Sharing my Parsing Experience

Pureshot78 said:

I wasn't really sure where to put this, so i thought i'd just throw it in a new forum and let you all enjoy.

I've been using RD's parsing application and i wanted to share the results thus far. In particular i wanted to show how changing the configuration file makes pretty significant changes in the levels reported, especially if your workouts tend to be right on the level borders.

I've attached four spreadsheets and i'll give a brief explanation of each. The only change i make in the four is in the definition of L4. All of them use the same source files, Coggan's schema with .91% of FT as the lower bound for L4, and a FT of 260 watts.

1)Minimum Duration 10 minutes using AP

2)Minimum Duration 8 minutes using AP

3)Minimum Duration 10 minutes using NP

4)Minimum Duration 8 minutes using NP

I put them in this order becaue it turns out that this is the order that they produce the lowest to highest L4 TSS.

I only made one graph, but feel free to mess around with these spreadsheets as needed. I should mention that I've started doing some sessions on the trainer and those are generally after 12/1.

Not much impact of changing from 10 to 8 minutes for L4 duration but the big difference between using NP and AP to define L4 is exactly what I found as well.

Personally, I "reckon" AP gives a fairer picture for me but I wanted to re-run it all and do up some more of my technicolour wonder charts before I make that call. Perhaps it may be an issue of the typical terrain one rides over.

I'm about to re-run it with the latest, just need to fix a bug I have.

Pureshot78 said:

I've been using RD's parsing application and i wanted to share the results thus far. In particular i wanted to show how changing the configuration file makes pretty significant changes in the levels reported, especially if your workouts tend to be right on the level borders.

I've attached four spreadsheets and i'll give a brief explanation of each. The only change i make in the four is in the definition of L4. All of them use the same source files, Coggan's schema with .91% of FT as the lower bound for L4, and a FT of 260 watts.

1)Minimum Duration 10 minutes using AP

2)Minimum Duration 8 minutes using AP

3)Minimum Duration 10 minutes using NP

4)Minimum Duration 8 minutes using NP

So which is correct?

acoggan said:

So which is correct?

If i want to feel good about the amount of L4 work I am doing (an also inflate my TEI score, since RD disowns all <L4 work) then the 8 Min with NP would be the choice. 😄

I don't think i was drawing any conclusions here but just offering up the observation on how much more TSS is classified as L4 with the differences.

What's your opinion Andy? Is using NP to classify L4 work acceptable since the duration would always be 8-10 minutes or more?

If i'm doing most of my rides outdoors, i'd be in favor of using 8 minutes, if most were on the trainer, 10 minutes wouldn't bother me because I would pretty much always do at least 10 minutes in an interval of .91 - 1.05 of FT.

I will say that using this application has motivated me to drive up the watts when I am out for a training ride by myself. Just knowing that it takes 10 minutes in order to get in the L4 bucket is motivation enough to keep the wattage up when i might let it fall down.

Pureshot78 said:

What's your opinion Andy?

Let me put it this way: if I knew the answer to the question then normalized power and TSS wouldn't exist (at least not in their current form).

BTW, if you're using normalized power to classify workouts by power using the levels I've suggested (which technically isn't quite correct), then the bottom end of level 4 would correspond to an IF of 0.95, not 0.91. That is, the IF for a typical level 4 training session (including both work and rest periods) is typically 0.95-1.05. So, you might try reanalyzing these workouts using that cut-off instead...assuming that your workouts were typical (in terms of the variability), when you do you'll probably find closer correspondence to the average power data.

acoggan said:

BTW, if you're using normalized power to classify workouts by power using the levels I've suggested (which technically isn't quite correct), then the bottom end of level 4 would correspond to an IF of 0.95, not 0.91. That is, the IF for a typical level 4 training session (including both work and rest periods) is typically 0.95-1.05.

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly.

If using Average Power to classify level 4 you would use 91-105% (referenced @ cyclingpeakssoftware.comlevels.aspOpen ↗) but if using NP you would use .95-1.05 IF?(cyclingpeakssoftware.comdefined.aspOpen ↗)

Quoted post said:

(which technically isn't quite correct)

Are you saying you didn't intend NP to be used in classifying workouts?

Pureshot78 said:

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly.

If using Average Power to classify level 4 you would use 91-105% (referenced @ cyclingpeakssoftware.comlevels.aspOpen ↗) but if using NP you would use .95-1.05 IF?(cyclingpeakssoftware.comdefined.aspOpen ↗)

That's correct.

Pureshot78 said:

Are you saying you didn't intend NP to be used in classifying workouts?

Again, correct: the two scales (i.e., the training levels and the intensity factor guidelines) were developed independently/sequentially, and so don't correspond exactly. Specifically, the percentages used to delineate the training levels have been skewed downward in consideration of the impact of typical variability in power output. Training sessions that are either unusually steady or unusually variable therefore tend to 'fall between the cracks', in which case the nod goes to average power, since 1) it came first, and 2) is the basis for the training levels.

Pureshot78 said:

since RD disowns all <L4 work)

LOL 🙂

RapDaddyo said:

LOL 🙂

You know someone who has been doing a ton of SST would look like a total slacker on your TEI. :p

Pureshot78 said:

You know someone who has been doing a ton of SST would look like a total slacker on your TEI. :p

Which is why I haven't really used or even played with it yet. 🙂

frenchyge said:

Which is why I haven't really used or even played with it yet. 🙂

Well I suggested Training Efficiency Index may not be the most appropriate term, where Training Intensity Index might be. I'm not always convinced higher Intensity always = Efficiency in training.

It's part of the reason I'm trying to re-run the numbers to see what it tells me about the 2.5 month period where my 16km TT power lifted 17%. 'Cause I swear I wasn't doing that much intensity. RD & I are working on a little bug unique to my computer so can't share just yet....

But full credit to coach for getting me this far. I've set multiple power PBs regularly since we started working together (oh and placing and winning races too). Still some way to go though.😉