Normalized power overweights brief efforts?

JohnMeyers said:

Does normalized power weight these brief efforts too much?

In my impression - yes, brief, strong efforts are over rated in NP. The same ist true IMO regarding TSS, at least for my body and compared to my RPE.

carmol said:

In my impression - yes, brief, strong efforts are over rated in NP. The same ist true IMO regarding TSS, at least for my body and compared to my RPE.

Interesting, since TSS is a function of NP.😕

JohnMeyers said:

Hi all,
I did a workout today, it was about one hour total. 55 minutes at ~250 watts, and a 30 second effort every 5 minutes or so (between 500-700 watts). Normalized power was 337 for the 55 minutes, and 332 including 5 minutes of cool down at ~50 watts.

I did not expect my fitness to be at this level. I had a 350 watt LT this summer when I was in excellent shape, lately, I have been able to get in 2 days a week of riding if I was lucky. I was expecting at least a 50 watt drop in power, due to my lack of riding in the past two months.

Does normalized power weight these brief efforts too much? I dont feel like normalized power should have been so high!

Here's the file. http://johnmeyers.info/files/30seffort.wko

John,

I'd add your file to the two dozen or so "NP busters" I've collected over the last few years, except for one thing: since you don't have a really good handle on your current functional threshold power, it's hard to say whether the results are really outside the limit of tolerance (which I estimate to be +/-5% at ~1 h). I'm sure it would be a bit painful to "throw down" and so some formal testing in your semi-detrained state, but perhaps you could do a few short, maximal efforts to calculate your critical power, such that these results could be put in better perspective.

carmol said:

In my impression - yes, brief, strong efforts are over rated in NP. The same ist true IMO regarding TSS, at least for my body and compared to my RPE.

Was that meant to read "is" or "isn't" - maybe why my confusion.

I know of others that "feel" TSS overweights lower intensities.

Even if thought TSS were not evenly "earned" across the range of intensities (which I don't) I resolved it all in my head by realising that what feeds CTL will be specific to the physical adaptation I'm seeking at the time. If I'm doing say a block of AC or VO2 Max work, then TSS for each session will still be comparable.

Alex Simmons said:

I know of others that "feel" TSS overweights lower intensities.

So what politician was it that said "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."? 🙂

Alex Simmons said:

Even if thought TSS were not evenly "earned" across the range of intensities (which I don't) I resolved it all in my head by realising that what feeds CTL will be specific to the physical adaptation I'm seeking at the time. If I'm doing say a block of AC or VO2 Max work, then TSS for each session will still be comparable.

IMO this is where it gets into art vs. science. Sure, you could get a Dave Harris-like CTL by doing nothing but L2 work, if you have the time. But then you're just going to be ready to ride your events at L2. Bring plenty of water. 🙂

Alex Simmons said:

Was that meant to read "is" or "isn't" - maybe why my confusion.

I meant "is", not "is not".

I might muster up the required motivation for a 1hr power test. IMO, those 20 minute buggers hurt a bit more.

To be continued.

I'm about 99% sure my LT isnt at 337 +- 5%. Certainly not + 5%, heh.

acoggan said:

John,

I'd add your file to the two dozen or so "NP busters" I've collected over the last few years, except for one thing: since you don't have a really good handle on your current functional threshold power, it's hard to say whether the results are really outside the limit of tolerance (which I estimate to be +/-5% at ~1 h). I'm sure it would be a bit painful to "throw down" and so some formal testing in your semi-detrained state, but perhaps you could do a few short, maximal efforts to calculate your critical power, such that these results could be put in better perspective.

acoggan said:

So what politician was it that said "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."? 🙂

Don't know but this is quite apt...

I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
~ Bill Cosby

Alex Simmons said:

Don't know but this is quite apt...

I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
~ Bill Cosby

It's not a question of pleasing somebody. It's a question of accuracy in a scientific sense. If short, brief efforts were really overrated in NP (and therefore in TSS as well), then nobody would be pleased, because their idea about their own training based on NP (and TSS) would be wrong (over- or underrated depending on what they've been training lately) and hence their short time training plan for the next days would be wrong, too.

carmol said:

It's not a question of pleasing somebody. It's a question of accuracy in a scientific sense. If short, brief efforts were really overrated in NP (and therefore in TSS as well), then nobody would be pleased, because their idea about their own training based on NP (and TSS) would be wrong (over- or underrated depending on what they've been training lately) and hence their short time training plan for the next days would be wrong, too.

My understanding is that Andy gives a +/- 5% range for the NP algorithm in most circumstances. Apart from some specifically documented "NP Busters" then perhaps this level of precision isn't enough to please everyone. It does rely on people using a robust method to set FTP in order to validate assessments one way or another.

It seems to work in tracking the training loads for elite track riders managing high volumes of short intense efforts. See the CTL/ATL slide in the ppt download on FGF - "Track Applications of a Power Meter".

http://www.fixedgearfever.com/modules.php?name=Downloads

It probably needs a little commentary to go along with it but I can guarantee the final build would have included high volumes of track specific intensity (such as starts, kilos, pursuit efforts).

Still, if evidence can be provided that shows NP ain't within stated tolerances in certain circumstances, I'm sure Andy would be grateful for such information in order to assess means to improve on such a valuable training aid or provide advice on its application.

Quick update:
I did a 20 minute test, and found my LT to be a touch higher than I expected. My LT is about 335, so its within range. Still, it seems that workout was a bit easy considering its NP.

JohnMeyers said:

Quick update:
I did a 20 minute test, and found my LT to be a touch higher than I expected. My LT is about 335, so its within range. Still, it seems that workout was a bit easy considering its NP.

Well there you go! Cool. Perhaps you were just fresh and had one of those good days.🙂

I usually get pretty healthy NP numbers from crits, especially where there is a course requiring lots of hard surges but it is a really consistent indicator of variable power rides in my experience.

Have a look at my comments on NP / AP from 2 x 30 minutes crits I did on Sunday (about 2hrs in between). Exactly the same NP but AP was 15 W different - entirely due to the type of race (scratch vs handicap format). RPE was pretty much the same.

2 races in a day

I have a 16km TT test myself this week, so I'll soon see myself!

JohnMeyers said:

Quick update:
I did a 20 minute test, and found my LT to be a touch higher than I expected. My LT is about 335, so its within range.

"Within range" in this case being w/in 2 parts in 335, i.e., w/in <1%...not bad, eh? 😄

Anyway, thanks for suffering through a 20 min effort in search of the truth!