WKO Question
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 Posts
WKO Question
I am a casual user of WKO5 and have a question about something that I have noticed. I am asking here simply so I can avoid that horrible Facebook interface which is where WKO support questions are typically directed. Imagine every conceivable support question that you could ask about WKO being in a single thread where that thread is also likely to include stuff unrelated to WKO support questions.
When I look at a specific workout in the 'Workout View', the mftp # in the upper RH corner of the main screen shows a value of 264. When I just switch to the 'training view' which looks across a range of time for aggregate training data, my mftp shows as 231. And this is with the selected timeframe of 'Last 365 days'. Surprisingly this does not change with the selected range of time. I can go back to 2016 - same thing. Or last week - same result. The ftp function (one of them, anyway) does have a 'lookback time' as a parameter and the other ftp function just uses whatever timeframe is in the input data (I think that is how it works).
I am assuming that these differences are related to differing timeframes. WHen you use WKO supplied charts you can look at the formulas behind them. But not for these #'s. Does anyone out there know what is going on here? Thanks.
dave
When I look at a specific workout in the 'Workout View', the mftp # in the upper RH corner of the main screen shows a value of 264. When I just switch to the 'training view' which looks across a range of time for aggregate training data, my mftp shows as 231. And this is with the selected timeframe of 'Last 365 days'. Surprisingly this does not change with the selected range of time. I can go back to 2016 - same thing. Or last week - same result. The ftp function (one of them, anyway) does have a 'lookback time' as a parameter and the other ftp function just uses whatever timeframe is in the input data (I think that is how it works).
I am assuming that these differences are related to differing timeframes. WHen you use WKO supplied charts you can look at the formulas behind them. But not for these #'s. Does anyone out there know what is going on here? Thanks.
dave
Last edited by DaveLeeNC; 01-18-20 at 10:41 AM.
#2
Newbie racer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406
Bikes: Propel, red is faster
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,568 Times
in
973 Posts
I don't use it, but: this lists a few things to look for
https://help.trainingpeaks.com/hc/en...TP-Stamina-TTE
Honestly I despise "model based" predictors of performance benchmarks. Coggan - "the best indicator of performance is performance itself". I take that to mean you have to actually have a real effort for a real value for a real duration to say "I could do that". Coggan often even takes it so far as to say it's only as good as what you've done outdoors and during a simulated "race effort" in the real conditions you're interested in.
So I place ZERO weight in a "predicted" or "calculated" power number. Curious? Go find out. If you need it for a training block that depends on that number heavily (a block of time trial workouts including lots of 2x20's and under overs) then do a 20min test and start with 92% of that and adjust workouts as you go.
The whole point of WK was to target the right zones for the right events. Instead, it seems to sometimes confuse with "estimated" abilities and such that cloud the intent.
I'm about to have a TT race, I do care about my 20ish min power on the TT bike. So, I've done lots of 2x20's and a few Zwift races to get at a 20min number. But, that number is bollocks outdoors if you can't repeat it. So, I also know what I can actually do for 20min in the skinsuit with the crazy helmet on a windy/challenging day. And it's less. But I know.
https://help.trainingpeaks.com/hc/en...TP-Stamina-TTE
Honestly I despise "model based" predictors of performance benchmarks. Coggan - "the best indicator of performance is performance itself". I take that to mean you have to actually have a real effort for a real value for a real duration to say "I could do that". Coggan often even takes it so far as to say it's only as good as what you've done outdoors and during a simulated "race effort" in the real conditions you're interested in.
So I place ZERO weight in a "predicted" or "calculated" power number. Curious? Go find out. If you need it for a training block that depends on that number heavily (a block of time trial workouts including lots of 2x20's and under overs) then do a 20min test and start with 92% of that and adjust workouts as you go.
The whole point of WK was to target the right zones for the right events. Instead, it seems to sometimes confuse with "estimated" abilities and such that cloud the intent.
I'm about to have a TT race, I do care about my 20ish min power on the TT bike. So, I've done lots of 2x20's and a few Zwift races to get at a 20min number. But, that number is bollocks outdoors if you can't repeat it. So, I also know what I can actually do for 20min in the skinsuit with the crazy helmet on a windy/challenging day. And it's less. But I know.
Likes For burnthesheep: