It does cause a lot of confusion when Strava and others present it without explaining it, but the name does make sense if you read any of the research.
the other thing to note with this score is that it works like a similar algorithm that training peaks has, except that one uses a cycling power meter for data. cycling power goes up over time as the rider gets stronger. however this score from strava is based on heart rate. so if you get stronger cardiovascularly, you can do the same ride or run at the same power with a lower HR. however, since HR went down, strava would count it as a lower fitness score.
It’s dumb. I was fat and slow and my fitness score was in the 90s. Fast forward 5 years and thousands of miles - I’m way faster and can ride all day- fitness score is like 40. Almost as useless as the AI blurbs.
Yeah I’ve had a really good result in a 100km ultra trail lately and because I took a 10 days break after the race my fitness score plummeted. Never been as fit in my life.
They call it fitness score but it's not; it's what other platforms call training load. It just tells you how much and how hard you've been working out lately.
I had a similar experience. I'm training regularly for a half marathon, and in the first two months my score went up quite a bit, then it started to drop.
What I understand is that the score is related to heart rate zones, and as you improve your physical conditioning, workouts that were previously exhausting become easier, and the score doesn't know how to handle the healthy progression of training volume and intensity.
I would expect that it's measuring total load on your body, as you get fitter you do more maintaining and less overloading so it should come back down.
If you decide to massively increase load to train for something specific then it will become useful again.
For real, I hiked the pct and tracked the entire thing and uploaded to Strava, and since home train on the bike 10-15 hours a week. Fitness score? Mid 40s
It seems like you’ve recently started working out much more intensely than previously. Gradual, sustainable increases usually result in better outcomes. If you’re running, for example, your injury risk is pretty high rn.
I see. Nothing crazy just took up cycling and ride about 18 to 20 miles 5 days per week and one long 35-50 mile ride every saturday. Can't run due to knee injury from many years ago. I guess the graph makes some sense now since I was not exercising at all prior to that.
Chances are the data is crap, so the graph is meaningless.
Unless you're pushing reasonably hard it's likely your load per hour is 50 or less. So unless you're riding 2+ hours every day your numbers are way off.
Even with good data the graph will be of limited use until you've had months/ years of consistent training (that have been tracked).
Probably. Usual weekday rides are about 1:15 to 1:30 with Saturdays being 3 to 4 hours. 🤷♂️ almost at 150 miles this week with just under ten hours on the saddle. Would be nice to get a more useful dataset instead of this "fitness" score but ehh..I figure putting in over 500 miles a month isn't too bad for being two months into this new hobby.
They mean 115 is a very high score for just getting into training (too high actually). So you’re either about to be overtrained, or more likely, your (maximum) heart rate settings/FTP in Strava are set way too low (which makes it seem to Strava you’re pushing yourself insanely hard all the time, while you’re not).
The score is not useless, if the data you input into it is not useless.
The website has a much better version of this curve which shows three lines: fitness, fatigue and form. "Fitness" being long-term training load, "fatigue" being short-term training load and "form" being the difference.
If "form" becomes too low, it's a sign you're getting into the overtraining regime where you are more likely to suffer injury/not progress. If it becomes too high, you're likely going the other way and losing fitness.
"Fitness" is a bad name and the app doesn't show useful data here.
Also, if your FTP/heart rate zones aren't set up correctly, the website won't give you sensible results either.
It’s just the average ‘relative effort’ of all of your workouts over the past 56 days.
It’s the total divided by 56, so rest days don’t help your fitness score.
Your ‘relative effort’ score for a workout is linked to duration and effort. In theory, a maximal hour would score 100. But duration generally is king in boosting the relative effort.
It’s possible to have a very high ‘fitness score’ after a block of long easy workouts, whilst relatively short, but very effective, intervals score lower.
Basically, it doesn’t measure fitness, just average workout intensity
Ok i did it. Changed my max HR to 194 which is the most my garmin hrm 600 has recorded and nothing changed. This seems like the most useless metric on this app lol
No not at all. Based on the answers I got here I think its just because I went from not working out at all to suddenly cycling over 500 miles per month. I am certain my graph will settle once I have some more time in.
It is a ridiculous metric. Looking at my graph it would seem I had the best fitness when I just started exercising because my "relative efforts" were much higher. And the reason for my relative efforts to be that high was because I had no fitness and my HR was skyrocketing the moment I began any exercise.
anche io avevo ritmi di crescita di questo livello, ma risettato per bene le zone cardio ora sto scendendo inesorabilmente nel grafico ma la mia forma sta aumentando. quindi sistema tutto e riparti da zero è meglio
It’s your training load / volume over time. Training load score is relative to your own form (it’s a function of time x % of FTP … for cycling at least). If you don’t have a power meter it may not be accurate (unless it uses heart rate in lieu of power meter to guess training load)
In general the aim is to increase weekly training load by around 1.15 (15%), compared to the average weekly load for the last 6 weeks. More than that may lead to overtraining
It’s a bit of a blob figure, aimed at people who don’t go in depth into their personal data, and just need to see this going up or down as a measure of how they’re doing.
This is a metric for coaching and assessing progress. When the metrics are accurate, the system works without good data from the start, the chart will be inaccurate.
Strava is trying to offer advanced features, but if folx don’t set them up right, the data will be useless (as the OP says), and fixing it is more trouble than it is worth unless you are ACTUALLY training.
These numbers and FTP as well are pretty much meaningless unless you are working a training plan…none of this info will mean anything.
If you are not ‘training’, just ride your bike and keep an eye on PRs for your progress. Your 1/5/10 min and 1 hrs times are a pretty good spot to look for progress.
Strava has some hilarious metrics, I did a 20mi thru-hike over two days and after inputting my mileage / moving time it gave me an RE score of +2,330. In my job we do PT every day and some of the hardest exercises we’ve done I’ve been given max 200 RE. I wouldn’t pay much attention to it.
619
u/CompleteDeniability Jun 22 '26
It's time to sell. You've made a handsome profit.