Cycle Project

One block per week vs. session target — follows the period filter

HRV vs. Training Stress Balance — 4-quadrant form assessment

RMSSD and SDNN readings from your Polar H10, with a 7-reading rolling mean and ±1 SD band. A rising trend signals improving autonomic recovery; a falling trend or widening spread indicates accumulated fatigue.

Morning supine resting HR from your Polar H10 alongside the ScanWatch overnight average. A downward trend reflects improving cardiovascular fitness; sustained elevation above your baseline signals incomplete recovery.

Total, deep, REM and light sleep in minutes each night, alongside a 7-hour target line and 28-night rolling average. Consistent sleep above 7 hours supports recovery; tracking deep sleep share helps reveal rest quality beyond raw duration.

Heartbeats per kilojoule of work — cardiac effort relative to energy output for each ride. A downward trend means your heart is delivering the same output with less strain, a direct marker of improving aerobic efficiency.

CTL (fitness), ATL (fatigue) and TSB (form) derived from daily training stress, with phase transitions annotated. Rising CTL alongside positive TSB means you are fit and fresh; prolonged negative TSB or steep ATL spikes signal overreach.

Your 7-day acute load divided by your 28-day chronic load — a running measure of training-spike injury risk. The 0.8–1.3 range is optimal; consistently below 0.8 suggests undertraining, while above 1.3 signals elevated injury risk.

Week-on-week change in CTL (fitness) — the rate at which your training load is building. Staying within the phase-safe ceiling is important; consistent gains above it mean load is building faster than safe adaptation allows.

Weekly training stress from all rides, with amber ticks marking each week’s 10% safe progression cap. If your bar consistently exceeds the amber tick, load is growing faster than the recommended ramp rate.

Training stress score for each individual ride across the period. Intervals should naturally score higher than base rides; unexpectedly high values on easy sessions may signal poor pacing or pre-existing fatigue.

Your Functional Threshold Power over time, derived from ramp tests on the Domyos EB 900. A rising FTP confirms the fitness base is building; stagnant or falling values after consistent training suggest a recovery or ride-quality issue.

Normalised Power divided by Average HR for each ride — the power produced per heartbeat. A rising trend means you are generating more power for the same cardiac effort, one of the clearest signals of improving aerobic fitness.

EF drift between the first and second halves of each ride — how much cardiac efficiency fades under sustained effort. Values below 5% indicate a solid aerobic base; higher values mean your heart is working harder late in the ride to sustain the same output.

Efficiency Factor at each resistance level over time, tracking aerobic efficiency at different training intensities. A rising trend at your primary training resistance confirms fitness improving at that specific workload.

Best mean power across durations from 5 seconds to full ride length, with a power law envelope overlaid. A curve shifting upward confirms more power at every duration — short-end gains reflect sprint capacity, longer-end gains reflect threshold development.

Normalised Power divided by Average Power — how evenly power was distributed throughout each ride. Values close to 1.00 indicate steady pacing; higher values reflect spiky output that typically costs more physiologically than equivalent steady-state riding.

Mean heart rate across each ride, with readings from rides that predate HR calibration shown greyed as less reliable. A downward trend over consistent training suggests improving cardiovascular efficiency; note that harder session types will naturally read higher.

Time spent in each heart rate zone per ride, with your current phase aerobic target zone highlighted. For Phase 1, most time should fall in Z2 aerobic — sustained Z3 or Z4 time signals the effort ceiling is being exceeded.

Share of training time split between low, medium and high intensity across the last 8 weeks. A healthy base-building pattern is majority low intensity with a small fraction of high; medium intensity creeping up signals drift away from polarised training.

Time in each power zone across rides where power data is available, as a cross-check against HR zones. For base building the pattern should be Z1–Z2 dominant; disagreement between HR and power zones may indicate equipment calibration drift.

Systolic and diastolic blood pressure from manual entries over time. Sustained systolic above 130 or diastolic above 80 mmHg warrants medical attention; a gradual downward trend following regular aerobic exercise is a normal positive adaptation.

Body weight in kg with a 7-day rolling average to smooth daily fluid fluctuation. Gradual downward movement over weeks reflects fat loss; sharp swings within 1–2 days are typically fluid shifts rather than true body composition change.

FTP in watts per kilogram of body weight, with Coggan athlete category benchmarks overlaid. A rising trend reflects improving fitness, reducing weight, or both — the most concise single measure of cycling performance potential.

Each dot pairs a ride’s Efficiency Factor with the previous night’s sleep duration — does sleeping longer predict better-quality riding? A positive correlation (dots rising left-to-right) confirms sleep meaningfully affects next-day performance.

Each dot pairs a ride’s Efficiency Factor with that morning’s HRV score — does a higher readiness score predict a better-quality session? A positive correlation supports using morning HRV as a daily readiness gate before deciding session intensity.