I’ve been noticing some discrepancies when using HR-based workouts. Here’s one example: this athlete has a good correlation between Power Load and HR Load for completed activities. However, the planned workouts seem to be completely off. A workout this week prescribed a narrow HR range at the top o…

Here is the post about used method for workouts [image] Training load bug Bug Reports I have just added support for calculating training load for HR based workouts using HRSS (normalised TRIMP). One hour at approx LTHR comes out at about 100 as you would …

I think the workout builder is using HRSS, what’s the setting for the activity?

Thanks a lot, @R2Tom I actually used HRSS from the beginning, but recently I ran a few experiments and found that Time in HR Zones correlated much better with Power Load (at least over here), making things much easier on my end. I’m not entirely sure why. I’ll mark this as solved, but the current …

If you take some basic principles: 1h at 100% LTHR is 100 (load). 1h at 100% of FTP is 100. 1h at 70% of FTP is 49. 1h at 70% of LTHR is 27 The 27 doesn’t make sense, but I don’t really know enough to know why. All by MTB and gravel rides prior to March this year are based on HR (for load). I c…

Yes, but the scales are different between power and HR. A Z2 ride may correspond to around 70% of FTP, but that probably translates to something like 78% of LTHR. What I did was switch to Time in HR Zones because the resulting load aligns much more closely with Power Load. That makes things much ea…

Difficulty Calibrating HR-Based Workout Intensity

Questions & Help

R2Tom 27 June 2026 14:25 4

Here is the post about used method for workouts

And here are more details about HRSS

HRSS may can have a better correlation to power load, I use it myself, and power and hr load are pretty close to each other for me.