.
Would it be possible to add it in the training load computation method (and priority) ?
Or maybe to add a way of creating our own Training Load method and I could enter : TrainingLoad = HrTrainingLoad + ElevationInFeet/100;
If you measure running power (ie with Stryd) why would elevation make a difference to TSS? I use a Stryd precisely for this reason. I run in forests and trails that undulate and it is almost impossible to get an accurate fix on distance or elevation.
Power works well only if you’re running (almost) all the time. It’s good when you run less than 2 hours and have not a lot of elevation. For example, last friday I did 17km/1h45/500m D+ and Power Load (stryd) is equal to Heart Rate load (both 90).
On longer run with a lot of elevation and Power Hiking, using power for TSS gives incorrect result (hiking ftp is not the same than running ftp). For example, on a 33km/5h/2100m D+ training session I did one week ago, Power Load is 169 and Heart Rate Load is 306. I’m not a TSS specialist, but my guess is 306 is a lot more accurate than 169.
I’m fine using the current HR Load, it gives good result. I was just wondering if giving the user the possibility to compute it’s own Load using a formula would be difficult to add.
It seems odd that in one case the TSS and the hrTSS are similar but in the other you get a very large discrepancy. What do you mean by “power hiking”? I guess you mean speed walking??
Intervals.icu can calculate load from gradient adjusted pace if you capture your threshold pace in /settings. You can choose to prioritise pace over power or HR in /settings:
You can also click the load number for an activity and see what it would be by power, HR and/or pace and then just edit it (here HR load is 53 and pace load is 58):
