Daniels Points vs TSS

[numminummi]

In June i had the best month of my cycling 'career'. I hit PB on 5, 10 and 20 mins and finished in top 5 for 6 races in a row. Then i had a one week break in early july and after that started a 3 week build for the late season in aug. However i was not able to hit the same numbers at all, so i looked at my training and PM chart for answers. But i could not find a reason to why - the PM was at almost the same level 125 CTL and -7 SB vs 125 CTL and -5 SB.

Then i looked at the Daniels Point chart which showed a big difference compared to the PM chart - in june i hit 72 CTL and since then it has dropped. This drop, i figure, is because danielspoints rewards intensity higher than normal TSS and in june i had been racing a lot the prior months- ie. high intensity for a large proportion of my training time.

How are your experience with danielspoints? Do you also find that they predict good performance better than TSS because they reward more points to race specific intensities?

 

[JibberJim]

I find HR metrics much more useful than power based ones, for the main reason that I do not have an accurate measure of my FTP often enough - so TSS and therefore CTL and ATL become progressively more disassociated from both reality and an HR based version. I don't train by power (I use it only to record performance or modulate PE while riding) and I test FTP rarely as it doesn't interest me - and I find the HR perfectly adequate as it doesn't need to know an FTP that is hopefully changing continually - normally growing, but due to a new baby and less fun things getting in the way also dropping quite hard as training disappears for a few weeks.

What it sounds like to me is you failed to bump your FTP up to its "true" value after your best month, and either failed to raise it enough, or failed to raise it at all. You then trained via the old FTP - doing too little in reality and therefore the reduction in volume and intensity that you saw in the HR based measure was very real. But it's not a failure in the TSS and power model, just in that you didn't keep the FTP up to date.

My own disinterest in doing so is why I use HR based metrics, which I've found for me to be a very good predictor of performance, and track extremely tightly to TSS when I have an accurate FTP - and as expected different when my FTP is not accurate - e.g. if I know I'm stronger than my last FTP measure it under scores and over scores if I know I'm weaker.

It's also why I don't use prescriptive power targets for training but only use PE based methods with some feedback from power and recent similar efforts to help modulate it.

So yes, daniels points - or other HR based methods are a very useful check on having an accurate FTP - particularly for the athlete who's seeing rapid changes.

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by JibberJim .

I find HR metrics much more useful than power based ones, for the main reason that I do not have an accurate measure of my FTP often enough - so TSS and therefore CTL and ATL become progressively more disassociated from both reality and an HR based version. I don't train by power (I use it only to record performance or modulate PE while riding) and I test FTP rarely as it doesn't interest me - and I find the HR perfectly adequate as it doesn't need to know an FTP that is hopefully changing continually - normally growing, but due to a new baby and less fun things getting in the way also dropping quite hard as training disappears for a few weeks.

What it sounds like to me is you failed to bump your FTP up to its "true" value after your best month, and either failed to raise it enough, or failed to raise it at all. You then trained via the old FTP - doing too little in reality and therefore the reduction in volume and intensity that you saw in the HR based measure was very real. But it's not a failure in the TSS and power model, just in that you didn't keep the FTP up to date.

My own disinterest in doing so is why I use HR based metrics, which I've found for me to be a very good predictor of performance, and track extremely tightly to TSS when I have an accurate FTP - and as expected different when my FTP is not accurate - e.g. if I know I'm stronger than my last FTP measure it under scores and over scores if I know I'm weaker.

It's also why I don't use prescriptive power targets for training but only use PE based methods with some feedback from power and recent similar efforts to help modulate it.

So yes, daniels points - or other HR based methods are a very useful check on having an accurate FTP - particularly for the athlete who's seeing rapid changes.

Daniel's system is based upon pace (the running equivalent of power), not heart rate.

 

[numminummi]

Originally Posted by acoggan .


Daniel's system is based upon pace (the running equivalent of power), not heart rate.

yep, and the Daniels Points in GC is based on power

 

[JibberJim]

Originally Posted by numminummi .

yep, and the Daniels Points in GC is based on power

Sorry, yes, but looking at the implementation I don't think it changes the conclusion, Daniels points is less sensitive to a too low FTP set.

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by JibberJim .


Sorry, yes, but looking at the implementation I don't think it changes the conclusion, Daniels points is less sensitive to a too low FTP set.

How so? Daniel's system weights the average intensity of a workout to the 4th order; TSS only to the 2nd order. Thus, if you underestimate your FTP by 10%, Daniel's points will be inflated by 52%, whereas TSS will be inflated by only 23%.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Originally Posted by acoggan

How so? Daniel's system weights the average intensity of a workout to the 4th order; TSS only to the 2nd order. Thus, if you underestimate your FTP by 10%, Daniel's points will be inflated by 52%, whereas TSS will be inflated by only 23%.

lol...