[AfterPeak]

This is purely out of interest but what is the highest fitness score possible on Strava? I have never made it passed 40.

 

 

Topic

[AfterPeak]

I would say its not the road

I would say its not the road that counts but looking at my score I cant 

[wycombewheeler]

Organon wrote:

My Veloviewer score is 99.935 if anyone cares.

smashing it, mine is 99.350 I thought I was doing well.

In order to get a fitness score I’d have to wear my HRM every ride, and I just can’t be bothered. Normally put it on for a zwift session, but out on the roads, I normally don’t bother.

[Anonymous]

That’s very useful. 

That’s very useful.  Certainly explains why three hours’ tempo gives higher scores than an hour at threshold despite ‘feeling’ easier. 

I guess the ‘form’ score is actually the marker to watch as it’s a measure of readiness for a significant effort – if you’ve done a lot of training work recently and then allowed the fatigue to drop down (as it will faster than the badly named ‘fitness’) that’s your best timing for being able to perform without fatigue impacting you.

But, in order to get better, you have to include more than just junk miles in the work load, which it leaves you to take care of.

[Stratman]

Mine is consistently around

Mine is consistently around 100, as the rides I do are consistently 100-150 relative effort.  It’s to do with the effort put in compared to your FTP (or heartrate equivalent), and the time it’s over.  1 hour at FTP would be 100, but Strava uses something different based on heart rate.  The fitness score decays over time, but relatively slowly (42 days I think)  The fatigue score is also based on recent relative effort, but decays more quickly (7 days I think), and form is the balance between the two.  The idea is to manage this balance.  It’s explained on TrainingPeaks.

 There probably is a maximum fitness based on maintaining a high relative effort over many days. For me, a 100k in a little under 4 hours gets into the 400s for relative effort.  Getting more than 100 for an hour based on FTP does indeed suggest that the FTP is wrong, so Strava must be getting something wrong for my intensity score (too high).

[TagRed]

I believe it’s linked to your
I believe it’s linked to your FTP and effort level, along with time spent. So if you have an FTP of 200w and do a 1hr ride at 200w, you’ll get a training intensity score of 100 and I think a training load of 100. If you did the same for 2 hours it would be intensity of 100 and load of 200. And likewise a 100w ride would be intensity of 50 and load of 100. I think. And then continued efforts at a given level increases your score.

I would guess, though it is only a guess, that anything over a fitness score of 100 may mean your FTP is inaccurate, or you’re putting in ridiculous hours on rides.

Edit: found this and it explains it far better. Think I’m wrong on the 100 point but you do need to be doing high load rides. And it’s all relative to you anyway so one person’s 100 isn’t comparable to your own https://www.google.com/amp/s/science4performance.com/2019/11/04/modelling-strava-fitness-and-freshness/amp/

[FlyingPenguin]

My highest is 104, I’ll

My highest is 104, I’ll generally hit 90-100 at the end of a training block before it drops back down during recovery week and the process starts again.

Even though I’m pretty meticulous with my numbers, I’ve stopped worrying about it over anything other than a 1-3 month view.  Right now I’ve just started another training block and am at 82, lower than it was around the time I did my first imperial century.  I’m substantially faster now than I was then (averaging >30kph vs ~20kph), but my overall graph shows roughly flat since then (with some peaks and troughs, but never going too far either way).

So yeah, not entirely sure it works over the longer term.

[IanMunro]

Have a google of CTL/ATL/TSS 

Have a google of CTL/ATL/TSS  (Strava appear just to use Fatigue/Fitness possibly for legal reasons)
There’s no real right or wrong answer to what a good figure is, but  consistantly over 100 would seem to indicate a substatial training load.
*However!* It is very much a case of garbage in, garbage out, and if your power/HR figures for maximal sustained efforts is not correctly identified, the numbers you see will be proportionally too high/low. 
 

[Andrew Quigley]

Another runner/part time

Another runner/part time cyclist here – I usually peak about 150, ATM it’s in the 130s, seldom goes below 120. Doesn’t seem to mean a huge amount to me – garmin based VO2max seems better…

[AfterPeak]

Yep agreed. The main part of

Yep agreed. The main part of my miles is commuting and it just ticks up a point each day and down one when I dont. I have also noticed a longer ride seems to lead to a bigger jump compared to a short hard session.

[Anonymous]

I’d like to see a little more

I’d like to see a little more of the algorithm used to calculate it to be honest.  At the moment I’m pretty much as bike-fit as I’ve ever been, I’ve done a record amount of miles this year and I’m on 47, down from a peak of 59 in late October.

It’s difficult to tell but I get the distinct impression that I get more ‘credit’ for a three-hour tempo ride with Mrs JGV where I’m hardly out of breath, than an hour’s solid Zwift workout that’s building strength and ability to clear lactate and so on.  All these things are just numbers of course, and more is better but it would be good to understand what you’re supposed to do or not do.

[Organon]

My Veloviewer score is 99.935

My Veloviewer score is 99.935 if anyone cares.

[Anonymous]

As others have said not sure

As others have said not sure of the accuracy, I hadn’t looked at it for ages until I read this post and then pleasantly surprised to see I got a best of 98 this Sunday

[AfterPeak]

Looks like I have some way to

Looks like I have some way to go. Mine has steadly going up (riding only) but as everyone else is saying I dont feel fitter and I am defo fatter.

[AfterPeak]

Glad to see the evidence

Glad to see the evidence 🙂

[Podc]

I’m ignoring it.

I’m ignoring it.

At the start of the 1st lockdown I decided to run a minimum of 5k every day. I carried on after lockdown ended and stopped after 200 days. My fitness score dropped off during this period. Any bike ride I fitted in seemed to up the score disproportionately so I decided that either I didn’t understand how it worked, or I had configured something wrong, or it just wasn’t very good. Unless running every day makes your fitness worse. Anyway I’m ignoring it.

[Author]

Replies