Is anyone starting to think that the algorithm for normalized power needs to be refined/complicated? I have recently done a couple of rides that seem to be massively overestimated in terms of normalized power, they are attached.
My primary concern is that so much is based upon the normalized power algorithm: IF, TSS, ATL, CTL, TSB... It seems to me that If you happen to like to do workouts with brief intense efforts, that any graphs involving these parameters are skewed and innacurate. For example, I did a ride that I expected to have a NP of about 225 (11.22.06). This (for me) correlates to about 93 TSS. The ride produced a NP of 283, or 147 TSS. That's a pretty big difference in TSS (>30%). If everyone was underestimating their training stress by 30%, it could lead to problems.
I think that the NP algorithm is very good in that a 1 hr. hard, variable effort produces a NP that is very rarely significantly above one's FT.
However, easy 2, 3, 4 hour long rides interspersed with bouts of hard efforts seem to trick the NP algorithm into grossly overestimating training load.
I'm not saying I know how to fix it, nor am I saying that I think that NP is "bad", I just think that it might need some work. Does anyone else notice this?
One could say to me: "John, you just suck at estimating your effort levels on rides" or, better yet, "John, you just have wicked AWC, and you don't feel these efforts like the rest of the world does". The honest truth is, I don't think either of these statements would be right.
Comments?
http://www.johnmeyers.info/files/Meyers_John_10_27_2006.wko
http://www.johnmeyers.info/files/Meyers_John_11_22_2006.wko
The first ride was on a trainer, the second, a ride with a group of buddies in which we screwed around all day by randomly attacking eachother .
My primary concern is that so much is based upon the normalized power algorithm: IF, TSS, ATL, CTL, TSB... It seems to me that If you happen to like to do workouts with brief intense efforts, that any graphs involving these parameters are skewed and innacurate. For example, I did a ride that I expected to have a NP of about 225 (11.22.06). This (for me) correlates to about 93 TSS. The ride produced a NP of 283, or 147 TSS. That's a pretty big difference in TSS (>30%). If everyone was underestimating their training stress by 30%, it could lead to problems.
I think that the NP algorithm is very good in that a 1 hr. hard, variable effort produces a NP that is very rarely significantly above one's FT.
However, easy 2, 3, 4 hour long rides interspersed with bouts of hard efforts seem to trick the NP algorithm into grossly overestimating training load.
I'm not saying I know how to fix it, nor am I saying that I think that NP is "bad", I just think that it might need some work. Does anyone else notice this?
One could say to me: "John, you just suck at estimating your effort levels on rides" or, better yet, "John, you just have wicked AWC, and you don't feel these efforts like the rest of the world does". The honest truth is, I don't think either of these statements would be right.
Comments?
http://www.johnmeyers.info/files/Meyers_John_10_27_2006.wko
http://www.johnmeyers.info/files/Meyers_John_11_22_2006.wko
The first ride was on a trainer, the second, a ride with a group of buddies in which we screwed around all day by randomly attacking eachother .