Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
739 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After the weekly worlds, I download the data and hone in on a section of really hard riding. Typically it's when the group splits and we have a few off the front and we're doing constant rotations (sometimes in a cross wind), and we're riding super hard to the next "re-group" point, while I'm barely pulling through and on the brink of getting popped.

For those 10 brutal minutes or so, I'll look at the Normalized Power. I noticed that through the season my NP for those similar segments is getting higher.

Anyone else use this form of analyses? Comparing similar segments of rides? 10 minutes of NP would probably not be long enough to make any conclusion in regard to FTP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
After the weekly worlds, I download the data and hone in on a section of really hard riding. Typically it's when the group splits and we have a few off the front and we're doing constant rotations (sometimes in a cross wind), and we're riding super hard to the next "re-group" point, while I'm barely pulling through and on the brink of getting popped.

For those 10 brutal minutes or so, I'll look at the Normalized Power. I noticed that through the season my NP for those similar segments is getting higher.

Anyone else use this form of analyses? Comparing similar segments of rides? 10 minutes of NP would probably not be long enough to make any conclusion in regard to FTP.
Yes, looking at a repeatable section of hard riding is a great way of monitoring fitness and, by extension, FTP. NP is a pretty crummy way of analyzing a 10 minute segment. Try AP instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
I always thought NP was the preferred standard for group rides and races, since the power output is so stochastic. AP is much different from NP in this situation.

Or maybe 10min NP should only be compared to a CP10 effort.
Time scales below 20 minutes or so are not enough to accurately correlate a fluctuating effort with a steady effort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
And one should not be using NP as an input into Monod Critical Power model.
When I wrote "think Monod" I really meant the emphasis to be on the think part, not to use NP in the critical power model. The OP is considering hard efforts of 10 minutes or so, and in that context, it makes sense to me to view the performance in terms of a long term aerobic power supply supplemented by a limited volume of anaerobic work. By looking at NP, it seems he (she?) is attributing any change purely to the aerobic component ignoring the anaerobic part. By thinking in terms of the Monod model, it might help direct his thinking to which component is changing, why, and whether those really are the adaptations he wants.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top