IF < 0.75 Beginner Question

[spot1100]

Hi Guys !

Sorry for that stupid question, but i am new in the power stuff (i have cycling peaks) and i dont understand the the thing with IF

On their Homepage www.cyclingpeaks.com you can read under "Power411" that a IF under 0.75 is a recovery ride .... ???

But the Powerlevel says 0.56 - 0.75 of FT is Endurance....

(IF is NP/FTPower)

When I ride at 0.56 - 0.75 of FT then I always get a IF of abaut 0,7

To get an IF of 0,75, I had to train in the upper end and above of the endurance level.
What i am missunderstanding ?

Can you help me. Please.
Thanx

 

[acoggan]

Hi Guys !

Sorry for that stupid question, but i am new in the power stuff (i have cycling peaks) and i dont understand the the thing with IF

On their Homepage www.cyclingpeaks.com you can read under "Power411" that a IF under 0.75 is a recovery ride .... ???

But the Powerlevel says 0.56 - 0.75 of FT is Endurance....

(IF is NP/FTPower)

When I ride at 0.56 - 0.75 of FT then I always get a IF of abaut 0,7

To get an IF of 0,75, I had to train in the upper end and above of the endurance level.
What i am missunderstanding ?

Can you help me. Please.
Thanx

The training levels are defined based on your average power as a percentage of your functional threshold power, whereas IF is the ratio of your normalized power to your functional threshold power. The two scales therefore do not always align exactly, because in the case of the training levels variability is taken into account by skewing things downward (esp. at the lower end, since training at higher levels tends to be more structured/more isopower), whereas in the case of IF variability is taken into account via the normalized power algorithm. Obviously, though, there is some parallelism, which results in typical IF values for level 1 rides being <0.75, for level 2 rides of 0.75-0.85, for level 3 rides of 0.85-0.95, for level 4 rides (or races) of 0.95-1.05, etc. If a ride is less variable than usual, however, then the IF value will be lower than you'd expect based on the average power, as you observed. I'd therefore guess that the ride(s) you've analyzed so far were done either on a trainer or flat terrain, and were almost certainly done solo.

Bottom line: for now at least you should classify/plan your training rides based on the average power (during the "working period") as a percentage of your functional threshold power, but use IF to describe what actually happened. (Eventually you'll develop a good feel for your own capabilities and the impact of variability on your power, and will be able to easily "translate" back and forth between the two scales as they apply to you and the way you train.)

 

[spot1100]

Thanx for the fast answer !

You are absolutely right. This was on a Trainer. Here in Austria, there was a long time no way to get on the road again. snow, snow, snow....

My FP is 237 (249 AveragePower over 20 min, Test last week with 5 min allout and then 20min TT on a trainer)

My Level 2 range is 130 Watt to 178 Watt

2 Houres on the Trainer in this Range @ NP=AVG 170 Watt is 0,72


Am i right, that I had to drive over my Range of Level 2 to reach the IF of greater than 0,75 (which is discribed as Endurance)????
So, because there is no variabilty in my ride on a Trainer, i can ignore this. On the road, the NP is greater an so the IF also.
Is this right ?

 

[acoggan]

Thanx for the fast answer !

You are absolutely right. This was on a Trainer. Here in Austria, there was a long time no way to get on the road again. snow, snow, snow....

My FP is 237 (249 AveragePower over 20 min, Test last week with 5 min allout and then 20min TT on a trainer)

My Level 2 range is 130 Watt to 178 Watt

2 Houres on the Trainer in this Range @ NP=AVG 170 Watt is 0,72


Am i right, that I had to drive over my Range of Level 2 to reach the IF of greater than 0,75 (which is discribed as Endurance)????
So, because there is no variabilty in my ride on a Trainer, i can ignore this. On the road, the NP is greater an so the IF also.
Is this right ?

Yes, you seem to correctly understand the way the training levels are set up and the way IF is calculated. As for what to do about it when riding a trainer, that is actually more of a coaching question. However, I personally don't see much benefit to riding a trainer at "all day" pace (i.e., level 2, or endurance) unless, well, you're going to ride it all day. So, unless you found that workout to be more taxing that I'd expect, I'd suggest either 1) raising the intensity a bit, i.e., do most of your trainer workouts in level 3, or 2) increasing the duration (but only if you feel compelled to spend a lot of time sweating away on the trainer bored out of your mind).

 

[spot1100]

Help me please : what is wrong.

I "can´t" reach a IF greater than 0,75 in an "endurance ride". This doesnt mean, thant my FTP is wrong.... I tested it correctly.
I have a FTP of 255 Watt

My Range of Level 2 is 143 - 193 Watt
In the ride, i try to be most time in this level. On a hill wattage is a little bit higher. Something above 200 Watt (200-240 most of time when climbing...)

I calculated am NP of 191 - 216 to reach a IF of 0,75 to 0,85
?????????????????????
But this is most above of my Level 2. I had to do Sprints all over the Time to increase my NP and hold my AP in the range ??????
this could not be the right way, or ?

As an example: my ride today:

Duration 4hour :30min
AP: 163 Watt
NP: 176 Watt
504 meters "climbing" not in one (hilly terain)

IF 0,69???? why ????? (OK, i know the calculation, but this is a "normal" ride , not on an trainer?????)


What is your IF of an typically endurance ride ?

 

[frenchyge]

Andy, for a trainer ride, wouldn't the Avg Pwr figures be more appropriate guidelines to use than the 'Typical IF' figures (because of the lower variability)? For example, if the OP wanted to do a L3 or Tempo ride, shouldn't he generally work between 76-90% on the trainer rather than striving for the IF of .85-.95 that he would expect to see outside?

 

[acoggan]

Help me please : what is wrong.

I "can´t" reach a IF greater than 0,75 in an "endurance ride". This doesnt mean, thant my FTP is wrong.... I tested it correctly.
I have a FTP of 255 Watt

My Range of Level 2 is 143 - 193 Watt
In the ride, i try to be most time in this level. On a hill wattage is a little bit higher. Something above 200 Watt (200-240 most of time when climbing...)

I calculated am NP of 191 - 216 to reach a IF of 0,75 to 0,85
?????????????????????
But this is most above of my Level 2. I had to do Sprints all over the Time to increase my NP and hold my AP in the range ??????
this could not be the right way, or ?

As an example: my ride today:

Duration 4hour :30min
AP: 163 Watt
NP: 176 Watt
504 meters "climbing" not in one (hilly terain)

IF 0,69???? why ????? (OK, i know the calculation, but this is a "normal" ride , not on an trainer?????)


What is your IF of an typically endurance ride ?

For a level 2 ("all day pace") ride, IF is typically between 0.75 and 0.85. It may, however, be less than this if your power is more constant than average, e.g., you're on a trainer, the route is very flat, and/or you ride by yourself.

From the sounds of things, the latter seems to explain your observations, as it appears that 1) you use the powermeter data to deliberately limit your effort on hills (something that I don't really recommend that people do), and 2) the route you took wasn't especially hilly (i.e., only 504 m climbed in >4 h of riding).

Note that doing "...sprints all the time..." won't really increase the spread or difference between your normalized and your average power unless you define a sprint as something lasting longer than about 15 s. That's because the first step in calculating normalized power is to apply a 30 s rolling average, to account for the time course of physiological responses to changes in exercise intensity. The best way to visualize your power data to understand how variable it was from a normalized power perspective is therefore after applying a 30 s rolling average.

 

[acoggan]

Andy, for a trainer ride, wouldn't the Avg Pwr figures be more appropriate guidelines to use than the 'Typical IF' figures (because of the lower variability)? For example, if the OP wanted to do a L3 or Tempo ride, shouldn't he generally work between 76-90% on the trainer rather than striving for the IF of .85-.95 that he would expect to see outside?

It's the other way around: the variability typically encountered when training outdoors tends to reduce your average power relative to the actual effort required. Using normalized power/intensity factor therefore provides a better way of comparing outdoor and indoor training.

(Note that this is really a different issue of whether or not someone finds it harder to generate the same steady power on a trainer versus on the road.)

 

[spot1100]

For a level 2 ("all day pace") ride, IF is typically between 0.75 and 0.85. It may, however, be less than this if your power is more constant than average, e.g., you're on a trainer, the route is very flat, and/or you ride by yourself.

From the sounds of things, the latter seems to explain your observations, as it appears that 1) you use the powermeter data to deliberately limit your effort on hills (something that I don't really recommend that people do), and 2) the route you took wasn't especially hilly (i.e., only 504 m climbed in >4 h of riding).

Note that doing "...sprints all the time..." won't really increase the spread or difference between your normalized and your average power unless you define a sprint as something lasting longer than about 15 s. That's because the first step in calculating normalized power is to apply a 30 s rolling average, to account for the time course of physiological responses to changes in exercise intensity. The best way to visualize your power data to understand how variable it was from a normalized power perspective is therefore after applying a 30 s rolling average.

Is it the wrong way to "limit" the power on hills when it is possible ? I thought, that to stay in the level 2 is the most benefit training of endurance ?


If I was wrong, who much more power are "allowed" on climbing.
Can you give some example, my FTP is 255.

 

[acoggan]

Is it the wrong way to "limit" the power on hills when it is possible ?

I think so. You don't hold a constant power when climbing during a race, even if it is a solo TT, so it makes little sense to train that way.

If I was wrong, who much more power are "allowed" on climbing.

Whatever it takes.

 

[frenchyge]

It's the other way around: the variability typically encountered when training outdoors tends to reduce your average power relative to the actual effort required. Using normalized power/intensity factor therefore provides a better way of comparing outdoor and indoor training.

So if I'm riding a steady, trainer ride, I should strive for an Avg Pwr within the following ranges, rather than using the standard levels?
Recovery: up to .75 FTP
Endurance: .75-.85 FTP
Tempo: .85-.95 FTP
Threshold: .95-1.05 FTP

Hmmm... I guess I misunderstood that somehow. How does that work for intervals then? If I'm doing L4 intervals, should they (ie, the AP of a *steady* interval) be within the 95-105% FT range, or the 91-105% range?

 

[spot1100]

I think so. You don't hold a constant power when climbing during a race, even if it is a solo TT, so it makes little sense to train that way.

OK, but a endurance ride is even not the exact way, a "race" is going. I tried to to a "longer" distance ride in a terrain, which is not only flat. But I will keep your tip in mind for my next rides.

Whatever it takes.

This is very difficult for understanding to me. When I do a endurance ride, I always read to avoid higher lactat. So when I "hammer" up a Hill, this cannot be very good for building endurance, or ? This will make me stronger in VO2max, Threshold and so on....

 

[ric_stern/RST]

This is very difficult for understanding to me. When I do a endurance ride, I always read to avoid higher lactat. So when I "hammer" up a Hill, this cannot be very good for building endurance, or ? This will make me stronger in VO2max, Threshold and so on....

Keeping your power artificially constrained when going uphill is likely not much use. With the riders i coach i generally advise that they train at a higher power on the hills compared to the flats. what that exact power (zone/level) would be would depend on what type of hills they have to train on (e.g., long alpine passes versus, short steep climbs), the training they are doing (on that day) and their chronic training load. i then often suggest that if the chance arises (e.g., they feel great) they can always hammer at a higher intensity than suggested.

There's no reason why you can't cycle harder uphill (other than doing so, may make you fatigued for later in the ride and if you're hours from home that may not be good).

ric

 

[spot1100]

Keeping your power artificially constrained when going uphill is likely not much use. With the riders i coach i generally advise that they train at a higher power on the hills compared to the flats. what that exact power (zone/level) would be would depend on what type of hills they have to train on (e.g., long alpine passes versus, short steep climbs), the training they are doing (on that day) and their chronic training load. i then often suggest that if the chance arises (e.g., they feel great) they can always hammer at a higher intensity than suggested.

There's no reason why you can't cycle harder uphill (other than doing so, may make you fatigued for later in the ride and if you're hours from home that may not be good).

ric

Thank you ric !

Please dont be angry, but why is going uphill with (near) the same Power not of much use? If i have no hills, ich would also go with a constant power.

Chris

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Thank you ric !

Please dont be angry, but why is going uphill with (near) the same Power not of much use? If i have no hills, ich would also go with a constant power.

Chris

Angry!? I'm rarely angry!

You wouldn't race up a hill at a low power, you'd all (tend to) go up a hill at the highest power you could sustain for the duration of the climb

Ric

 

[spot1100]

Angry!? I'm rarely angry!

You wouldn't race up a hill at a low power, you'd all (tend to) go up a hill at the highest power you could sustain for the duration of the climb

Ric

OK, I understand your tip. Therefore I make hillclimbs with FTP or VO2max efforts.
But if I only want to make endurance rides, what is the difference If I go uphill with the same Power I go flat (if it is possible).


Chris

 

[frenchyge]

OK, I understand your tip. Therefore I make hillclimbs with FTP or VO2max efforts.
But if I only want to make endurance rides, what is the difference If I go uphill with the same Power I go flat (if it is possible).

It's not so much that hillclimbs should be FT or VO2max efforts (ie, high power for several-to-many minutes in duration at a time); it's just not necessary to *limit* your power to within the upper limit of L2 (ie, by crawling up the hill at an uncomfortably slow speed). IOW, if the endurance ride is a fairly easy-to-moderate pace, then just climb at a fairly easy-to-moderate climbing pace, and catch your breath at the top or on the way down as you normally would. Your average power will probably drop back into L2 on the subsequent downhill, and so you're still on an 'endurance ride.' The point is that it's not important to make sure every minute's power is within L2, but that the overall ride power is in that range.