But, you know, what are some data points that runners are currently lacking, and maybe what are some of the newer measurements that runners are able to have access to with, with some of this new technology?

Yeah.

So a big component of what runners are missing, like those-- even for starters, current like 2026 GPS devices are just getting accuracy to the point where you can be hyper-confident with the second-on-second or half-second-on-half-second accuracy of those measurements.

But if you look back even 10 years, the accuracy of GPS is not great, especially when it comes to elevation.

So trying to derive any sort of real meaningful insight around this is how fast you're going on this uphill, and this is how fast you're going on this downhill, it's been really-- the data just hasn't had the quality to do anything really functional with that.

Like, if you have bad data, it doesn't matter what fancy algorithm you have to say this is how physiologically demanding it is.

If the data's bad, you can't do anything with it.

Uh, and then, uh, yeah, I'll let Matt talk about some really exciting stuff.

[laughs]

And you get a normalized power that kind of tries to weigh higher intensity efforts to count for more, and you then divide that by your FTP, and you get an intensity factor, and then that leads into what the total TSS is based on the duration for that intensity.

The issue that, again, as someone who personally always had much better five-minute power compared to anything else and who then transitioned into track, it's a very...

TSS is a very duration heavy or duration dependent metric.

The longer you go, the higher it is.

You can coast down a mountain for thirty minutes and not pedal once during a ride and get more training load from that ride despite not pedaling at all.

And the other problem is that you can get to, say, an intensity factor of 0.85, so pretty intense.

But you're saying you are gonna capture that.