Power Zones: Average W vs Normalized W

Pina

 This may be a trivial question but because it's on my mind I'd thought I'd ask.

Up until this point for the past few months I've been focused on keeping my "average" watts within the zone. For example, for an interval 95-100% of FTP I'd hold my average watts there. I have the option to display "Normalized" watts as well. When I display AW and NW next to each other the numbers are close but different while training in real time.

So my question is whether I should be holding 95-100% of AW or NW? And then to take this further, during race execution again do I want to follow AW or NW. 

Thanks, S

tuckerm

For both racing and training you should look at the NP(NW). NP estimates the metabolic costs of your efforts. Take two riders, each averages 200w for a given time period. One is a constant 200w. The other rides some at 100w, some at 200w and some at 300w. The rider who did some work at 300w is doing a harder effort and will get a higher NP.
Ideally for racing, and training if possible, you will want the AP=NP. This would lead to a VI(Variablity Index) of 1. But it almost never happens. Though Jordan Rapp basically did do this winning IMTX a few weeks ago. VI=NP/AP. For racing in EN we like to keep that number below 1.05. It measures how much surging you are doing in your racing. You don't want to burn too many matches by surging too much.

Scott Alexander

I'm answering this slightly differently than Tucker, with all due respect...

You will want to hold your watts - and VI - as close as possible to your wattage goals, like Tucker said, but trying to hit a target on NP or even AP (ex, at the end of a long ride), you can absolutely bury yourself trying to up your NP or AP. With all the ups-and-downs of pedaling, terrain, stops, inside-vs-outside, etc, your computer/display might be best set to show a 3sec rolling average of watts, as a % of your established/tested FTP, as a "real time" display of power output. Then let AP and NP fall where they may.

ezellrh

Falling in line with Scott's mentality, I find myself questioning the value of real time NP during execution of a workout / race. I'm trying to drown myself in the Haus kool-aid, and as such, feel I should focus on real time watts (or in my case 3 sec average) to control what I'm doing right now in my box based on my goal for the assigned workout/interval. NP is of value to me afterward to see if I hit the targeted metrics, but would welcome thoughts from WSM/Coaches/ other really smart people on what if anything we should be doing based on real time NP during the execution of any given workout/interval.

tuckerm

To be clear I am talking about using NP as a target for intervals using Lap NP, I'm not talking about the whole ride. And yes, you will have a target number or zone for your races, but is best managed in shorter blocks, say 30' at a clip.
@Roy, the problem I find with using real time watts is that I'm not watching my computer all the time. Lap NP gives me a number to use for that period of time. If I need to hit Z4, the NP I see needs to be 290-310. Sometimes with real time it can be 250. 200, etc given terrain. Now I just glance at the NP every couple minutes to make sure I'm within my zone. Just seems easier and safer for me.

Steve West

I agree with everyone and do a hybrid of both.

I focus primarily on real time (3 sec) watts to stay as close to target watts as possible. But I also keep IF (PNorm/FTP) displayed next to it to keep me at or near my goal PNorm. I hit the interval button every 15 minutes when my nutrition timer vibrates. That keeps my IF from becoming too rigid an average, especially on rolling or hilly courses.

William Jenks

 My take, having read above replies:

• Rapp was able to ride so steady for two reasons: (1) The course is relatively flat; (2) He has monster power to begin with.  I have been meaning to write something on this, but haven't gotten around to it yet...if you have high absolute W or W/kg, it's much easier to ride with VI in the 1.00-1.02 range than if you have lower W/kg, especially on a rolling course.  In flats, it doesn't matter so much.
• On a trainer, everyone should be able to ride the intervals close to VI=1.00, i.e., AP = NP.  So for trainer rides, the question is moot.
• I assume from the question that you have either a newer Garmin or a Joule or something else that actually displays NP live.  If not, say so, and I'll give a different answer.
• Assuming you can display NP, I agree with those who say you should race with 3s power (i.e., current power with a tiny bit of averaging so it doesn't bounce all over the place) and NP.  However, you should hit the "lap" button at least every 30 min, maybe every 20.  The reason is that once you get past 20-30 min, the long term of the averaging of the NP means that you won't see changes very easily.  If you've been going 180 W NP for 2 hours, it's going to take an hour to see the drift up or down by 10 W if you are too energetic or if you are dying.  But hit the lap button every 30 min or so, and you have a little closer view on it.
• For workouts where the max interval time is about 20 min, just go with 3s power an NP for the full  length of the lap interval.  No need for additional "lap" hits in between.

 

On a reasonably hilly race (in my experience, KS or WI for example), wise riders of moderate strength (and I'll put myself there...) are still hitting VIs of 1.04-1.05.  Remember that coasting downhill also raises VI, but is not necessarily "bad". :-)

My display doesn't let me see NP live, so for intervals, I just target AP at a little lower end of the range, e.g., 95-96% and call it good.  For races, I have my 3s power and want that to be at the NP target as much as possible, and I want my AP to be the goal watts divided by the IF I expect.  For example, at KS, my target watts will be 200.  So I'll try to keep it at 200 at the 3s and in the low 190s for average power...knowing that I will almost inevitably have 1.04 or so IF on that course.

Coach Rich

Good discussion. Here's what I do:

Joule Setup

I have my screen set to display

Current Power   Normalized Power

Speed                IF

Cadence            Ride Time

Distance             KJ

Using this for "formal" intervals (ie, go that way, real hard, so a specificied time or distance)

• I hit the lap button to start the interval, then press and hold it so the screen toggles to "this is your data specific to THIS interval" mode
• I then staple my eyeballs to the Current Power number, making sure it's always above Normalized Power, which drives up my IF, etc. I don't do formal intervals very often, but when I do I'm riding courses on which I have a veryyyy long history of performances -- watts, time, IF, etc so I'm always racing a Former Rich.

Using this for informal, hammer rides (ie, go this way, that way, as hard as you can for as long as you can)

• Same deal: look at current power, make sure it's higher than normalized power...which drives up normalized power, which drives up current power, which drives up IF, etc.
• The courses I choose lend themselves to recording segments as intervals (ie, a very hard push from this stop sign to the top of this hill) so I'll try to record those (I often forget).
• I repeat these rides very frequently so I'll try to benchmark myself from week to week -- ie, last week you finished the Tues No Prisoners Ride with an IF of .97 and Pnorm of 265w...try to beat that this week.

Asides:

• Benchmarking IF -- this is my primary tool for ballparking and knowing when I should dial up the FTP I have set in my Joule. That is, when I start to see IF's that are borderline "no friggin' way" or higher than what I know is my historical average on these courses, I'll tick my FTP up 5w or so, so that the IF's make sense and jive with what I'm feeling.
• Tracking VI -- I have no concerns about VI for these rides...other than to put up big ones. I do rides with short to medium punchy hills, that lend themselves to riding at 150% or higher until you explode.
• KJ -- purely a "how much do I get to eat, have I earned dinner" number .

Using this for racing

• I had great success last year with creating an interval in the Joule about every 30' or so. Roughly every aid station.
• As others have mentioned, this allowed me to see very real time IF and Pnorm numbers.
• I then focus completely on Current Watts, as in "what are the watts I need to ride right now, given the terrain, where I am in the race, how I feel, etc.
• I kept the Joule in interval mode, IOW, riding 100% in a box that was only ~30' long. I think I toggled over the whole ride data twice: at about mile 56 to see how I was doing and again at about mile 110.
  
   

bfritton

So, for racing, I go the first half hour in 1st gear say 200 watts at (lets assume flat course so pretty easy to keep VI at 1 or so). My goal watts for the race or 2nd Gear is 215 watts. If I do the 30 minute intervals and hit my numbers dead on, at the end of my ride my NP for the whole ride will be less than my goal of 215. Does this mean I should be riding the later intervals harder to get the overall NP up so that I get the fastest bike split possible or do I just accept that the NP at the end of the day will be less than my goal because of that first half hour. Have been thinking a lot about this with Eagleman coming up.

Scott Alexander

I wish Saris, for the Joule, would add an "auto interval" function!!!

Pina

Thanks for the insights. Normalized usually reads higher than Average. From a physiological perspective it makes sense to keep an eye on both during training and racing. However, it would appear to yield a greater ROI to push the AP during training (pushing the FTP up) and a smarter race plan to keep an eye on NP (not burning too many matches)

FYI: Was having a problem with my Garmin 910xt today and called Garmin tech. support and the "beta" version is complete. They said in the next month the 910xt upgrade will be available that includes; %FTP, 10s average, balance at 3 10 30s., IF, NP, NP Lap, NP Last Lap, TSS

Tom Glynn

 A link from the FB on Racing and Training with a Power Meter.  Why normalized Power Matters.

http://journal.michaelahlers.org/2012/05/why-normalized-power-matters.html

ezellrh

So because I'm the slow guy in the room (Rich, I am a grunt) and still new to the EN mentality and training with power, I need someone to give me an if-then statement...

So I'm at my race and holding my current watts as directed by the TSS chart (for easy math we'll say my target is 200 watts). I'm showing 3 sec power and NP and capturing 30 minute intervals. I come to minute 25 of an interval and my NP is low (190). Do I pedal harder for the next five minutes (210-220 or higher) to get my NP to match my goal? Same with if its low, do I back off watts if my NP is 210 at 25 minutes?

If I do change my pacing goals during execution based on NP, then I get it. If I don't, I'm not understanding the real time value of NP other than an additional data point to confuse my widdle brain.

Al Truscott

 @ Roy: Aiming for a specific wattage based on your known capability is only half of the race execution prescription. In addition, succeeding on the run in an IM requires a minimum of surging. The steadier the effort at the prescribed power, the better. In bike riding parlance, you want to finish the bike leg with your matchbook intact, not empty. The variability index (VI) is the metric here, targets being about 1.03 for a flatish race, and 1.05-6 for a hilly one. Pre- EN, I had a coach who would say, "For every minute you spend anaerobic on the bike, you'll lose 3 minutes on the run."

So the answers are No and YES.

As to the real time value of NP, not only does it act  to hep rein in a frisky rider, but by comparing to real time AP, it can give you an estimate of VI. NP/AP = VI.

Pina

My 2 Cents....@Roy

practically applying this idea of what Al said. I would raise my NP only to the target of 200W for the remainder of that interval or even hit the lap button at that 25 min. mark and begin a new interval, doing my best to hold the 200 thereafter. IF you increased to 210-220 in that earlier interval your VI would spike, which means you've burned way too many matches. SO i'd just take that 20 minutes on the chin and do your best to hold the prescribed 200 for the rest of the ride. THis is the "No" part.

THe "Yes" part. You're now a podium finisher and you know you were daydreaming/not focused and didn't hit your 200W. Personally I'd begin to take some risks, and yes they are "risks". SPecifically at the HIM distance, a lot less at the IM distance. You have to decide if you want to roll the dice and try to make up for lost time knowing that it may come back to haunt you. I've personally fell on both sides of the equation. Hope this helps clarify.

Nate Parady

@ Tom, thanks for the article...very interesting...
good discussion...

I'm loving the NP and IF on my joule and the ability to hit interval to reset the averages....I don't fully understand them, about a "C" student at this point....I do understand that how you want to ride in training is NOT how you want to ride during the race...I'm in a groove right now of doing warmups, rest periods, and cool downs as "ride race steady" to practice the skill. Otherwise I'm trying to be "Mr. Surgy"

ezellrh

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Trying to get my learn on here.

Coach Rich

Roy, no worries, I was an artillery FO attached an infantry company for 18mo and responsible for teaching them all how to call for fire, adjust, deliver 9-lines, control air, etc, so I'm used to not using big words and making no sudden movements . Why do you think I bullet point everything .

What Al and Sukhi said. In addition:

• The objective of this is to ride a well paced bike that sets up the run, NOT to hit some magic number on your dial that you're "supposed" to finish with.
• If you're under those watts at Minute 25 and then start to push big watts to push the number up...you're going to have to put out BIG watts to inch that number up by ~10w in 5 minutes...which defeats the purpose of what you've been doing for the 25' anyway.

The net is you use our pacing guidance to manage your watts in real time according to the terrain that's in front of you right now. Basically, just look at current watts on the dial, ride the watts you're supposed to ride given the terrain you're on, right now. What creating an interval every 30' does is to make it very clear when you are NOT executing well: small or large spikes, excessive coasting, etc after a while would not show up your overall ride data (that is, riding too hard for 5' will won't budge the average watts for the ride when you have a total 2hrs accumulated into that average) but it will show up in these little 30' windows.

mcstrangelove

Coaches...team....anyone....how do you guys calculate VI in your head during a ride?  I'm severely math-challenged.  Or is there a secret little widget on the Joule that I don't know about?

Al Truscott

@ Mac - I never bother ... but you could have two of your six Joule metrics showing as Avg power and NP. Put them side by side, and the math should be obvious. Using your FTP of 200, and a goal NP in an IM of 140, try these on for size:

AP NP
150 140
160 139
165 142

Make yourself a list of plausible random combinations, play with that for ten minutes (off the bike), and I bet you'll lock it into your head so you'll know when you've got a good VI going, and when you don't, without having to do any calculations at all. Works best with 30 minute or shorter intervals, of course.

[Deleted User]

Posted By Mac Caudill on 02 Jun 2012 05:53 PM

Coaches...team....anyone....how do you guys calculate VI in your head during a ride?  I'm severely math-challenged.  Or is there a secret little widget on the Joule that I don't know about?

VI is defined as VI=NP/AP. So to get a VI as close to 1.0 as possible, you want your NP to be as close to your AP as you can. Here's how I do it in my head:

Say I look at my power readings and I have NP=206W and AP=200W.

• If you take 10% of 200W, that's 20W. So a VI=1.10 (that is, 110% of your AP) would be 220W (200W + 20W).
• Half of that 10% is 5%, and half of 20W is 10 W. 
• Therefore, a VI=1.05 corresponds to 210W (200W + 10W).
• So given my NP=206W, I can safely say that I'm below a VI=1.05 (actual VI = 206/200 = 1.03). I don't need to do any more math in my head because once I'm below VI=1.05, I can safely say that I'm doing a reasonable job of riding steady. 

mcstrangelove

Anson, I was doing something sorta like that, but I like your suggestion better.  Thanks, guys.