Power meters · Public discussion

Normalized Power vs. MMP

Started by Freddy Merxury · · Last activity · 6 posts · 2,125 views

← Back to Power meters

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postNormalized Power vs. MMPFreddy Merxury · 24 Oct 2012 02 / This pagePosts 1–6Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #6tomw1974 · 25 Oct 2012

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Power meters
Published
24 October 2012
Last activity
25 October 2012
Original author
Freddy Merxury
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,125
Views / 30 days
0
Topics
Normalized powerFTPHeart rate trainingGroup riding

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    Freddy Merxury
    Archived post
    #1

    I was looking through last years data to try and evaluate my FTP goals for this next season and found some interesting and seemingly inconsistant data. I've read (Coggin, ect) that NP for a 60 minute effort should fairly closely reflect what your 60 minute MMP should be. I'm curious if that is universally applied or can be variable depending on a persons physiology.

    I'm doubtful because my best 60m NP from this last year was during a local hill ride, where the group rides 6 or 7 hills that last about 2-4 minutes each. Average power for the ride was 232w, and NP was 327w. My MMP for 60m was 256w at this time. I've also had 2 hour rides over 300w NP.

    When I go to do an hour even paced at 285w, I can't do it. WTF

    PS, I realize this topic has been covered in general terms ad nosium, but I hope my specific numbers could help with some analysis.

    Report
  2. gudujarlson
    Archived post
    #2

    Normalized Power is an imperfect tool. I find its accuracy to be bad for rides that consist of a mostly L1/L2 with many L5+ spikes. I think it tends to overestimate the stress the spikes cause.

    Report
  3. An old Guy
    Archived post
    #3

    Normalized Power is not a tool. Normalized Power is a marketing gimic.

    Normalized power claims to model (it it not a tool. it is a model) some physiological process. Unfortunately, Andy Coggan did not write down finite difference equations and base the model on those. Rather, he just picked something he knew and declared it to be a proper model.

    And then there are all the marketing lies about how heart rate is affected by all sorts of stuff and power is not. But power is affected by everything that heart rate is affected by.

    ---

    Average power is also not a tool, but it is a reasonable estimate of your current fitness.

    ----

    On the other hand ...

    Your experiences and comments on FTP and NP are in line with mine. I expect that people will come out and demand that you provide ride data for them. I charge $1000/day for my ride data.

    I guess you will need to provide a FTP test. A blood test is best. Charge for both the test and the day's data. Of course, you will need to provide data for your 2 hour ride. Charge for a day's data for that.

    Get paid up front.

    Report
  4. tomw1974
    Archived post
    #4

    The correlation between 60 minute NP and average power and FTP is only if it's a route with a relatively low variability index. For people with strong anaerobic engines, they can hit a lot higher NP numbers by attacking the hills and recovering on the descents than they could ever sustaining a level power.

    I've seen 60-minute NP of 300 watts on an aggressive hilly ride, yet I can only hold 300 watts for about 12 minutes before I fall apart.

    Report
  5. Freddy Merxury
    Archived post
    #5

    That's been my experience as well. But the literature seems to indicate otherwise. It seems the point of NP is to calculate a hypothetical # of watts you could have produced with even pacing. They point to average watts in a highly variable race such as crits as an example.

    My guess is that you are right, people with disproportionatly developed anerobic abilities and schew NP when riding short hard efforts then coasting.

    Report
  6. tomw1974
    Archived post
    #6
    Quoted post said:

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

    It seems the point of NP is to calculate a hypothetical # of watts you could have produced with even pacing. They point to average watts in a highly variable race such as crits as an example.


    Small correction:
    The point of NP is to calculate a hypothetical # of watts you WOULD have (not could have) produced with even pacing.

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionPower meters Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.