NP viewable when riding...

The general rule is that NP is only useful for intervals outside of 20 minutes, as it smooths the data too much before that. It tells you how hard you were "really" going.

In my own limited experience -- esp when reading a group ride file- the NP v AP metric is useful to see how many surges there were. When you're doing 20 min intervals, NP and AP ought to be pretty close. If you're in a pace line or punchy group, odds are they'd look pretty different.

I'd highly recommend Training and Racing with a Power Meter. It's the best couple of bucks on power training that you'll spend, and it explains all of these acronyms and their uses.

Thank you.

I do have the book and from what I could make it, is seems to suggest that NP shows you the true cost, hence a interval done at 225W (NP) should be classed as just as that as this was the cost to the body.

Just wondering if I should therefore class this interval as 200 or 225?!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by tomUK [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG] seems to suggest that NP shows you the true cost

NP is a marketing tool. Nothing more. I have posted here how to do a 2 hour ride with NP twice as high as average power. And I have told them average power is a better measure than NP for that ride as well as everyother ride I have done in the past couple years.

---

If you want the true cost (whatever that is), you are better off using a function based on heart rate.

What evidence do you have to suggest NP is a marketing tool? There is no way heart rate can factor in sprints of 1300W. If you are suggesting NP is of little use then what other means do you have of measuring variability? NP helps me to keep things more constant when riding. When I start to see the gap widen between NP and Ave. Pwr I know that i'm cycling more 'erratically' which - for me - doesn't help/makes me feel a sense of malaise following a ride.

Annnnd, it starts again..... Bottom line is that TOG doesn't believe in Andy Coggan's work, the relationships between TSS, NP, IF, CTL etc., and takes every opportunity to bash him in these threads. Just ignore him unless you're in the mood to watch your thread degenerate into a name calling session.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I have posted here how to do a 2 hour ride with NP twice as high as average power. And I have told them average power is a better measure than NP for that ride as well as every other ride I have done in the past couple years.

Yet you have failed to provide one single iota of evidence in support of your claims...which makes them completely meaningless.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by tomUK [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

With the onset of devices that allow you to see NP when riding, I'd like to know what figure to use when doing intervals?

When riding alone and doing intervals I can usually keep my NP and AVE. watts pretty close; however, sometimes I try to do my intervals when on a group ride problem is, my NP for 15 minutes might show as 225 while my ave. pwr is 200. Which figure should I use when doing intervals?

Normalized power is primarily intended to reflect the physiological "cost" of variable intensity exercise - the adaptations resulting therefrom are a somewhat different question. Thus, even for longer efforts where normalized power can be considered reasonably reliable (i.e., 20 min and beyond), I'd suggest focusing on the average power (and if classifying the workout using my schema, use it to define the training level).

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by hrumpole [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

The general rule is that NP is only useful for intervals outside of 20 minutes, as it smooths the data too much before that.

Actually, normalized power tends to overestimate the true demands of variable intensity efforts <20 min in duration, not underestimate it. The overestimation results from the fact that the normalized power algorithm essentially ignores the contribution of anaerobic energy metabolism to power output.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by DAL1955 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Annnnd, it starts again..... Bottom line is that TOG doesn't believe in Andy Coggan's work, the relationships between TSS, NP, IF, CTL etc., and takes every opportunity to bash him in these threads. Just ignore him unless you're in the mood to watch your thread degenerate into a name calling session.

yeah, I kinda got that feeling. I guess all I only try to get a clear answer on whether my interval should be considered by the NP number or the Ave. Pwe number!

There you go, straight form the source. Andy must have a pager or something that goes off whenever TOG posts

Thank you.

Only question this leave me with is; should I therefore use ave. pwr with or without zeros?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by acoggan [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Yet you have failed to provide one single iota of evidence in support of your claims...which makes them completely meaningless.

If you want ride data, the cost is a bit high: 2 traffic control people, 2 timers (one at the top of the climb, and one at the bottom, 3 camera people (one at the top, one at the bottom, and one on the computer for the wireless cameras on the bikes), 1 mechanic, 1 guy to handle food and water for the crew. And 2 guys (me and a local racer) to ride bikes.

This is 3 days of work. Day 1: FTP test. Walk through the 2 hour ride making sure everyone has their job skills ready. Day 2: FTP test, and 150%/0% effort. Day 3: FTP test, 160%/0% effort.

That is about $33,000 (11 guys x $1000/day x 3 days).

---

I told you how to do the rides. That is all that is required for you to duplicate the rides and verify my claims. On the otherhand, you can pay me $33,000 plus my overhead and get my results.

You forgot the $2k for you to purchase a power meter for your bike, because based on the lack of knowledge demonstrated in your posts, I am certain you don't even own one 😉

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by acoggan [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Normalized power is primarily intended to reflect the physiological "cost" of variable intensity exercise - the adaptations resulting therefrom are a somewhat different question. Thus, even for longer efforts where normalized power can be considered reasonably reliable (i.e., 20 min and beyond), I'd suggest focusing on the average power (and if classifying the workout using my schema, use it to define the training level).

Would this hold true even for, say, a 90 minute ride? In other words, if you go out for two hours (no intervals, just riding) and the NP is 200, but the AP is 150, is it better viewed as an endurance or a tempo ride? ( Assume FTP = 220. ) Or are adaptations based mostly on time in zone?

scrub my last question, as the obvious answer is that it should include zeros...

From Dr. Coggan's response am I therefore to conclude that NP is *mostly* of use in calculating TSS - i.e. analyzing/planning load/overload? If average power is what one should use to classify the interval/ride intensity then real-time availability of NP/TSS is of little use other than for knowing you've achieved your daily TSS as per your training plan and therefore can head home?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by bgoetz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

You forgot the $2k for you to purchase a power meter for your bike, because based on the lack of knowledge demonstrated in your posts, I am certain you don't even own one [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif[/IMG]

You're assuming he has a bike!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

If you want ride data, the cost is a bit high: 2 traffic control people, 2 timers (one at the top of the climb, and one at the bottom, 3 camera people (one at the top, one at the bottom, and one on the computer for the wireless cameras on the bikes), 1 mechanic, 1 guy to handle food and water for the crew. And 2 guys (me and a local racer) to ride bikes.

This is 3 days of work. Day 1: FTP test. Walk through the 2 hour ride making sure everyone has their job skills ready. Day 2: FTP test, and 150%/0% effort. Day 3: FTP test, 160%/0% effort.

That is about $33,000 (11 guys x $1000/day x 3 days).

---

I told you how to do the rides. That is all that is required for you to duplicate the rides and verify my claims. On the otherhand, you can pay me $33,000 plus my overhead and get my results.

You forgot the $5,000 inc airfare for a masseur from a ProTour team to massage your gammy leg, $500,000 for a Hollywood publicist to massage your overinflated ego and the $20 for the co-pay for the schizophrenia medication

Just do the ride and post the data.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by swampy1970 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

and the $20 for the co-pay for the schizophrenia medication

uh oh. You really have turned from the way of the brit!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I told you how to do the rides. That is all that is required for you to duplicate the rides and verify my claims.

The problem is that no one can duplicate your rides, such that your claims have not been verified, but rather, debunked.