WKO+ Training Zones - Beyond the Defaults

I guess my main question is would it be reasonable to use the Mean Maximal Chart (Past 28 days) to classify my own personal "Zones". Every week or some arbitrary time frame, I could reassess these zones and adjust my training accordingly.

If I did so my personal zones would then be (expressed at a % of FT again):
Zone 7 >256%
Zone 6 150-256%
Zone 5 118-150%
Zone 4 104-118%
Zone 3 78-97%

Thanks in advance for your insights, questions, and comments.

P.S. RD this is for you..

my time the last 28 days by level (WKO+ Zones)
AE - 26%
E - 24.9%
TE - 20.6%
TH - 11.8%
VM - 6.2%
AC - 10.4%

Last 28 days by level (My 'custom' zones)
Zone 6 .2%
Zone 5 4%
Zone 4 7.2%
Zone 3 6.2%
Zone 2 28.3
Zone 1 54%

Pureshot78 said:

I'd like to start tracking my training by power levels. The PMC and other tools in WKO+ are great but I get the sense that since each person is different the default training zones (expressed as a % of FT) won't be the best fit for everyone (i.e. Me, I'll expand on that later). I'm currently using a FT of 250 watts for my calculations and all the numbers presented are in my last 28 days.

The Table 3.2 on page 55 of the Coggan Hunter book shows the zones, AP as a % of FT, and typical length of intervals associated with the power output in those levels.

Consider the following:

[left]Zone % of FT Watts (Me) Suggested Duration Ob. Wattage (% of FT)[/left]
[left]Zone 7 >150% >375w <30 sec 644-1165 (256-466)[/left]
[left]Zone 6 121-150% 303-375w 3 mins - 30 sec 376-644 (150-256)[/left]
[left]Zone 5 106-120% 265-302w 8 min - 3 min 295-376 (118-150)[/left]
[left]Zone 4 91-105% 228-264w 30 min - 8 min 260-295 (104-118)[/left]
[left]Zone 3 76-90% 190-227w 180 min - 60 min 195-243 (78-97)[/left]

The only chart that would be affected by changing the power values used to define the different levels would be the power distribution histogram (when plotted by level, instead of absolute power). However, this generally isn't the best or most informative way of examining one's data in the first place, which is why it isn't one of the default charts.

acoggan said:

The only chart that would be affected by changing the power values used to define the different levels would be the power distribution histogram (when plotted by level, instead of absolute power). However, this generally isn't the best or most informative way of examining one's data in the first place, which is why it isn't one of the default charts.

Can you elaborate on why this isn't an informative way? What is the most informative way? If I determine that certain durations of power are a weakness for me and want to train in such a way as to improve those specifically, it seems reasonable that to track the % of time in that duration power range would be useful.

Pureshot78 said:

Can you elaborate on why this isn't an informative way? What is the most informative way? If I determine that certain durations of power are a weakness for me and want to train in such a way as to improve those specifically, it seems reasonable that to track the % of time in that duration power range would be useful.

because it doesn't tell you how long at anyone time you were in a particular zone. let's say (for illustratative purposes) your zone 3 is 230 - 260 W and you want to track those data. at the end of a ride WKO could say you were in zone 3 for 65-mins, but you don't know how the 65-mins was made up.

It could be one continuous 65 mins (on your trainer) or you could have been aiming to ride at zone 2 for your ride and every time you went round a corner or did some climbing your power increased to zone 3, e.g., 130 times at zone 3 for 30-secs, or one of a million other combinations.

the training adaptations that'd occur from doing 130 x 30-secs @ zone 3 would be different to 65-mins @ zone 3, thus tracking by zone (without some other metric such as how long you were in that zone at anyone time) isn't much use.

ric

Pureshot78 said:

I'd like to start tracking my training by power levels. The PMC and other tools in WKO+ are great but I get the sense that since each person is different the default training zones (expressed as a % of FT) won't be the best fit for everyone (i.e. Me, I'll expand on that later). I'm currently using a FT of 250 watts for my calculations and all the numbers presented are in my last 28 days.

The Table 3.2 on page 55 of the Coggan Hunter book shows the zones, AP as a % of FT, and typical length of intervals associated with the power output in those levels.

Consider the following:

[left]Zone % of FT Watts (Me) Suggested Duration Ob. Wattage (% of FT)[/left]
[left]Zone 7 >150% >375w <30 sec 644-1165 (256-466)[/left]
[left]Zone 6 121-150% 303-375w 3 mins - 30 sec 376-644 (150-256)[/left]
[left]Zone 5 106-120% 265-302w 8 min - 3 min 295-376 (118-150)[/left]
[left]Zone 4 91-105% 228-264w 30 min - 8 min 260-295 (104-118)[/left]
[left]Zone 3 76-90% 190-227w 180 min - 60 min 195-243 (78-97)[/left]

How have you calculated FTP ?

peterwright said:

How have you calculated FTP ?

Did a 40km ITT, reviewed my 20 minutes intervals, and looked at my Power Distribution Chart

Pureshot78 said:

Did a 40km ITT, reviewed my 20 minutes intervals, and looked at my Power Distribution Chart

Well my thoughts would be that FTP is understated. If you can ride 3 mins %150% FTP and 8 mins @ 118% then that looks a little skewed.

peterwright said:

Well my thoughts would be that FTP is understated. If you can ride 3 mins %150% FTP and 8 mins @ 118% then that looks a little skewed.

If the FTP 'gold standard' is a 60 minute effort and my maximal 60 minute effort is 243 watts (which was part of a 40 km ITT), by definition my FT is correct, unless you are saying that I didn't push myself hard enough during that ITT.

I believe what I was trying to get at is that since there are a variety of power profiles, I wanted to see what people thought about using custom training zones.

Pureshot78 said:

If the FTP 'gold standard' is a 60 minute effort and my maximal 60 minute effort is 243 watts (which was part of a 40 km ITT), by definition my FT is correct, unless you are saying that I didn't push myself hard enough during that ITT.

I believe what I was trying to get at is that since there are a variety of power profiles, I wanted to see what people thought about using custom training zones.

That is the gold standard as you say, but you are the only one who knows if he pushed "hard enough"

As a coach I have never seen anyone able to ride the %ages of FTP that you seem to be able to.

What is NP for a typical, hard 2x20 min effort ?

I will let others comment on the relationship between power profile and training zones , but in my experience, the differing power profiles would simply result in a rider being higher or lower in terms of max power for duration. The training zones would not vary but you would simply be trainign at the upper or lower end of a zone dependent on your power profile as opposed to rewriting the zone.

Reading between the lines here, you appear to want to track your training time by training level, however defined (i.e., Andy's or Ric's schemas or your own custom-defined schema). So, in addition to knowing a ride's total intensity as measured by NP, IF and TSS, you want to know how the ride time is bucketed by training level (e.g., L1-L7).

I can relate to your quest because I had exactly the same objective. Here's the problem with the current toolset and charting options in CP. Note that I am not in any way criticizing CP here, I am simply pointing out the limitations of using the current tools and charting options in CP to get the data you want.

The ride time bucketing in CP is "raw." IOW, it is a raw frequency distribution of the ride file by power. I use a PT and every observation is 1.26secs. So, each and every observation that falls in the range of L4 is allocated to that bucket. Cumulatively, there might be an hour of such observations on one of my typical rides. This would result in an hour of L4 time in the chart you are referring to. However, Andy's training schema is written from an adaptation perspective and each level from L4 and above is defined by both power and duration. In the case of L4, the minimum duration/power combination is 10mins and 91%FTP. So, the question you seem to be asking (and the question I asked) is, "How much of my ride time is L4 time as defined by Andy's training schema (both power and duration)?"

The answer to this question is not available in CP (at the moment). I wanted to know the answer to this question badly enough that I built an application to do exactly what you want. It parses a ride file into training level segments, for Andy's or Ric's or a custom schema. But, I can tell you that this question is deceptively simple and the solution is deceptively complex. Frankly, it was a [censored] and kept my mind occupied on many rides through the countryside around LV. As usual, the devil's in the details.

The good news is that I am documenting the application (literally this week) and will send it to Andy when it's sufficiently documented for experts (as compared with now when it is documented for one person on the planet -- me). If Andy finds it of value, maybe some day it will find its way into CP.

Oh, one cautionary note. When you parse your ride file by Andy's training level rules, be prepared to be disappointed by your "real" training time in L4-L7. The current column chart reminds me of what we called "hero snow" (a thin layer of powder on top of packed base) when I used to snow ski.😄

Pureshot78 said:

my personal zones would then be (expressed at a % of FT again):
Zone 7 >256%
Zone 6 150-256%
Zone 5 118-150%
Zone 4 104-118%
Zone 3 78-97%

This is an interesting definition of training levels. My first observation is that your Zone 3 is way too broad. You're encompassing power levels that I think will do very little to increase your sustainable power (78-90%FTP) with ~1/2 of Andy's Zone 4. Whether you think the line of demarcation is exactly 91%FTP is not particularly important, but there's no way it is as low as 78%FTP. So, this is a real catch-all zone. Second, you have just eliminated the range 97-104%FTP. This would encompass a huge percentage of most people's 2x20 efforts. So, I'm not sure I understand the logic behind eliminating this key intensity range. Your Zone 4 is basically Andy's Zone 5 (VO2MAX), except that it doesn't encompass what many of us believe is the "heart" of VO2MAX workouts (120%FTP). So, while I don't have a big problem with the low end of this range I think it should definitely go to 120%FTP at the top end. Your top three zones seem like overkill to me. I think that anything > 120%FTP is clearly an anaerobic effort and the exact power you ride at is more a function of the duration than anything. I ride anaerobic efforts at anywhere from ~120%FTP to 250%FTP as a function of the duration. But, from an adaptation perspective, I lump them all into one bucket. Your Zone 7 is apparently your NM zone. This will vary widely, but for me this isn't quite high enough. I consider my NM zone to be >=300%FTP, but that's only because I can't put out 400%FTP on a regular basis. If I could, I would define my NM efforts at 400%FTP and above.

RapDaddyo said:

This is an interesting definition of training levels. My first observation is that your Zone 3 is way too broad. You're encompassing power levels that I think will do very little to increase your sustainable power (78-90%FTP) with ~1/2 of Andy's Zone 4. Whether you think the line of demarcation is exactly 91%FTP is not particularly important, but there's no way it is as low as 78%FTP. So, this is a real catch-all zone. Second, you have just eliminated the range 97-104%FTP. This would encompass a huge percentage of most people's 2x20 efforts. So, I'm not sure I understand the logic behind eliminating this key intensity range. Your Zone 4 is basically Andy's Zone 5 (VO2MAX), except that it doesn't encompass what many of us believe is the "heart" of VO2MAX workouts (120%FTP). So, while I don't have a big problem with the low end of this range I think it should definitely go to 120%FTP at the top end. Your top three zones seem like overkill to me. I think that anything > 120%FTP is clearly an anaerobic effort and the exact power you ride at is more a function of the duration than anything. I ride anaerobic efforts at anywhere from ~120%FTP to 250%FTP as a function of the duration. But, from an adaptation perspective, I lump them all into one bucket. Your Zone 7 is apparently your NM zone. This will vary widely, but for me this isn't quite high enough. I consider my NM zone to be >=300%FTP, but that's only because I can't put out 400%FTP on a regular basis. If I could, I would define my NM efforts at 400%FTP and above.

Eloquently put my friend 🙂

The training zones I produced were a product of the example durations given from Andy and Hunter's book and the Maximal Power Duration Curve from my previous 28 days of ride files. As such Zone 3 states 180 min to 60 min and my Max 60 min power observed was 243w (which i rounded to 250 for FT).

I noted this discrepancy (specifically the lack of the 30 to 60 min time frame)when I produced the chart but I was more interested in the underlying question: How much can individuals % of FT at these given durations vary from the % listed in the chart?

As peterwright pointed out it appears strange that I can produce 150% of FT for 3 min and 118% for 8 mins. My first thought was that this was more because of an undertrained FT than a high AWC but my power profile doesn't support that suggestion.

Again last 28 days: (i am 191 lbs currently)
5 sec: 12.72 w/kg
1 min: 6.41 w/kg
5 min: 3.67 w/kg
FT: 2.80 w/kg

Highest observed: (both instances of higher observed were in the previous 28 days when i actually weighed around 196)
5 sec: 13.37 w/kg
1 min: 6.41 w/kg
5 min: 3.96 w/kg
FT: 2.80 w/kg

peterwright said:

As a coach I have never seen anyone able to ride the %ages of FTP that you seem to be able to.

Possibly the OP has an exceptionally high anaerobic work capacity?

My calculations tell me that my CP3 is 151% of my FTP and CP8 would be 119% of FTP. That is working with an AWC of 33kj and FTP of 360w.

Pureshot78 said:

The training zones I produced were a product of the example durations given from Andy and Hunter's book and the Maximal Power Duration Curve from my previous 28 days of ride files.

But, I think you're missing the real point of breaking training into "levels" or "zones" or whatever one calls them. They are derived to enable one to target specific physiological adaptations, not to mirror any cyclist's specific power profile. Hence, the buckets are not equal in width in absolute or percentage terms. In planning my training rides, I simplify them even further by lumping everything below 91%FTP into one bucket, "Other." I realize that's a bit extreme, but it helps me keep my focus on the intensity/duration combinations that result in increased power.

RapDaddyo said:

But, I think you're missing the real point of breaking training into "levels" or "zones" or whatever one calls them. They are derived to enable one to target specific physiological adaptations, not to mirror any cyclist's specific power profile. Hence, the buckets are not equal in width in absolute or percentage terms. In planning my training rides, I simplify them even further by lumping everything below 91%FTP into one bucket, "Other." I realize that's a bit extreme, but it helps me keep my focus on the intensity/duration combinations that result in increased power.

I guess i was assuming that the given durations were extracted from an analysis of the requirements of competitive cycling and thus the durations were far more important than the % of FT in determining the levels. It seems kinda silly to put a track sprinter and a 120 lbs climber in the same buckets when their abilities are so drastically different.

Pureshot78 said:

I guess i was assuming that the given durations were extracted from an analysis of the requirements of competitive cycling and thus the durations were far more important than the % of FT in determining the levels. It seems kinda silly to put a track sprinter and a 120 lbs climber in the same buckets when their abilities are so drastically different.

Their capabilities and power profiles might be quite different, but that doesn't mean that the levels that will result in the desired adaptations will be different.

joemw said:

Possibly the OP has an exceptionally high anaerobic work capacity?

My calculations tell me that my CP3 is 151% of my FTP and CP8 would be 119% of FTP. That is working with an AWC of 33kj and FTP of 360w.

...which for the OP would be 380 j/kg. That's definitely higher than average, but not astronomical.

peterwright said:

in my experience, the differing power profiles would simply result in a rider being higher or lower in terms of max power for duration.

That's the way it's supposed to work, anyway, with the width of the training levels being such that they capture almost everyone's abilities. Of course, there can always be exceptions, esp. at the extreme ends of things (i.e., level 1 and level 6...level 7 not being related to functional threshold power). That's why they're called "levels" and not "zones", i.e., they are intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive, in nature. (Or, to put it another way: efforts are always best referenced back to an individual's unique, and current, abilities...which is why I prefer to revisit various "benchmark" workouts periodically.)