burnthesheep wrote:
For under/overs, if your under is at 95% and over at 105% at a 2:1 ratio.......I'm seeing a delta of about 30w between the low and hi part of the set. So for a single rep in the set of 3min, how is the AP equal the NP when I zoom in? As you've got 2min at 15w under threshold and 1min at 15w above, roughly. That can't be right. The avg and NP are identical.
Just an observation when looking at things from some over/under workouts I've done.
That's normal and to be expected for the repetition interval you are using. NP wasn't designed to handle intervals in the single digit range, the bigger the difference between the ON and OFF segments, the more skewed results will be. As velorunner notes, NP uses a 30 second window, rolling window. Very short (very hard) intervals will accumulate the 30s prior to the start of the interval (at low power), and skew the NP value downwards.
However, its not a gimmick as stated by velorunner. Its simply a limitation of the mathematical model of human physiology.
Historically WKO, wouldn't even display NP for efforts shorter than 10 minutes, and its still not likely to be accurate for windows less than 20 minutes. Kinda falls under the heading of RTFM. Its not a faulty metric, its a faulty application of a metric to a circumstance it was never intended for.
NP was intended to estimate the physiological cost of an entire session, given variability in power, and non-linear costs as power approaches and exceeds threshold. So, it should give you a good estimate for the cost of the entire O/U session (as the peaks and valleys will eventually even out the errors)...but, it won't tell you anything useful about a single O/U cycle.
Last edited by:
Tom_hampton: Jan 12, 24 16:20