Skip to main content

 

I like the concept of fitness as a ratio of effort/intensity vs rest over time. But the calculation needs to be updated, because as it stands, it gives me peaks of around 110, and lows of about 11 in the past two years. I know it's relative, and it's accurate that my intensity and frequency changes seasonally, but it's misleading in that it looks like I'm 10x more fit in the summer than in the winter. I'd like the range to be more indicative of performance potential. Ex: in the winter when my score is 11, i can probably still run a 5k, bike a century, etc (whatever baseline metric) about 70-80% as fast as my peak. So I'd expect the fitness scores to reflect that. If my peak is 110, my low should be 70 or so. Not 11...

I understand your request but that's not what the fitness metric is for. In a nutshell fitness shows how much you trained in the last six weeks compared to your own capacity (FTP, heartrate zones) and takes into consideration with what fitness do you have started the mentioned 6 weeks ago. It's obviously not what you are looking for, but it is a widely accepted approach, especially to derivate from it the Training Stress Balance as indicator if you're slacking, overreaching or even into overtraining. Changing the formula wouldn't be advisable for this reason.

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings