Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Training load analysis accuracy?
#1
Hey all, just sharing what I've experienece with my vantage M.

I had a half marathon run on 20th Jan and the training load shows that I'm overtraining, where my body indeed is fatigue for 3 days. I haven't been working out seriously and intensely since the run (I had about 3 crossfit workouts and 1 basketball session in-between until 26th Jan. The training load been showing that I'm overtraining on the 26th Jan too.

When the clock strike 00:00 (27th Jan), the training load just refreshed and show that I'm detraining. I'm just curious how did the algorithm works? And to be Honest, I just only feel that my body is slightly more ready for a more intense and regular workout on the 26th Jan. Although the training load algorithms are just an indicator. But I feel demotivated and disappointed over how inaccurate the function is.

Anyone face something similar too?
Reply
#2
The calculation is well covered in Flow. It's TRIMP at its core, so nothing too fancy, therefore easy to calculate on your own.
Strain is a 7-day rolling average, and Tolerance 28-days rolling average of your training load. Your fitness status (productive, maintaining, et cet.) is the quotient of Strain/Tolerance. So depending on your history of training load, it's not unusual for the status to drop considerably, when a considerably high training load (like from a race) "leaves" the equation. Since you were "diagnosed" as overtraining I'm guessing your tolerance wasn't too high to begin with. The problem with Polar's model is that it uses just 28 days for your chronic stress (tolerance), instead of the standard 42-days of other TRIMP based models, like Trainingpeaks, Runalyze et cet. While this allows Polar to give somewhat sensible data much earlier, it also means that short breaks/recovery days are more heavily weighted than with the 42-days model.
Reply
#3
(01-26-2019, 04:22 PM)PMV Wrote: Hey all, just sharing what I've experienece with my vantage M.

I had a half marathon run on 20th Jan and the training load shows that I'm overtraining, where my body indeed is fatigue for 3 days. I haven't been working out seriously and intensely since the run (I had about 3 crossfit workouts and 1 basketball session in-between until 26th Jan. The training load been showing that I'm overtraining on the 26th Jan too.

When the clock strike 00:00 (27th Jan), the training load just refreshed and show that I'm detraining. I'm just curious how did the algorithm works? And to be Honest, I just only feel that my body is slightly more ready for a more intense and regular workout on the 26th Jan. Although the training load algorithms are just an indicator. But I feel demotivated and disappointed over how inaccurate the function is.

Anyone face something similar too?

yes, what Flokon said looks spot on.

The trimp calculation is pretty simple and well-understood (I've used it elsewhere for many, many years). it is not gospel truth but I certainly REGULARLY take into account the ctl/atl/tsb measures that are derived from TRIMP

it depends on the input data being reasonably correct of course.

I would also say that it works best on workouts that involve sustained periods of raised HR. so an hour in the gym for me lifting weights would not get my HR above 120/130 for any great period and the trimp score would be very low yet the cost to my body would be higher.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)