Tinea Pedis wrote:- what power meter are you using
- what head unit
- are you taking NP off the head unit or after letting GC or TP crunch it?
I know the conversation has moved on but its Powertap + Garmin + Poweragent.
Moderator: Moderator Team
WMW wrote:I agree. I've tried to goad the physiology experts into coming up with a better normalizer, but there was no interest.
but NP is a lot cruder than it needs to be IMO.
WMW wrote:With a more sophisticated model, you'd be able to tweak some variables to customize it to yourself. It is going to be a moving target anyway because your CP numbers change... but NP is a lot cruder than it needs to be IMO.
jmorgan wrote:My guess is...
Rick wrote:But maybe, with a knowledge of your own current CP curve, Strava-like historical GPS and prior effort data, and a sophisticated enough algorythm for an "NP-like" parameter you could reach the point where, as you approach a hill the computer could warn you that even though you can usually carry 350 Watts all the way to the top, you better not go above 270 right now or you'll blow.
WMW wrote:jmorgan wrote:My guess is...
Really poor guess. My disappointment is that it models reality poorly. The same goes for TSS.
NP is used to translate a variable effort into a pseudo steady-state effort... which is then used to determine training stress. NP and TSS are fundamental for tracking your training with power.
I've found TSS to be a poor gauge of training stress for me. Mostly because it greatly understates the stress of true 100% efforts. There is a world of difference between a 95% and a 100% effort, that is missed by the TSS value.
The reason for using CP values *instead* of the standard NP formula is because it could more accurately represent the effect of variable efforts.