A Neg (-%) PW:HR

Discussion:

A Neg (-%) PW:HR

Seavemeyer

2008-01-28 21:34:15 UTC

Just curious for those who have been reviewing this metric
I've read Joe's article and for the most part it makes sense.

But I've been getting regular -%'s for PW:HR
Has anyone else gotten similar results ?

I don't bother looking at PW:HR on interval days
But for a 2hr L2 ride I'll get a -7% or -5% for the ride.

Upon a closer look at one ride the output for the 2nd hr was around
10watts+ more
for the same HR as the first hr.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Andy Coggan

2008-01-28 21:40:33 UTC

Permalink

Post by Seavemeyer
Just curious for those who have been reviewing this metric
I've read Joe's article and for the most part it makes sense.
But I've been getting regular -%'s for PW:HR
Has anyone else gotten similar results ?
I don't bother looking at PW:HR on interval days
But for a 2hr L2 ride I'll get a -7% or -5% for the ride.
Upon a closer look at one ride the output for the 2nd hr was around
10watts+ more
for the same HR as the first hr.

1. What brand of powermeter do you use?

2. Is the second half of the route significantly flatter than the
first, and/or is the overall trend downhill for the first half, uphill
for the second?

Andy Coggan
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Andy Coggan

2008-01-28 22:54:21 UTC

Permalink

I also got a negative number for my most recent indoor (fluid trainer)
session of - 1.1 for the PW:HR. The "ride" was as follows: 30 min W.U
at watts < 150, and 1 hour with watts from 150 - 200. Very short Cool
Down. I use a PT Pro 2.4 Wired.
I've also been wondering what this negative value means.

In your case, it's almost certainly because power:heart rate isn't
completely independent of power, i.e., the two tend to rise in
parallel.

Andy Coggan
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

7 Axiom

2008-01-28 22:22:12 UTC

Permalink

I also got a negative number for my most recent indoor (fluid trainer)
session of - 1.1 for the PW:HR. The "ride" was as follows: 30 min W.U
at watts < 150, and 1 hour with watts from 150 - 200. Very short Cool
Down. I use a PT Pro 2.4 Wired.

I've also been wondering what this negative value means.

Ian.

Post by Andy Coggan

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Seavemeyer

2008-01-28 23:11:48 UTC

Permalink

Post by Andy Coggan

1. What brand of powermeter do you use?

Its a Powertap pro...Using CyclingPeaks 2.2

Post by Andy Coggan
2. Is the second half of the route significantly flatter than the
first, and/or is the overall trend downhill for the first half, uphill
for the second?

Sorry I should have included this in my original post
All rides on the Kinetic trainer...

It sounds a bit crazy but I'm thinking maybe it could be due to my
supplementation ?

I will drink some NoXplode prior to a workout..
I drink it throughout my first hr of training then
In by my second hour I feel good & very strong !

Thanks for the response !!

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Eric Budd

2008-01-29 00:45:37 UTC

Permalink

heh, you might be jumping to conclusions. I would imagine that it has
something to do with the measurement of power changing over the course
of the workout. Inparticular, if the temperature of the unit changes
over time, that can affect power measurement.

-Eric

Post by Seavemeyer

Post by Andy Coggan

1. What brand of powermeter do you use?

Its a Powertap pro...Using CyclingPeaks 2.2

Post by Andy Coggan
2. Is the second half of the route significantly flatter than the
first, and/or is the overall trend downhill for the first half, uphill
for the second?

Seavemeyer

2008-01-31 13:22:51 UTC

Permalink

Andy

Here is a Chart of a -5% PW:HR
The Ride was on my trainer.
I did an hr L2 then ramped up for 2 intervals
I did get off my bike after an hr to pee and then had to blow my nose
during the second
Thanks
Rob
Loading Image...

Post by Andy Coggan

sleeves

2008-01-31 14:09:24 UTC

Permalink

FWIW, I've noticed several rides where I have a negative pw:HR. I
just dismissed it as meaning that I'm too fit.... :P

Post by Seavemeyer
Andy
Here is a Chart of a -5% PW:HR
The Ride was on my trainer.
I did an hr L2 then ramped up for 2 intervals
I did get off my bike after an hr to pee and then had to blow my nose
during the second
Thanks
Robhttp://www.pbase.com/robh/image/92356625/large.jpg

Post by Andy Coggan

r***@aol.com

2008-01-31 18:55:32 UTC

Permalink

Some thoughts for you:

-Since 'decoupling' is really measuring cardiac drift, and cardiac drift most likely occurs during periods of

heat and therefore thermal stress, it's likely that in winter months we'll see more negative numbers.

-One idea:? If you start out on a ride that's relatively cold, say 40F, and you slightly overdress for the ride in the beginning,

therefore you will be relatively warm.?Lets' say that you get colder on the ride because you have been out there
for 3 hours at endurance pace.? Now, you are colder and the question is:? Does your HR go down as compared to the HR:PW
ratio you were producing for the first part of the ride?

-If you negative split a ride(ride easier in the beginning, harder in the end), then it could be?more likely?to have a negative number.

-Where I see value in 'decoupling' is in looking at tempo and Bill Black's 'Hour of Power' workouts.??

-I had one athlete that did a 1 hour of SST within a 2.5 hour ride back in October. 10-11% decoupling within that hour of tempo.
I had him do the same exact ride each week, on the same loop, start the hour of tempo at the exact same place and by December,
he was under 4%.?? Now, he was definitely more aerobically fitter after that work, and we had not done any intense intervals(over FTP).
Did he reduce that much because of improvements in fitness and/or because it got cold as heck in the UK in December?

Lots of questions and answers still to be had.? The great thing about this metric is that it's causing people to think
and question and see for themselves.? peer review is a wonderful thing.

Hunter Allen

Buy your Wattage based training plan ONLINE!
www.trainingpeaks.com/hunter

The Peaks Coaching Group
"We care about your success!"
www.peakscoachinggroup.com

TrainingPeaks WKO+
The Ultimate Analysis Software
www.trainingpeaks.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Seavemeyer <***@naturesanswer.com>
To: Wattage <***@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 8:22 am
Subject: [Wattage] Re: A Neg (-%) PW:HR

Andy

Here is a Chart of a -5% PW:HR
The Ride was on my trainer.
I did an hr L2 then ramped up for 2 intervals
I did get off my bike after an hr to pee and then had to blow my nose
during the second
Thanks
Rob
http://www.pbase.com/robh/image/92356625/large.jpg

Post by Andy Coggan

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

daveryanwyoming

2008-01-31 19:33:00 UTC

Permalink

...Lots of questions and answers still to be had.? The great thing
about this metric is that it's causing people to think and question
and see for themselves.? ...

Random associations of data with unspecified protocols does not a
metric make..

Really Hunter coding a new "metric" into WKO+ that shows up on each
and every interval ridden regardless of its intensity, duration or
trend or how it followed prior efforts in the same session. Seems like
implied precision and unfounded data validity to me.

I've been getting real low PW:HR values when I ride an SST effort
following a short hard "blow out" effort near FTP while warming up.
But I get higher PW:HR numbers when I ride a more conservative warmup
and go straight to Tempo work. Does it mean I'm "fitter" on days when
I do a blow out effort as part of warmup or less fit on days when I
skip that step and finish my warmup while riding Tempo? This "metric"
seems highly influenced by environment (temps as you mentioned) and
specific protocols.

Let's just say that following Friel's Aet protocol (duration not
really defined) that PW:HR really does indicate aerobic fitness.
Wouldn't it just imply fitness to a particular Aet? Should the athlete
then attempt to raise their FTP and hence their Aet and retest or are
they done with aerobic base building for the season (which is what
Friel implies in his article) and move on to high end work? IOW, what
does it mean to be "fit" at a given absolute power level?

BTW, PW:HR is pretty well described in Friel's article. How is Pa:HR
calculated from ride data? I couldn't find a link to that on your
site.

I sure love your product, but really think you missed the boat on this
one by including a metric that's only loosely based on first
principles really doesn't have any supporting research, is questioned
by some of the leading authorities in power training and you back
burnered proven tools like QA in the process.

-Dave

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

r***@aol.com

2008-01-31 21:10:59 UTC

Permalink

Like I said... glad it's causing you to think about it.
Sounds like you are starting to learn something about how it can and can't be applied
to various workouts already. Outstanding.? I don't have the answers to all the questions and neither
does Joe Friel or Andy.? We are still learning and questioning.

There is definitely some scientific research about cardiac drift.? Not specifically on the metric
that we are looking at now, but that was the same when TSS was released.? Based on scientific
principles, but no true research done on the actual metric.? If we waited for that, then it's likely
no one would be using TSS right now. We'd still be waiting for the research!

Only new metric in 2.2 WKO+ that's already has solid?peer-reviewed, published research?behind it is Dr. Stephen McGregor's
metric? for Running TSS(rTSS) and Normalized Graded Pace(NGP).? I believe he presented two abstracts
on it at ACSM last year and I know he's working on more.? We could have released it over a year and half ago,
but didn't because Stephen really wanted to finish his research and hence Dr. Skiba came up with his alternative
in the meantime because we didn't fill a need.

Remember Ver 2.2 was a free upgrade mainly for the Multisport crowd.

Version 3.0 will be coming this year, will have much more than?QA, multi-file layering, GPS trackes, etc. We have a list
of other features that have been requested by you and others since Version 1.1 was released in 2003.
We are already working hard on it and I know it's going to take WKO+ to the next level!

Glad to see you have an open mind and eager to learn more!

Hunter Allen

Buy your Wattage based training plan ONLINE!
www.trainingpeaks.com/hunter

The Peaks Coaching Group
"We care about your success!"
www.peakscoachinggroup.com

TrainingPeaks WKO+
The Ultimate Analysis Software
www.trainingpeaks.com

-----Original Message-----
From: daveryanwyoming <***@gmail.com>
To: Wattage <***@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 2:33 pm
Subject: [Wattage] Re: A Neg (-%) PW:HR

...Lots of questions and answers still to be had.? The great thing
about this metric is that it's causing people to think and question
and see for themselves.? ...

Random associations of data with unspecified protocols does not a
metric make..

Really Hunter coding a new "metric" into WKO+ that shows up on each
and every interval ridden regardless of its intensity, duration or
trend or how it followed prior efforts in the same session. Seems like
implied precision and unfounded data validity to me.

I've been getting real low PW:HR values when I ride an SST effort
following a short hard "blow out" effort near FTP while warming up.
But I get higher PW:HR numbers when I ride a more conservative warmup
and go straight to Tempo work. Does it mean I'm "fitter" on days when
I do a blow out effort as part of warmup or less fit on days when I
skip that step and finish my warmup while riding Tempo? This "metric"
seems highly influenced by environment (temps as you mentioned) and
specific protocols.

Let's just say that following Friel's Aet protocol (duration not
really defined) that PW:HR really does indicate aerobic fitness.
Wouldn't it just imply fitness to a particular Aet? Should the athlete
then attempt to raise their FTP and hence their Aet and retest or are
they done with aerobic base building for the season (which is what
Friel implies in his article) and move on to high end work? IOW, what
does it mean to be "fit" at a given absolute power level?

BTW, PW:HR is pretty well described in Friel's article. How is Pa:HR
calculated from ride data? I couldn't find a link to that on your
site.

I sure love your product, but really think you missed the boat on this
one by including a metric that's only loosely based on first
principles really doesn't have any supporting research, is questioned
by some of the leading authorities in power training and you back
burnered proven tools like QA in the process.

-Dave

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Dr. Philip Skiba

2008-01-31 21:55:19 UTC

Permalink

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

Rich_SC

2008-01-31 22:45:05 UTC

Permalink

The *whole point* of training using a power meter is to move towards
something resembling objective training analysis, based upon measurable
things (i.e. FTP or Critical Power)....

Well said...I wish WKO+ would have a preference for turning OFF all
the heartrate stuff. Or at least sell a separate "Joe Friel edition"
for those 3-sport guys. I haven't used my HR strap in 3 years and I
don't intend to start.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Dwayne

2008-02-01 14:26:56 UTC

Permalink

Post by Rich_SC
Or at least sell a separate "Joe Friel edition"
for those 3-sport guys.

Hold on now, not all of us 3-sport guys buy in to this either :-)

Dwayne
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Andy Coggan

2008-02-01 15:12:57 UTC

Permalink

Post by Rich_SC
I wish WKO+ would have a preference for turning OFF all
the heartrate stuff.

Me too, especially since the summary stats shown in the Ranges window
are now getting rather crowded.

(I tried discarding the heart rate 'channel' for a file, but WKO+
still shows Pw:HR and Pa:HR as 'n/a', even though it does remove the
heart rate data from the min/max/average.)

Andy Coggan
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

midbunchlurker

2008-02-02 04:27:29 UTC

Permalink

Post by Rich_SC
Well said...I wish WKO+ would have a preference for turning OFF all
the heartrate stuff.

+1 for that. All the heartrate stuff just takes up unnecessary space
for me.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Steve Palladino

2008-02-01 02:04:54 UTC

Permalink

The *whole point* of training using a power meter is to move towards
something resembling objective training analysis, based upon measurable
things (i.e. FTP or Critical Power).

But Pw:HR is a measurable thing - and objective.

Is it useless, as Dave says? It certainly has its significant
limitations:
- the pw:HR metric will likely fail when comparing anything other than
apples to apples over time - at least duration, course, effort,
temperature must be very similar to use the metric in evaluating
progress over time
- the pw component is based on AP, not NP, meaning asymmetric
topographical routes will yield more suspect numbers
- specific ride characteristics may invalidate the metric for a given
ride:

The biggest problem that I see right now is that many users have no
idea how to interpret the metric for a single ride. Why else would
there even be a thread querying how to interpret a negative pw:HR?
- the metric does not work when analyzing a ride with asymmetric
effort level (L7, L6, L5 back-loaded into an otherwise L2, L3, SST, or
L4 workout will likely give a lower or negative value compared to a
front-loaded workout - the same with SST back-loaded into a L2/L3
ride)
- the metric does not work when analysing a ride that is asymmetric
topographically (eg., saw tooth for the first 2 hours, then flat for
the last 1)
- the metric will not likely work if the temperature is significantly
asymmetric (haven't had a chance to test this yet)

Nevertheless, the metric *may* have some value in evaluating sustained
isopower or narrow-range power output workouts under very similar
environmental conditions over very similar courses/durations, as
Hunter has alluded to. I consider the metric something to try to
interpret when the parameters of a single workout or series of
workouts do not invalidate the metric. The rest of the time, it is
something that I do not even glance at, like a number of other
reported data/metrics in WKO+.

If the metric has validity in analysis of *progress* over time within
the above constraints, I'd like to look at
- using the metric as an indicator to re-test FTP. Certainly one can
schedule testing for FTP on some defined time interval. As a
conceptual alternative, could following a series of reasonably
controlled, say 1.5 hour SST at 0.9 IF, sessions indicate that it is
time to re-test FTP?
- seeing if the metric can be correlated to TSB. Can following
controlled, again say 1.5 hour SST at 0.9 IF, sessions be used to
corroborate TSB in some objective fashion (keeping in mind that RPE is
subjective).

No definitive answers yet, but willing to look.....and hope that the
pw:HR metric is not just a porch light to my mind's moth.

- Steve Palladino
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Dwayne

2008-02-01 14:32:18 UTC

Permalink

Post by Steve Palladino
But Pw:HR is a measurable thing - and objective.

Measurable, yes. Objective, no. That is the point - HR is not
objective. It can be influenced by factors other than the current
training stimulus - body temp., dehydration, stress, lack of sleep,
etc, etc.

Dwayne
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Dave Harris

2008-02-01 14:46:11 UTC

Permalink

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:32 AM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: A Neg (-%) PW:HR

Post by Steve Palladino
But Pw:HR is a measurable thing - and objective.

HR is an objective measure - it's the interpretation of that measure that is
subjective. The same could be said for power.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Dr. Philip Skiba

2008-02-01 14:49:05 UTC

Permalink

Post by Dave Harris

Post by Dwayne

Post by Steve Palladino
But Pw:HR is a measurable thing - and objective.

HR is an objective measure - it's the interpretation of that measure that is
subjective. The same could be said for power.

Not to speak for Dwayne, but I suspect what he meant was HR is a
*dependent* metric...

Phil
--
Dr. Philip Skiba
PhysFarm Training Systems LLC

The RaceDay System: The Training Management and Performance Modeling
Solution for Mac and PC. Learn more at: http://www.physfarm.com/tech

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Steve Palladino

2008-02-01 14:49:17 UTC

Permalink

Post by Dwayne

Post by Steve Palladino
But Pw:HR is a measurable thing - and objective.

You are confusing the term objective with reliability. The
measurement is objective. It may not be reliable, but it is
objective.

-Steve Palladino
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Dwayne

2008-02-01 19:05:03 UTC

Permalink

You are confusing the term objective with reliability. The
measurement is objective. It may not be reliable, but it is
objective.
-Steve Palladino

Okay, you're all right - my mis-use of the word
"objective" (vocabulary has never been a strong point of mine :-)).
As Phil corrected me, *dependent* should have been the word. So,
*dependent* and/or *unreliable* means to me that it should only be
used as secondary information since there is *independent* /
*reliable* information available. Why mix the two? If HR is dependent
and unreliable then how can a metric that uses HR not also be
dependent and unreliable?

That being said (or written, rather), I am not one that believes that
HR should be *completely* ingnored. Just that it should be considered
as secondary, knowing that it is dependent on other factors. On a
session to session basis it may be helpful for one to determine
whether they are being affected by those other factors (e.g. "I am/am
not acclimating to the heat and humidity").

Dwayne
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Tom Fort

2008-02-02 06:04:04 UTC

Permalink

Post by Dr. Philip Skiba
It is based upon "scientific principles" in the same way "aerobic
threshold" and the "first deepening of breath" or whatever are related
to lactate threshold. In other words, barely and certainly not
enough to
be useful in any practical sense.
The *whole point* of training using a power meter is to move towards
something resembling objective training analysis, based upon
measurable
things (i.e. FTP or Critical Power). Either the athlete can push more
watts, or they can't. Is adaptation / performance measurably
plateauing?
Great. Train more / harder / use a different type of stimulus. This is a
paradigm worth supporting, and was (at least I thought it was) the basis
of CyclingPeaks. The idea of now putting all that *really good stuff
aside* and couching training in terms of something that is *allegedly*
"to be found in the range of 55% to 75% of Functional Threshold Power"
per the TP website serves no useful purpose, and frankly seems like
trying to manufacture support for a non-evidence based training philosophy.

Maybe Hunter and the original CyclingPeaks crew would not have chosen
to put PW:Hr in as their next new feature, but this sort of thing had
to be expected with TrainingPeaks/Peaksware taking over.

I'm ignoring PW:HR, but hopeful that the cash infusion will get
version 3.0 out sooner and keep the company growing.

Tom
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

daveryanwyoming

2008-01-31 22:44:23 UTC

Permalink

...Like I said... glad it's causing you to think about it....

Interesting new paradigm in software tools, add a useless feature and
then tout the idea that it stirs thought and take consolation in the
idea that paying clients find it useless....

There is definitely some scientific research about cardiac drift.? ...

Yes, there's a great deal of research on cardiac drift as it relates
to hydration and thermal rise. None of that points to this metric
having any broad validity, if anything they point to the ways this
metric could be misleading and again the metric without a protocol is
likely to give widely varying results and a sense of false validity.

Glad to see you have an open mind and eager to learn more!

Nice jab, glad to see you're open and responsive to customer feedback
and believe in evidence over belief based coaching.

No worries, nobody is forcing me to pay attention to the new metric
and there's an awful lot of good stuff in WKO+. BTW what is Pa:HR all
about, I'm sure I won't like it, but it would at least be nice to know
what it's supposed to mean :)

-Dave

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Steve Palladino

2008-02-01 00:07:45 UTC

Permalink

Post by daveryanwyoming
BTW what is Pa:HR all
about, I'm sure I won't like it, but it would at least be nice to know
what it's supposed to mean :)

Pa:HR = Pace:HR A running metric desing to do essentailly the same
thing as Pw:HR for cycling (given that pace in running is a more
resonable reflection of *power* in running than in cycling).

-Steve Palladino
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

7 Axiom

2008-02-01 01:33:43 UTC

Permalink

My 2 cents: I wonder whether folks are perhaps being a little quick to
judge the Pa:HR tool either way, especially considering it's part of a
free upgrade.

I would imagine that each of the new tools will face the test of time
and the market, including academic and consumer evaluation, and
ultimately, the concept and the tool will either live and evolve, or
die, by that.

At the user level, is it really such a hardship to wait and see, and
experiment and at least learn about the stated premise of the tool in
the meantime? It's not as though merely having the tool available
necessitates much of a time or energy cost to the user.

Heck, even if the tool is ultimately shown to have validity only for
Level 2 training, and only under certain conditions, that to me would
still be a worthwhile metric. And if not, it's not as though a major
feature of WKO+ would be lost if the bottom falls out of the concept.

Ian.

Post by daveryanwyoming
...Like I said... glad it's causing you to think about it....
Interesting new paradigm in software tools, add a useless feature and
then tout the idea that it stirs thought and take consolation in the
idea that paying clients find it useless....

There is definitely some scientific research about cardiac drift.? ...

Glad to see you have an open mind and eager to learn more!

Simon Ree

2008-02-01 04:34:52 UTC

Permalink

Hi Hunter,

Thanks for the free update. I have been trying to figure this
'metric' out since before the official 2.2 release and I have yet to
see what I should be learning from it. As an example done today, here
are 3 intervals 20 minutes each, no rest (just broken up so I could
trick myself into a 60 minute interval). By the end of the interval
Pw:HR,Pa:HR are negative. This was done indoors with the biggest fan
I could source. I wound out the final 5 minutes of the last
interval. I am confused as to what I am supposed to divine from it.

Power-Tap #1:
Duration: 20:01
Work: 314 kJ
TSS: 25.3 (intensity factor 0.872)
Norm Power: 262
VI: 1
Pw:HR: 3.71%
Pa:HR: 2.26%
Distance: 9.482 km
Min Max Avg
Power: 202 338 261 watts
Heart Rate: 123 151 144 bpm
Cadence: 65 98 89 rpm
Speed: 23.9 31.3 28.4 kph
Pace 1:55 2:31 2:07 min/km
Hub Torque: 9.3 13.9 11.1 N-m

Power-Tap #2:
Duration: 20:02
Work: 320 kJ
TSS: 26.3 (intensity factor 0.887)
Norm Power: 266
VI: 1
Pw:HR: 0.62%
Pa:HR: 0.11%
Distance: 9.782 km
Min Max Avg
Power: 205 332 266 watts
Heart Rate: 148 155 152 bpm
Cadence: 59 102 84 rpm
Speed: 27.8 32 29.3 kph
Pace 1:53 2:09 2:03 min/km
Hub Torque: 8.1 13.1 10.9 N-m

Power-Tap #3:
Duration: 20:01
Work: 333 kJ
TSS: 28.7 (intensity factor 0.928)
Norm Power: 278
VI: 1
Pw:HR: -5.09%
Pa:HR: -2.93%
Distance: 10.075 km
Min Max Avg
Power: 223 347 277 watts
Heart Rate: 152 171 158 bpm
Cadence: 74 108 87 rpm
Speed: 28 33.5 30.2 kph
Pace 1:47 2:09 1:59 min/km
Hub Torque: 9.2 13.8 11.0 N-m

--
Simon Rée
***@gmail.com

Please help to find a cure for Cystic Fibrosis. www.gearup4cf.org

Post by r***@aol.com
Like I said... glad it's causing you to think about it.
Sounds like you are starting to learn something about how it can and can't be applied
to various workouts already. Outstanding. I don't have the answers
to all the questions and neither
does Joe Friel or Andy. We are still learning and questioning.
There is definitely some scientific research about cardiac drift.
Not specifically on the metric
that we are looking at now, but that was the same when TSS was
released. Based on scientific
principles, but no true research done on the actual metric. If we
waited for that, then it's likely
no one would be using TSS right now. We'd still be waiting for the research!
Only new metric in 2.2 WKO+ that's already has solid peer-reviewed,
published research behind it is Dr. Stephen McGregor's
metric for Running TSS(rTSS) and Normalized Graded Pace(NGP). I
believe he presented two abstracts
on it at ACSM last year and I know he's working on more. We could
have released it over a year and half ago,
but didn't because Stephen really wanted to finish his research and
hence Dr. Skiba came up with his alternative
in the meantime because we didn't fill a need.
Remember Ver 2.2 was a free upgrade mainly for the Multisport crowd.
Version 3.0 will be coming this year, will have much more than QA,
multi-file layering, GPS trackes, etc. We have a list
of other features that have been requested by you and others since
Version 1.1 was released in 2003.
We are already working hard on it and I know it's going to take WKO+ to the next level!
Glad to see you have an open mind and eager to learn more!
Hunter Allen
Buy your Wattage based training plan ONLINE!
www.trainingpeaks.com/hunter
The Peaks Coaching Group
"We care about your success!"
www.peakscoachinggroup.com
TrainingPeaks WKO+
The Ultimate Analysis Software
www.trainingpeaks.com
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 2:33 pm
Subject: [Wattage] Re: A Neg (-%) PW:HR
...Lots of questions and answers still to be had.? The great thing
about this metric is that it's causing people to think and question
and see for themselves.? ...
Random associations of data with unspecified protocols does not a
metric make..
Really Hunter coding a new "metric" into WKO+ that shows up on each
and every interval ridden regardless of its intensity, duration or
trend or how it followed prior efforts in the same session. Seems like
implied precision and unfounded data validity to me.
I've been getting real low PW:HR values when I ride an SST effort
following a short hard "blow out" effort near FTP while warming up.
But I get higher PW:HR numbers when I ride a more conservative warmup
and go straight to Tempo work. Does it mean I'm "fitter" on days when
I do a blow out effort as part of warmup or less fit on days when I
skip that step and finish my warmup while riding Tempo? This "metric"
seems highly influenced by environment (temps as you mentioned) and
specific protocols.
Let's just say that following Friel's Aet protocol (duration not
really defined) that PW:HR really does indicate aerobic fitness.
Wouldn't it just imply fitness to a particular Aet? Should the athlete
then attempt to raise their FTP and hence their Aet and retest or are
they done with aerobic base building for the season (which is what
Friel implies in his article) and move on to high end work? IOW, what
does it mean to be "fit" at a given absolute power level?
BTW, PW:HR is pretty well described in Friel's article. How is Pa:HR
calculated from ride data? I couldn't find a link to that on your
site.
I sure love your product, but really think you missed the boat on this
one by including a metric that's only loosely based on first
principles really doesn't have any supporting research, is questioned
by some of the leading authorities in power training and you back
burnered proven tools like QA in the process.
-Dave
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

Steve Palladino

2008-02-01 14:09:33 UTC

Permalink

Post by Simon Ree
Hi Hunter,
Thanks for the free update. I have been trying to figure this
'metric' out since before the official 2.2 release and I have yet to
see what I should be learning from it. As an example done today, here
are 3 intervals 20 minutes each, no rest (just broken up so I could
trick myself into a 60 minute interval). By the end of the interval
Pw:HR,Pa:HR are negative. This was done indoors with the biggest fan
I could source. I wound out the final 5 minutes of the last
interval. I am confused as to what I am supposed to divine from it.
Duration: 20:01
Work: 314 kJ
TSS: 25.3 (intensity factor 0.872)
Norm Power: 262
VI: 1
Pw:HR: 3.71%
Pa:HR: 2.26%
Distance: 9.482 km
Min Max Avg
Power: 202 338 261 watts
Heart Rate: 123 151 144 bpm
Cadence: 65 98 89 rpm
Speed: 23.9 31.3 28.4 kph
Pace 1:55 2:31 2:07 min/km
Hub Torque: 9.3 13.9 11.1 N-m
Duration: 20:02
Work: 320 kJ
TSS: 26.3 (intensity factor 0.887)
Norm Power: 266
VI: 1
Pw:HR: 0.62%
Pa:HR: 0.11%
Distance: 9.782 km
Min Max Avg
Power: 205 332 266 watts
Heart Rate: 148 155 152 bpm
Cadence: 59 102 84 rpm
Speed: 27.8 32 29.3 kph
Pace 1:53 2:09 2:03 min/km
Hub Torque: 8.1 13.1 10.9 N-m
Duration: 20:01
Work: 333 kJ
TSS: 28.7 (intensity factor 0.928)
Norm Power: 278
VI: 1
Pw:HR: -5.09%
Pa:HR: -2.93%
Distance: 10.075 km
Min Max Avg
Power: 223 347 277 watts
Heart Rate: 152 171 158 bpm
Cadence: 74 108 87 rpm
Speed: 28 33.5 30.2 kph
Pace 1:47 2:09 1:59 min/km
Hub Torque: 9.2 13.8 11.0 N-m

I don't know what hunter will say, but here is my interpretation:
1) the first interval, you slowed down / put out less power in the
second half than the first, the second interval you nailed, the last
interval you rode faster/put out more power in the second half than
the first (as you said, you wound out the last 5 minutes, thus the
negative).
2) you handled each of the intervals and the entire workout well
within your aerobic means
then the interpretations go further out on a limb:
3) your indoor cooling system was reasonably sufficient
4) your FTP is not likely over-estimated
5) your TSB is not likely bottomed out

Keep in mind that using this metric to interpret workouts has
significant limitations. I mentioned many of them previously.
Another may be in evaluating short duration work segments (much like
the NP metric should be used with caution in as work segments go below
20 minutes). Having said this, there might some gre
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Steve Palladino

2008-02-01 14:23:04 UTC

Permalink

Post by Steve Palladino

1) the first interval, you slowed down / put out less power in the
second half than the first, the second interval you nailed, the last
interval you rode faster/put out more power in the second half than
the first (as you said, you wound out the last 5 minutes, thus the
negative).
2) you handled each of the intervals and the entire workout well
within your aerobic means
3) your indoor cooling system was reasonably sufficient
4) your FTP is not likely over-estimated
5) your TSB is not likely bottomed out
Keep in mind that using this metric to interpret workouts has
significant limitations. I mentioned many of them previously.
Another may be in evaluating short duration work segments (much like
the NP metric should be used with caution in as work segments go below
20 minutes). Having said this, there might some gre-

Damn, accidently hit send.
What I was going say was that if you were to repeat this workout over
time, holding your power target and cooling system the same, you may
or may not be able to effectively track fitness gains, given your
current good numbers. However, you might be able to document
regression due to fatigue / higher TSB , or illness/other stressors.

-Steve Palladino
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Simon Ree

2008-02-01 17:25:41 UTC

Permalink

Post by Steve Palladino

Thanks for the analysis Steve. Having re-read Hunter's post regarding
negative splits I guess it makes more sense to me why I end up with so
many negative results. For me 95% off all my rides are going to end
with negative numbers and looking at ride files from the fall almost
all of them take that format. So other than using as a micro analysis
tool for specific intervals it may be useless for rides with higher VI
and altitude changes. Since I live in the mountains I guess this will
remain a 'tool' for the winter months when I have more time to look at
these files than ride.

Thanks again.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

c***@landex.net

2008-02-01 20:24:21 UTC

Permalink

Qq
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Ree <***@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:25:41
To:***@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Wattage] Re: A Neg (-%) PW:HR

Post by Steve Palladino

Post by Simon Ree
Hi Hunter,
Thanks for the free update. I have been trying to figure this
'metric' out since before the official 2.2 release and I have yet to
see what I should be learning from it. As an example done today,
here
are 3 intervals 20 minutes each, no rest (just broken up so I could
trick myself into a 60 minute interval). By the end of the interval
Pw:HR,Pa:HR are negative. This was done indoors with the biggest fan
I could source. I wound out the final 5 minutes of the last
interval. I am confused as to what I am supposed to divine from it.
Duration: 20:01
Work: 314 kJ
TSS: 25.3 (intensity factor 0.872)
Norm Power: 262
VI: 1
Pw:HR: 3.71%
Pa:HR: 2.26%
Distance: 9.482 km
Min Max Avg
Power: 202 338 261 watts
Heart Rate: 123 151 144 bpm
Cadence: 65 98 89 rpm
Speed: 23.9 31.3 28.4 kph
Pace 1:55 2:31 2:07 min/km
Hub Torque: 9.3 13.9 11.1 N-m
Duration: 20:02
Work: 320 kJ
TSS: 26.3 (intensity factor 0.887)
Norm Power: 266
VI: 1
Pw:HR: 0.62%
Pa:HR: 0.11%
Distance: 9.782 km
Min Max Avg
Power: 205 332 266 watts
Heart Rate: 148 155 152 bpm
Cadence: 59 102 84 rpm
Speed: 27.8 32 29.3 kph
Pace 1:53 2:09 2:03 min/km
Hub Torque: 8.1 13.1 10.9 N-m
Duration: 20:01
Work: 333 kJ
TSS: 28.7 (intensity factor 0.928)
Norm Power: 278
VI: 1
Pw:HR: -5.09%
Pa:HR: -2.93%
Distance: 10.075 km
Min Max Avg
Power: 223 347 277 watts
Heart Rate: 152 171 158 bpm
Cadence: 74 108 87 rpm
Speed: 28 33.5 30.2 kph
Pace 1:47 2:09 1:59 min/km
Hub Torque: 9.2 13.8 11.0 N-m

carstenj

2008-03-06 14:37:53 UTC

Permalink

I really want to learn more about rTT and NGP. Could you please give
more specific references to the published research by Dr. Stephen
McGregor on this topic. Where have these articles? been published.

Thanks, Carsten

Post by r***@aol.com
Like I said... glad it's causing you to think about it.
Sounds like you are starting to learn something about how it can and can't be applied
to various workouts already. Outstanding.? I don't have the answers to all the questions and neither
does Joe Friel or Andy.? We are still learning and questioning.
There is definitely some scientific research about cardiac drift.? Not specifically on the metric
that we are looking at now, but that was the same when TSS was released.? Based on scientific
principles, but no true research done on the actual metric.? If we waited for that, then it's likely
no one would be using TSS right now. We'd still be waiting for the research!
Only new metric in 2.2 WKO+ that's already has solid?peer-reviewed, published research?behind it is Dr. Stephen McGregor's
metric? for Running TSS(rTSS) and Normalized Graded Pace(NGP).? I believe he presented two abstracts
on it at ACSM last year and I know he's working on more.? We could have released it over a year and half ago,
but didn't because Stephen really wanted to finish his research and hence Dr. Skiba came up with his alternative
in the meantime because we didn't fill a need.
Remember Ver 2.2 was a free upgrade mainly for the Multisport crowd.
Version 3.0 will be coming this year, will have much more than?QA, multi-file layering, GPS trackes, etc. We have a list
of other features that have been requested by you and others since Version 1.1 was released in 2003.
We are already working hard on it and I know it's going to take WKO+ to the next level!
Glad to see you have an open mind and eager to learn more!
Hunter Allen
Buy your Wattage based training plan ONLINE!www.trainingpeaks.com/hunter
The Peaks Coaching Group
"We care about your success!"www.peakscoachinggroup.com
TrainingPeaks WKO+
The Ultimate Analysis Softwarewww.trainingpeaks.com
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 2:33 pm
Subject: [Wattage] Re: A Neg (-%) PW:HR
...Lots of questions and answers still to be had.? The great thing
about this metric is that it's causing people to think and question
and see for themselves.? ...
Random associations of data with unspecified protocols does not a
metric make..
Really Hunter coding a new "metric" into WKO+ that shows up on each
and every interval ridden regardless of its intensity, duration or
trend or how it followed prior efforts in the same session. Seems like
implied precision and unfounded data validity to me.
I've been getting real low PW:HR values when I ride an SST effort
following a short hard "blow out" effort near FTP while warming up.
But I get higher PW:HR numbers when I ride a more conservative warmup
and go straight to Tempo work. Does it mean I'm "fitter" on days when
I do a blow out effort as part of warmup or less fit on days when I
skip that step and finish my warmup while riding Tempo? This "metric"
seems highly influenced by environment (temps as you mentioned) and
specific protocols.
Let's just say that following Friel's Aet protocol (duration not
really defined) that PW:HR really does indicate aerobic fitness.
Wouldn't it just imply fitness to a particular Aet? Should the athlete
then attempt to raise their FTP and hence their Aet and retest or are
they done with aerobic base building for the season (which is what
Friel implies in his article) and move on to high end work? IOW, what
does it mean to be "fit" at a given absolute power level?
BTW, PW:HR is pretty well described in Friel's article. How is Pa:HR
calculated from ride data? I couldn't find a link to that on your
site.
I sure love your product, but really think you missed the boat on this
one by including a metric that's only loosely based on first
principles really doesn't have any supporting research, is questioned
by some of the leading authorities in power training and you back
burnered proven tools like QA in the process.
-Dave
________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -http://webmail.aol.com- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
- Vis tekst i anførselstegn -

Glendon Tyree

2008-01-31 21:33:20 UTC

Permalink

I guess I was under the impression that the decoupling idea was aimed
more at around level 2 work and that there might not be much info
gained on workouts like SST and above.

Glen

Post by r***@aol.com
-Where I see value in 'decoupling' is in looking at tempo and Bill
Black's 'Hour of Power' workouts.
-I had one athlete that did a 1 hour of SST within a 2.5 hour ride
back in October. 10-11% decoupling within that hour of tempo.
I had him do the same exact ride each week, on the same loop, start
the hour of tempo at the exact same place and by December,
he was under 4%. Now, he was definitely more aerobically fitter
after that work, and we had not done any intense intervals(over FTP).
Did he reduce that much because of improvements in fitness and/or
because it got cold as heck in the UK in December?

r***@aol.com

2008-01-31 21:38:47 UTC

Permalink

Well, me too.? But I have seen some pretty interesting things with tempo and 'hour of power' workouts now.
Enough to say that I am seeing some interesting trends.? What exactly they mean and what I should do about it,
I am sure yet though.

Hunter Allen

Buy your Wattage based training plan ONLINE!
www.trainingpeaks.com/hunter

The Peaks Coaching Group
"We care about your success!"
www.peakscoachinggroup.com

TrainingPeaks WKO+
The Ultimate Analysis Software
www.trainingpeaks.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Glendon Tyree <***@gmail.com>
To: ***@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 4:33 pm
Subject: [Wattage] Re: A Neg (-%) PW:HR

I guess I was under the impression that the decoupling idea was aimed
more at around level 2 work and that there might not be much info
gained on workouts like SST and above.

Glen