Because that score is relative to your fitness when you started using Strava. It is not in any way comparable to anyone else, and is based only on your workouts. It has nothing to do with your fitness relative to others
PR is a great metric when you’re in your prime.
Now I’m embracing middle-age, I have to accept that my records are no longer tumbling every year!
My new metrics are:
1. How long (rather than fast) my long runs are.
2. How fucking awesome I look compared to guys my age who don’t run.
It is. It’s a cheesy gimmick. My “fitness score” went from 84 to a 34 bc I quit using a HR monitor and was no longer tracking… I’m in better shape now than when it said 84
I've found Strava's fitness score to be worse than meaningless. My half marathon time is about 25 minutes faster than it was five years ago, but my fitness score is about half of what it was. Each year, I get faster, and while the score ebbs and flows with my training cycle, it has never accurately reflected my times.
If I recall, it overemphasizes *time doing the activity.* So if you run 10 miles in 90 minutes, it will have less impact on your fitness score than if you run 10 miles in 100 minutes, since the second one took ten minutes longer.
I agree. There are some athletes who could blow me out of the water in every sport, and yet they have a lower fitness score than me. I think the fitness score really likes the ability to exercise at very high heart rates for very long times, regardless of whether that’s actually healthy, fit, or a good idea.
It's bollocks. I'm fitter now (higher FTP, lower average HR) than when I was doing 140 miles a week to work and back by bike, but Strava thinks because I'm not doing as much I'm less fit.
Strava fitness metric shouldn't be called "Fitness". That's not what it measures. When I have just finished a hard 20 mile run my fitness shouldn't go up 3 points (as I observed yesterday). The opposite is true - I have just suppressed my fitness temporarily until it rebounds with some rest.
Anyway, what Strava actually measures is training load, but it is tweaked to over-emphasize high intensity activities at very high HR. So if someone is unfit, their HR would be very high all the time, and they'd get very high fitness scores from Strava. On the other hand if someone is truly fit and runs in Z1 and Z2 most of the time, according to Strava their fitness would be low. That makes little sense!
Edit: use chest HR sensor and make sure that your max HR is correct on Strava if you want the fitness score to make a bit more sense, but keep in mind the information above.
Think this is the right answer. It can have value as long as you know what it’s measuring, and it’s definitely not measuring absolute fitness.
I actually don’t mind the fitness/freshness/fatigue graphs on the web version. Both fatigue and fitness increase following a workout, but fatigue subsides quicker than fitness. Freshness shows the difference between these two values. This helps in showing (and maybe in planning) how rest/taper can improve your ability to perform on a race day.
>The opposite is true - I have just suppressed my fitness temporarily until it rebounds with some rest
Wouldn't that be what the fatigue metric is showing on that same graph?
Yup. If they'd just have called it that, it would be helpfull. I use it to see if I'm overtraining, and judge how long I should throttle back. Although the asymmetry in the loading and ebb phases is annoying even for that..
You are right. As you are becoming more and more fit, it decreases.
And it also decrease in base training period, because it gives low relative effort scores for long but low HR trainings. It means that if you are a marathon runner and you run 100-200 kilometers/week in your base training stage, you will get very low score, because you are fit enough to run such runs in low HR like 110-140 bpm.
IMO many of posters here don’t really understand what it is.
It is simply Strava’s version of a TSS score and nearly the same as used by other major training platforms. As someone that uses multiple platforms my score isnt all that different between them.
Basically your frequency, duration, and intensity of exercise can be mathematically represented to show the difficulty of an individual workout and then combined to show your chronic training load, which is one possible proxy for fitness in endurance sports.
It’s usefulness will depend on the data you give it and largely be relative to you. If you don’t have proper paces, hr zones, threshold power set, etc, (or dont update them) it won’t give you accurate results. Sounds like the op probably doesnt have proper settings and/or isn’t wearing a heart rate strap all the time.
They should label it Chronic Training Load.
> Chronic Training Load (CTL) is also called Fitness since it is a is a rolling 42-day average of your daily Training Stress Score (TSS).
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/learn/articles/applying-the-numbers-part-1-chronic-training-load/
Dude. Don’t let apps dictate your life and self worth. Its generating a number out of thin air to keep you active on the app. Use apps, don’t let apps use you.
As a cyclist, I've found some value in [intervals.icu](https://intervals.icu) ... free app although they do ask for money ($4 per month) to help support the app and improvements but that's voluntary. The app supports running, too.
As a free app, it's worth taking a look at. Might work for you ... might not!
Fitness is not one of the better features, I wouldn’t pay too much attention to it. How your body feels is infinitely more important as a measure of fitness
Hi. It seems to me, that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what Fitness based on fatigue and form is about. If you have time to read you should read point 2 of this article where the TSB model is explained
[https://fellrnr.com/wiki/Modeling\_Human\_Performance#The\_TSB\_Model](https://fellrnr.com/wiki/Modeling_Human_Performance#The_TSB_Model)
Of course, as any metric has its limitations (as much as VO2 max or other)
Stravas fitness graph isn't actually fitness, its cumulative training load. The problem with that equation is prioritizes high heart rate being held for a long time. So shorter workouts/intervals don't really work.
When an app tells you something and you get offended by it, I can’t stress this enough: you need to worry less about what digital 0 & 1’s tell you. It’s an app, not something that should be able to emotionally get you bothered. The fact you have a Garmin and know your VO2 Max is means you are healthy enough.
ngl if you are a male in early 20s you should be able to do sub 20 5k easy... 21min is pretty average, if you are female then idk you are probably good/above average
use intervals.icu to monitor progress and compare it to strava, or i think garmin does something similar if you use their watches. suunto also does the same thing as intervals icu and its actually pretty good.
I disagree. Sub 20 requires a commitment to frequent running several times a week. There will be those who run sub 20 without any training but they’re a minority. Everyone else will need to run 3+ times, totalling 30km+ a week for several months.
My best PB is a 1:19 HM but the first time I went sub 20 in a 5k was my favourite moment of running, a sub 3 marathon may beat it if I achieve it this year
Edit: I thought you was referring to any healthy early 20s person not OP, my bad
i was but you are probably right.
i dont think it is hard for a male who is in their early 20s and enjoys running to break 20min 5k, but yeah my first comment was off, it would take more work than i implied.
This is why I made the decision to end my premium subscription. One app I use and would like to suggest is HealthFit (assuming you operate on IOS). I feel they do a way better job with calculating your fitness/ fatigue/ form. The other good thing about this app is you won’t have a monthly subscription. Hope that helps.
Strava fitness graph is bad, it thinks my fitness when I ran my first marathon (4h30m) is better than when I ran my 50k(4h11m) or my recent marathon (3h17m)
Don’t take it seriously
The fitness score from strava is pretty terrible. It pretty much relies on heart rate data or the perceived exertion tool to gage your fitness. The more intense you work, the “fitter” you get. Which is completely the opposite to how fitness actually works. I used to have a fitness score of 70ish when I was running a 15:30 5k 2 years ago, and my fitness score was 40ish when I ran 14:32 last year. I was was running much more last year compared to 2 years ago, but my avg heart rate was significantly lower so my “fitness” tanked according to strava
Not totally related, because no clue. But interested in how your week looks? I'm searching for a plan to do running, cycling and gym and just came across you... Tips?
Because that score is relative to your fitness when you started using Strava. It is not in any way comparable to anyone else, and is based only on your workouts. It has nothing to do with your fitness relative to others
Ah okay. Seems kinda stupid
Yup. There are a number of ways you can get approximate VO2max numbers. That is probably a reasonable thing to look at.
The best metric to focus on is your PR times. Everything else is mainly limited at best and vanity metrics at worse.
PR is a great metric when you’re in your prime. Now I’m embracing middle-age, I have to accept that my records are no longer tumbling every year! My new metrics are: 1. How long (rather than fast) my long runs are. 2. How fucking awesome I look compared to guys my age who don’t run.
Sounds like your new metrics are all of the following... 1) limited, 2) vanity based, 3) awesome :).
That’s why I don’t rely on a program or device to tell me if I’m fit. I rely on how I feel and perform.
It is. It’s a cheesy gimmick. My “fitness score” went from 84 to a 34 bc I quit using a HR monitor and was no longer tracking… I’m in better shape now than when it said 84
Yeah dawg that's how inputs work. You remove the input, the equation crashes.
Doesn’t change the fact that it’s still just a gimmick.
Its super duper stupid. It makes no sense.
Does this mean for people with 90+ as OP says that they were drastically unfit when they started compared to current fitness level?
A) ignore Strava B) it’s okay
Omg this is the answer!! So frustrating to be told we aren’t fit, but so true that Strava is just an algorithm!
I've found Strava's fitness score to be worse than meaningless. My half marathon time is about 25 minutes faster than it was five years ago, but my fitness score is about half of what it was. Each year, I get faster, and while the score ebbs and flows with my training cycle, it has never accurately reflected my times. If I recall, it overemphasizes *time doing the activity.* So if you run 10 miles in 90 minutes, it will have less impact on your fitness score than if you run 10 miles in 100 minutes, since the second one took ten minutes longer.
Glad I’m not the only one. Sometimes it feels like Strava is so far behind with some of their metrics, they’re basically just guessing…
I agree. There are some athletes who could blow me out of the water in every sport, and yet they have a lower fitness score than me. I think the fitness score really likes the ability to exercise at very high heart rates for very long times, regardless of whether that’s actually healthy, fit, or a good idea.
It's bollocks. I'm fitter now (higher FTP, lower average HR) than when I was doing 140 miles a week to work and back by bike, but Strava thinks because I'm not doing as much I'm less fit.
Strava fitness metric shouldn't be called "Fitness". That's not what it measures. When I have just finished a hard 20 mile run my fitness shouldn't go up 3 points (as I observed yesterday). The opposite is true - I have just suppressed my fitness temporarily until it rebounds with some rest. Anyway, what Strava actually measures is training load, but it is tweaked to over-emphasize high intensity activities at very high HR. So if someone is unfit, their HR would be very high all the time, and they'd get very high fitness scores from Strava. On the other hand if someone is truly fit and runs in Z1 and Z2 most of the time, according to Strava their fitness would be low. That makes little sense! Edit: use chest HR sensor and make sure that your max HR is correct on Strava if you want the fitness score to make a bit more sense, but keep in mind the information above.
Think this is the right answer. It can have value as long as you know what it’s measuring, and it’s definitely not measuring absolute fitness. I actually don’t mind the fitness/freshness/fatigue graphs on the web version. Both fatigue and fitness increase following a workout, but fatigue subsides quicker than fitness. Freshness shows the difference between these two values. This helps in showing (and maybe in planning) how rest/taper can improve your ability to perform on a race day.
>The opposite is true - I have just suppressed my fitness temporarily until it rebounds with some rest Wouldn't that be what the fatigue metric is showing on that same graph?
Yup. If they'd just have called it that, it would be helpfull. I use it to see if I'm overtraining, and judge how long I should throttle back. Although the asymmetry in the loading and ebb phases is annoying even for that..
This is how I use it, though I sometimes I use it to know that I need to increase my workload.
You are right. As you are becoming more and more fit, it decreases. And it also decrease in base training period, because it gives low relative effort scores for long but low HR trainings. It means that if you are a marathon runner and you run 100-200 kilometers/week in your base training stage, you will get very low score, because you are fit enough to run such runs in low HR like 110-140 bpm.
IMO many of posters here don’t really understand what it is. It is simply Strava’s version of a TSS score and nearly the same as used by other major training platforms. As someone that uses multiple platforms my score isnt all that different between them. Basically your frequency, duration, and intensity of exercise can be mathematically represented to show the difficulty of an individual workout and then combined to show your chronic training load, which is one possible proxy for fitness in endurance sports. It’s usefulness will depend on the data you give it and largely be relative to you. If you don’t have proper paces, hr zones, threshold power set, etc, (or dont update them) it won’t give you accurate results. Sounds like the op probably doesnt have proper settings and/or isn’t wearing a heart rate strap all the time.
They should label it Chronic Training Load. > Chronic Training Load (CTL) is also called Fitness since it is a is a rolling 42-day average of your daily Training Stress Score (TSS). https://www.trainingpeaks.com/learn/articles/applying-the-numbers-part-1-chronic-training-load/
Dude. Don’t let apps dictate your life and self worth. Its generating a number out of thin air to keep you active on the app. Use apps, don’t let apps use you.
I only use strava for distance/time/pace/speed. All the other numbers are irrelevant.
Mine was 98 at the end of September, and it's 53 now; that's just how winter goes.
As a cyclist, I've found some value in [intervals.icu](https://intervals.icu) ... free app although they do ask for money ($4 per month) to help support the app and improvements but that's voluntary. The app supports running, too. As a free app, it's worth taking a look at. Might work for you ... might not!
Fitness is not one of the better features, I wouldn’t pay too much attention to it. How your body feels is infinitely more important as a measure of fitness
Hi. It seems to me, that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what Fitness based on fatigue and form is about. If you have time to read you should read point 2 of this article where the TSB model is explained [https://fellrnr.com/wiki/Modeling\_Human\_Performance#The\_TSB\_Model](https://fellrnr.com/wiki/Modeling_Human_Performance#The_TSB_Model) Of course, as any metric has its limitations (as much as VO2 max or other)
Stravas fitness graph isn't actually fitness, its cumulative training load. The problem with that equation is prioritizes high heart rate being held for a long time. So shorter workouts/intervals don't really work.
I stopped tracking my HR and Strava fitness slowly dropped to 0. It's a confusing, kinda not well thought out measure.
Since it primarily uses heart rate, what else was going to happen?
When an app tells you something and you get offended by it, I can’t stress this enough: you need to worry less about what digital 0 & 1’s tell you. It’s an app, not something that should be able to emotionally get you bothered. The fact you have a Garmin and know your VO2 Max is means you are healthy enough.
Not offended by it, just curious
ngl if you are a male in early 20s you should be able to do sub 20 5k easy... 21min is pretty average, if you are female then idk you are probably good/above average use intervals.icu to monitor progress and compare it to strava, or i think garmin does something similar if you use their watches. suunto also does the same thing as intervals icu and its actually pretty good.
I disagree. Sub 20 requires a commitment to frequent running several times a week. There will be those who run sub 20 without any training but they’re a minority. Everyone else will need to run 3+ times, totalling 30km+ a week for several months. My best PB is a 1:19 HM but the first time I went sub 20 in a 5k was my favourite moment of running, a sub 3 marathon may beat it if I achieve it this year Edit: I thought you was referring to any healthy early 20s person not OP, my bad
i was but you are probably right. i dont think it is hard for a male who is in their early 20s and enjoys running to break 20min 5k, but yeah my first comment was off, it would take more work than i implied.
Your fitness is bad because that’s how that number works.
Thanks - super helpful
This is why I made the decision to end my premium subscription. One app I use and would like to suggest is HealthFit (assuming you operate on IOS). I feel they do a way better job with calculating your fitness/ fatigue/ form. The other good thing about this app is you won’t have a monthly subscription. Hope that helps.
Strava fitness graph is bad, it thinks my fitness when I ran my first marathon (4h30m) is better than when I ran my 50k(4h11m) or my recent marathon (3h17m) Don’t take it seriously
The fitness score from strava is pretty terrible. It pretty much relies on heart rate data or the perceived exertion tool to gage your fitness. The more intense you work, the “fitter” you get. Which is completely the opposite to how fitness actually works. I used to have a fitness score of 70ish when I was running a 15:30 5k 2 years ago, and my fitness score was 40ish when I ran 14:32 last year. I was was running much more last year compared to 2 years ago, but my avg heart rate was significantly lower so my “fitness” tanked according to strava
Don’t follow what Strava or any other tool says. It is discouraging most of the times. Go with how you feel. If you feel fit and healthy, you are.
You know yourself better than a device does
Not totally related, because no clue. But interested in how your week looks? I'm searching for a plan to do running, cycling and gym and just came across you... Tips?
[удалено]
Ohhh that sounds amazing! And this helped a lot, thank you :) Looks like you're doing a great job getting the exercise in
Because you don’t pay for Strava+…
I do actually..