I am currently working hard on separating from Strava. You can manually upload .fit files + automatic download from Garmin Connect will be live on Friday. Soon you won’t need a Strava account to use the platform.

Strava is no longer granting app rate limit increases which effectively caps the number of users an app using the Strava API can have. is currently quite cycling centric (I have a gammy knee, so no running for me!) but there is a lot of running stuff on the todo list that will get done eventually.


That’s a game changer for me… not a fan of Strava, so pleased to not need it in the chain.

1 Like

I’ve been enjoying playing with the numbers on the calculators.

I realise we’ve not got a lot data to play with this year, but how accurate are people finding the pacing/nutrition calculator?

The only race I managed this year - Helvellyn - I averaged 216W on the bike & my predicted would’ve been a whopping 248W. Perhaps Helvellyn isn’t the fairest example as we were probably saving our running legs a bit more than we would for a flat half-marathon.

Anyway, just wondered if anyone else has crunched their numbers.

Regarding the fitness page.
It’s keep fatigue above fitness while maintaining form in the optimal zone, or in high risk but not for too long…
great software…

quick question to anyone using
Where is your form? the only way I can get mine into the green “Optimal” zone is by taking 2 days off.
even though I’m mostly doing steady aerobic work, my form is well into the red zone ( -40 -50 ish).

The weather was atrocious!
I was WAY under where I expected to be due to being scared shitless on the main road at the top.

My easy recce was pretty much the same as race day :rofl::rofl::rofl:

1 Like

It uses pretty much same scoring systems as training peaks so assume your scores there are same if you have it. Some People can cope with higher loads of training if you’re sure it’s right for you, think @Matthew_Spooner has similar levels. I’d be flogged if I got anywhere near that level of fatigue/ramp rate.

I think I am a bit of an outlier in terms of being able to put in big days, day after day. I don’t know if it is genetic or flogging myself day in day out on a windsurf board 30 years ago.

1 Like

Although the main thing is that hugely negative form numbers is a sign you’re doing bigger loads compared to your own baseline from 2 months ago.
So hence the general thought is that for most people that would be a risk of burnout/injury. Obviously it’s worked for you Matt this year so you know you’re doing well with it.

1 Like

It’s been a fairly steady progression. I feel like I’m just doing steady winter training to be honest, so it’ll be interesting to see what it looks like in a couple of months.

This is the current situation

How active are you outside of that training?

For me any CTL below 70 odd is almost completely irrelevant, and I can instantly do it day in day out without any risk of over training so that’s pretty much an immediate “fatigue” in that sense double the way into the high risk zone, but I know I’ll be absolutely fine from having done it multiple times. I think a lot of it is because this is only capturing measured exercise, whereas someone who is on the sofa all the time outside the measured exercise is going to be very different to someone who is out and about or doing a physical job outside it. Even with lack of cross over in sports specificness.

1 Like

I’m fairly active. Can get 20000 steps at work, up and down stairs all day depending on what I’m doing, so that’s regardless of training,
I see what you mean regarding this. I had 3 months off last year through injury, but I was still active every day, walking and at work, so the impact on fatigue was massive once I restarted training.

1 Like

I guess it must be the ramp given the relatively low starting point. So relatively, it’s seeing a high rate. I wouldn’t say my ramps have ever been different in absolute terms. You can see after my long holiday last new year, when my CTL really dropped, I saw similar red numbers


I’m guessing over time my fatigue will stay constant or slowly increase and fitness will catch up with it, there by creating a better form calculation.
I’ll report back in another month. :+1:

1 Like

I keep my form between -10 and -20, this feels pretty sustainable. I did 2 big training blocks, one in March and the other in November, where my form dropped really low. I don’t have a training camp scheduled in March this year, due to Covid, so I am not sure about my plans.

I have IM Lanza on 24 May, I plan to build my CTL to around 160 by early May, then ease back and tapper properly before the event.

My CTL has been around 140-150 for almost 12 months, which has helped me to build a significant base fitness level

My current form of -40 / -50 is easily manageable for me, so I’m guessing it’s been thrown out by the lack of consistency over the last few months?
I know CTL is fitness on Training Peaks. Does that correlate with fitness on Intervals? I’m guessing they’re the same or very similar calculation.
As an aside, I’ve started to dig a bit deeper into the software. It’s a dream for number lovers. HR decoupling is probably my next area of interest

Just to be clear, it’s not the case that CTL = fitness. It gets stupidly referred to as that, even by TP I think, but CTL can be static and you are getting fitter.

Do an 8 week block of structured intervals and execute perfectly, with FTP set at 200.

You improve, and repeat the exact same 8 week block, again executing perfectly, with FTP set at 250.

Your CTL at the end of the two 8 week blocks will be exactly the same, yet clearly you are fitter after the second block.

1 Like

Out of interest, what do people see on their training intensity distribution chart? Seems I’m in the “not so effective” Threshold category. It does line up with my general lack of real high intensity stuff.


1 Like

Its not a chart i’ve looked at that closely, but here’s mine.

Something for me to read up on

1 Like

Trainerroad did a massive deep dive in episode 299 on training intensity distributions.

A lot of it, on reflection, was defending their training plans to other criticism they’ve recently received. There’s been a lot of bad press about their SS Base programmes, and Nate was repeatedly saying how those are the only two that actually follow a high proportion of SS, and that they’re for specific use cases.

Polarized is definitely the in vogue approach, and even TR are releasing Polarized versions of their plans

1 Like