REVIEWS DEALS BIKESHOPS TRAILS

Strava "fitness" rating, avg HR, and SS

2239 Views 29 Replies 13 Participants Last post by NordieBoy, Dec 24, 2021

damdam5

Discussion Starter · Dec 1, 2021

I've noticed a funny thing since I started SS about a month ago. For some reason my strava "fitness level" has been in steady decline. I am still riding just as much, 3-4 times a week. While I feel like I am getting my ass beat out there climbing and what not, my heart rate just doesn't get as high since I am standing and mashing vs. sitting and spinning at a higher cadence. Also may be related to having to stop and bail in a place or 2 on the climbs. Or maybe the watch strap has just been looser lol??

I definitely feel like I am getting stronger and freaking love the simplicity, smooth and quiet drivetrain -- definitely not complaining about some stupid strava thing. I just find it interesting that I am noticing an overall decrease in average and peak heart rate vs riding the same trail geared. I go out for about an hour, climb around 1100 ft over 7 miles. I am about 5 mins slower on SS I think, including more breaks. Average moving speed is basically the same. This is the typical elevation profile for the lunch ride.

Is this just typical of SS training? That the lower cadence climbing in a harder gear just works your body in a different way and its more about lower HR anaerobic than aerobic high HR training? I don't really care either way, I really dig it, just curious...

I am also about to try a harder cog, so that may have an impact as well, I am 32/22 and may go to 32/20 or 32/21. There are 1 or 2 short bursts I still can't clean, but I'd rather walk those and not be too spinny everywhere else.

Product Rectangle Slope Plot Font

See less See more

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

J.B. Weld

· #2 · Dec 2, 2021

Watches have a hard time with heart rate accuracy on mtb rides due to all the vibrations. If you want good hr data get a chest strap for sure.

As far as heart rate for slow vs fast cadence I do notice a slight difference but it's only few bpm at the same power at best.

I'm not sure how Strava calculates fitness but I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you're interested in that sort of thing you might consider a free trainingpeaks account, lots of interesting info and you can easily see where you're at with form, fatigue and fitness.

Reactions: 1

bikeranzin

· #3 · Dec 2, 2021

Using Strava, the best way to see how your fitness is doing is to repeat a segment at max effort and compare times. Bonus because that also accounts for bike setup, weight, skills, etc.

The fitness industry is awash in biometrics right now, and their ability to tell you much is similar to Goop's ability to do.... whatever it is that they claim.

Reactions: 2

J.B. Weld

· #4 · Dec 2, 2021

bikeranzin said:
The fitness industry is awash in biometrics right now, and their ability to tell you much is similar to Goop's ability to do.... whatever it is that they claim.

It's not voodoo, they are literally getting this $hit down to a science. If you know how to interpret the numbers and adjust your training accordingly they can be extremely beneficial. It all depends on what your goals are,

I just checked out the strava fitness page and it pretty much mimics trainingpeaks and my numbers are similar on both.

op- fitness is only part of the equation, form and fatigue have to be factored in,

bikeranzin

· #5 · Dec 2, 2021

J.B. Weld said:
It's not voodoo, they are literally getting this $hit down to a science.

I'm not saying it's "voodoo", I'm saying that it's not necessarily measuring anything useful. I'm a scientist, and my natural inclination is to put metrics on anything, and over the years of racing, I've concluded that most of them aren't very useful. Power, and HR are useful. CTL/ATL are somewhat useful, but you have to be on top of keeping your FTP calibrated, otherwise it's useless. Sleep metrics are nearly useless.

Reactions: 1

J.B. Weld

· #6 · Dec 2, 2021

bikeranzin said:
I'm not saying it's "voodoo", I'm saying that it's not necessarily measuring anything useful. I'm a scientist, and my natural inclination is to put metrics on anything, and over the years of racing, I've concluded that most of them aren't very useful. Power, and HR are useful. CTL/ATL are somewhat useful, but you have to be on top of keeping your FTP calibrated, otherwise it's useless. Sleep metrics are nearly useless.

Yeah I mostly agree. Most don't keep up on their ftp but I'm one of the weirdos that does. In my limited experience it does seem that when the stars all line up (ATL, CTL, TSB) I can snag pr's practically at will so there is a strong positive correlation for me anyway.

TSS is a very useful metric. It's all very geeky I know

Mcfarton

· #7 · Dec 2, 2021

bikeranzin said:
Using Strava, the best way to see how your fitness is doing is to repeat a segment at max effort and compare times. Bonus because that also accounts for bike setup, weight, skills, etc.

The fitness industry is awash in biometrics right now, and their ability to tell you much is similar to Goop's ability to do.... whatever it is that they claim.

The problem with this is that wind really affects the outcome. If you are just using the time for the segment. If you are using it for power and heart rate I can dig that. Otherwise a headwind can rob you of your best power output and a tailwind can give you a better time with garbage form. Also this is a mtb forum so trail conditions can also skew your time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

J.B. Weld

· #8 · Dec 2, 2021

Mcfarton said:
The problem with this is that wind really affects the outcome. If you are just using the time for the segment. If you are using it for power and heart rate I can dig that. Otherwise a headwind can rob you of your best power output and a tailwind can give you a better time with garbage form. Also this is a mtb forum so trail conditions can also skew your time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah all true. On some segments wind isn't such a big deal but trail conditions can be huge, Power is usually the best metric as far as fitness but it isn't so useful on a lot of mtb segments. I think a decently long & steady climb is the best way to gauge.

KobayashiMaru

· #9 · Dec 2, 2021

I'm confused because for me, out of the saddle effort always has a higher heart rate compared to being in the saddle. At a constant wattage on the trainer in the garage, if I just get off of the hoods and put my hands on the part of the bar that runs through the stem, my heart rate will climb a few beats a minute. It drops within seconds when I get back on the hoods. If I sit upright completely with my hands all the way off the bars, it will jump 5-10 beats a minute.

It may just be my experience, but standing out of the saddle on short, intense climbs gets me really high heart rates. I try to stay spinning in the saddle as much as I can.

If the girl said no then the answer obviously is no, but she's not gonna say no. She would never say no... because of the implication.

If you feel odd reading that, you don't know the context. It is a quote from the longest running sitcom of all time (that isn't a cartoon) and what I think is the craziest thing the funniest character in all of TV or movies has ever said. The show is a dark, heavy satire where people buy boats to entrap women, have fake funerals for babies they tried to use as tax write-offs during an IRS audit, make movies while performing in black face, hold immigrant families hostage while giving their home a makeover, and willfully become addicted to crack to get welfare benefits. Check out It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia to get the full experience. If it doesn't suit you, that is fine. Please hate in silence. There are probably things I might not appreciate about you, but I'll just keep them to myself like a polite person.

ghood

· #10 · Dec 2, 2021

I tend to have lower HR climbing on the SS too. I just figured it was because it weighs like 10 pounds less than my geared bike.

BansheeRune

· #11 · Dec 2, 2021

No mention of ambient temperature or other factors that weigh in, interesting.

damdam5

Discussion Starter · #12 · Dec 2, 2021 (Edited)

Thanks for the replies! Lots of acronyms to learn looks like. I was assuming that it's lower when standing due to the cadence being lower and using more body weight for pedal power. Which isn't necessarily any easier, as you end up needing more upper body input to keep things where they need to be. My upper body has been consistently sore this past month and I think overall fitness is better, it's just funny that my "devices" seem to think that my SS is an e-bike or something...

I did ride today at lunch and tried to hammer it a bit harder to check times on various climbs. The times were definitely better and I also had to stop more and catch my breath. I think I maybe have been a bit "lazy" on some of my SS rides not getting after it as much as I could since I wanted to keep rolling and take less breaks ("pacing" myself) hahaha. Heart rate was definitely higher today, but not quite as high as on the geared bike when I am constantly spinning. "Exercise Load", and therefore "Recovery Time" is also consistently less which makes no sense to me given that I feel more whipped after SS.

I don't really care as long as I am having fun, I just thought it was counter-intuitive. Also I wanted to ask about it in case it was some indication that my SS technique was off in some way. I really only ride solo, so not much to compare with.

See less See more

Reactions: 1

BansheeRune

· #13 · Dec 3, 2021

damdam5 said:
Thanks for the replies! Lots of acronyms to learn looks like. I was assuming that it's lower when standing due to the cadence being lower and using more body weight for pedal power. Which isn't necessarily any easier, as you end up needing more upper body input to keep things where they need to be. My upper body has been consistently sore this past month and I think overall fitness is better, it's just funny that my "devices" seem to think that my SS is an e-bike or something...

I did ride today at lunch and tried to hammer it a bit harder to check times on various climbs. The times were definitely better and I also had to stop more and catch my breath. I think I maybe have been a bit "lazy" on some of my SS rides not getting after it as much as I could since I wanted to keep rolling and take less breaks ("pacing" myself) hahaha. Heart rate was definitely higher today, but not quite as high as on the geared bike when I am constantly spinning. "Exercise Load", and therefore "Recovery Time" is also consistently less which makes no sense to me given that I feel more whipped after SS.

I don't really care as long as I am having fun, I just thought it was counter-intuitive. Also I wanted to ask about it in case it was some indication that my SS technique was off in some way. I really only ride solo, so not much to compare with.

If it works for ya, pedal on. Frankly, I like my cadence in my powerband range since that makes a ride dauntless.

RickBullottaPA

· #14 · Dec 4, 2021

damdam5 said:
I've noticed a funny thing since I started SS about a month ago. For some reason my strava "fitness level" has been in steady decline. I am still riding just as much, 3-4 times a week. While I feel like I am getting my ass beat out there climbing and what not, my heart rate just doesn't get as high since I am standing and mashing vs. sitting and spinning at a higher cadence. Also may be related to having to stop and bail in a place or 2 on the climbs. Or maybe the watch strap has just been looser lol??

I definitely feel like I am getting stronger and freaking love the simplicity, smooth and quiet drivetrain -- definitely not complaining about some stupid strava thing. I just find it interesting that I am noticing an overall decrease in average and peak heart rate vs riding the same trail geared. I go out for about an hour, climb around 1100 ft over 7 miles. I am about 5 mins slower on SS I think, including more breaks. Average moving speed is basically the same. This is the typical elevation profile for the lunch ride.

Is this just typical of SS training? That the lower cadence climbing in a harder gear just works your body in a different way and its more about lower HR anaerobic than aerobic high HR training? I don't really care either way, I really dig it, just curious...

I am also about to try a harder cog, so that may have an impact as well, I am 32/22 and may go to 32/20 or 32/21. There are 1 or 2 short bursts I still can't clean, but I'd rather walk those and not be too spinny everywhere else.

View attachment 1959442

Don't put too much credence in Strava's various synthetic metrics. As an example, go on a technical and hilly ride sometime on your MTB and look at the estimated wattage. LOL. Not even close. It compares your effort to a road bike ride most likely. In any case, these things are at best only relevant relative to a consistent baseline - e.g. all your rides on the same bike, on similar terrain.

J.B. Weld

· #15 · Dec 4, 2021

RickBullottaPA said:
Don't put too much credence in Strava's various synthetic metrics. As an example, go on a technical and hilly ride sometime on your MTB and look at the estimated wattage. LOL. Not even close. It compares your effort to a road bike ride most likely. In any case, these things are at best only relevant relative to a consistent baseline - e.g. all your rides on the same bike, on similar terrain.

Yeah without a power meter the strava fitness numbers are meaningless. I guess I should have mentioned that right off.

Reactions: 1

RickBullottaPA

· #16 · Dec 4, 2021

J.B. Weld said:
Yeah without a power meter the strava fitness numbers are meaningless. I guess I should have mentioned that right off.

For me, the only number that really assesses my progress is the clock! Times on the same segment in relatively similar conditions don't lie.

Happy holidays!

alexbn921

· #17 · Dec 4, 2021

I run a Garmin with a chest strap and a power meter. It knows my heart rate, beat variability, respiration rate, cadence and power output. They have good metrics and seem to give very accurate perditions of my current fitness.

The more data you give the better your assessment will be.

TazMini

· #18 · Dec 4, 2021

Strava fitness level is mainly based on % of max HR and length of effort. So you have to go harder and longer to keep moving it up. But you don’t need to do that to actually get faster/fitter.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gonzo

· #19 · Dec 13, 2021

damdam5 said:
I am also about to try a harder cog, so that may have an impact as well, I am 32/22 and may go to 32/20 or 32/21. There are 1 or 2 short bursts I still can't clean, but I'd rather walk those and not be too spinny everywhere else.

Get a larger front chain ring. The bigger the rings the longer they last. I ride a 36/21, you can try a 34/22 as well

damdam5

Discussion Starter · #20 · Dec 13, 2021

gonzo said:
Get a larger front chain ring. The bigger the rings the longer they last. I ride a 36/21, you can try a 34/22 as well

I do already have a 20 standing by. Generally speaking I'd think its easier to swap a COG than pulling the crank and getting everything in the vice to get the proper torque to keep the Cinch interface from squeaking. Plus, I'd also lose a wee bit of ground clearance from bigger ring (I occasionally hit the 32 as it is now) and RF cinch oval rings are more expensive than COGS. That said 21 tooth COGS are harder to find and 34/22 is wouldn't as big a jump as 32/20 coming from 32/22.

Were you primarily suggesting saving the life on the COG, ring or both? 2 teeth on 32 is only about a 6% difference, maybe it saves a porportional amount of life? 2 teeth on a 20 COG is 10% so it's a little more substantial of a change. Have you experienced much life differences by size? I'm new to SS, COGS or rings wear out first? Do you replace chains a few times before they wear out?

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.