# time spent in power zones during training rides



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

As I've been learning my way around WKO+ software, I've been struck by how much time is spent in the "Active Recovery" (AR) zone (defined as 0-55% of FTP).

Below are some examples from recent training rides, these were more "base miles" oriented, not intervals. Generally done with groups of 3-12 riders. 

TSS 250, IF 0.81, 47% in AR
TSS 272, IF 0.79, 47% in AR
TSS 164, IF 0.79, 45% in AR
TSS 238, IF 0.75, 45% in AR 
TSS 129, IF 0.74, 41% in AR

Is this pattern "typical" ?? 

Seems that much AR in a ride would imply "junk miles" or wasted time. However, I do live in dense suburban area (southwest corner of LA county), and it often takes 20-40 minutes just to get to the "open road".


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

Are you including all of the time when your wattage is below 100 or so? Even in a paceline you should be in Z2 or so unless you're much much stronger than everyone else.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Yes ... the default setup in WKO+ defines "AR" as everything under 55% FTP ... for me that's 0 to 128 watts.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

2 things: 

don't include the zero's

Group rides in a paceline include a lot of soft pedaling so you don't run into the guy ahead of you.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

I'll have to double check some of my rides from last year and see. Maybe you're soft pedaling more in the group than you think you are.


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

I have been using a PT for about 4 months now. When I do group rides with drafting, my zone 1 numbers are higher (not quite as high as yours). But my TSS / IF / NP is in range. So it somewhat works out to be the same.

When looking at a power profile, my solo rides or 2-3 side by side (little drafting more / for company on the long ones) have very consistent power outputs. The group rides are above z2 or in and below z2 with lots of variation.

In a sense, you are doing unstructured intervals on your group rides. In theory, the adaptations should be similar if the time in z3 and z2 make up for the time in z1 in total tss for the ride. But I am sure some others have more info on that.

I train a lot solo or side by side method with a person of similar fitness.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Remember WKO+ doesn't have a minimum duration for time in zone so rapidly alternating between pedaling and coasting or soft pedaling can build up a lot of time in AR (you can also build up a lot of time at higher levels by throwing in brief high power spurts). For rides like that a better measure is normalized power over longer durations or IF. Looking at your data, IF is solidly in the tempo range. If these riders were more or less steady efforts, that would be appropriate for base building to develop aerobic fitness.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

kbiker3111 said:


> 2 things:
> 
> don't include the zero's
> 
> Group rides in a paceline include a lot of soft pedaling so you don't run into the guy ahead of you.


There is 0 reason to exclude 0's, unless you count "bragging rights." Ignoring zeros is not correct.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

kbiker3111 said:


> 2 things:
> 
> don't include the zero's
> 
> Group rides in a paceline include a lot of soft pedaling so you don't run into the guy ahead of you.


Actually, I am including zero powers ... per Hunter/Coggan and others, that's preferred.

Yes, probably more soft-pedaling than I realize! 
I was glancing at Ben Swift's (Team Sky) power files for TdU stage 6, IIRC 20-25% of the time he was putting out under 20 watts! 



ZoSoSwiM said:


> I'll have to double check some of my rides from last year and see. Maybe you're soft pedaling more in the group than you think you are.


Yes, probably true.

I also analyzed that I'm doing a fair amount of climbing (2000+ ft) on most rides. 
I prefer to pedal downhill, especially on training rides. 
But, sometimes, or even often : 
1) downhill curves are too steep & tight for much pedaling, it's _brake/ a few hard pedals/ coast/ repeat_ . 
2) straighter downhills, I tend to tuck 'n coast at speeds above 38-40 mph, it's often faster.

Both # 1 and #2 may be adding to time spent in the Active Recovery zone, especially #1, because average speeds are lower and more time is spent there. Those who have descended Tuna Canyon Rd or Las Flores Canyon Rd in the Sta Monica Mtns will know what I'm talking about!

Now that I'm semi-aware of the "problem", I should be able to make adjustments to ensure I'm getting more time in the Tempo (L3) and lower Lactate Threshold (L4) zones. 
For those less familiar with the Hunter/Coggan definitions, read:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-training-levels,-by-andrew-coggan.aspx

I'm finding this is one of the several benefits of training w/ power, since Heart Rate is so non-linear with respect to actual power output ...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

that pattern is pretty typical for riding in mountainous areas - I ride in the same area and even on solo rides I average in the 40% range for AR - long descents contribute to this. Your intensity factor is pretty high (which if I'm remembering correctly is based on normalized power, which corrects for 0 valued data points), so it shows your rides are not easy ones. For rides with a TSS of over 200, you would be exhausted if you rode those in higher training zones for hours on end...

If you want to add some intensity, just sit on the front of group rides longer and make sure not to sit in too long...


----------



## IKnowYouRider (Jul 1, 2003)

I think you've discovered the problem with doing group rides. IME unless you have a well matched group with similar training goals you're gonna spend more time soft pedaling than you should...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

IKnowYouRider said:


> I think you've discovered the problem with doing group rides. IME unless you have a well matched group with similar training goals you're gonna spend more time soft pedaling than you should...


But with an IF in the 0.75-0.80 range, how can we say there was more time soft pedaling than there should have been?


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

asgelle said:


> But with an IF in the 0.75-0.80 range, how can we say there was more time soft pedaling than there should have been?


I go completely the other way on this subject. My view, for purposes of my training (and based on four years of power data and a decent sense of how I feel and how I respond to training), is that this is an example of why you shouldn't ascribe too much certainty to the training stress comparability of two different types of rides simply because applying an arbitrary mathematical operation to the power data from each produces a similar result.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Undecided said:


> I go completely the other way on this subject. My view, for purposes of my training (and based on four years of power data and a decent sense of how I feel and how I respond to training), is that this is an example of why you shouldn't ascribe too much certainty to the training stress comparability of two different types of rides simply because applying an arbitrary mathematical operation to the power data from each produces a similar result.


I don't recall referring to the training stress. The issue is the meaning of time in zone. Since WKO+ doesn't differentiate between 1 minute of continuous coasting and 60, 1 second intervals, it's impossible to know just from time in zone what was going on. Because it includes a 30 second rolling average, IF does give some insight to distinguish between the two examples above. Short periods of coasting or soft pedaling (less than 10 seconds or so) will have a minimal impact on IF compared to periods of several minutes as for a long, fast descent. Looking at the OP's ride data, 45% time in AR might imply a very easy ride, but looking at IF seems to tell a different story. IF values are in the high 70 percent range which is solidly in the tempo or aerobic range. So I believe one of two things were going on - 1) it was a hilly ride in which he was alternating hard efforts above threshold with periods of coasting and recovery or 2) it was a more or less continuous effort below threshold with short periods of coasting mixed in with short pedaling efforts. There's no way to tell from the data which of these two actually occurred, but the OP would certainly know. 

Neither type of ride is inherently good or bad. It depends on what the goal was.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

asgelle said:


> .... Looking at the OP's ride data, 45% time in AR might imply a very easy ride, but looking at IF seems to tell a different story. IF values are in the high 70 percent range which is solidly in the tempo or aerobic range.
> So I believe one of two things were going on -
> *1)* it was a hilly ride in which he was alternating hard efforts above threshold with periods of coasting and recovery or
> *2)* it was a more or less continuous effort below threshold with short periods of coasting mixed in with short pedaling efforts.
> ...


Good interpretation!
Both types of rides were represented, and you've reasonably accurately summarized them, I think. 

Offhand, I don't recall which were which, right now.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> There is 0 reason to exclude 0's, unless you count "bragging rights." Ignoring zeros is not correct.


I wasn't advocating ignoring the zeros, only pointing out that if he wants to find out how much time he was pedaling in each zone, he can't lump in the time he wasn't pedaling. Pacelines are tricky that way, since they include so much more freewheeling time than solo rides.

And yes, no-zero averaging is a good way to feel good about yourself.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

asgelle said:


> I don't recall referring to the training stress. . . . IF values are in the high 70 percent range which is solidly in the tempo or aerobic range. . . .
> 
> Neither type of ride is inherently good or bad. It depends on what the goal was.


Yes, sorry, you didn't mentioned training stress, but you mentioned IF, and training stress (in the WKO + meaning) is just the result of IF and time. You see the high IF and suggest that it means there wasn't more soft pedaling than the should have been. My point is that I've decided that (for me) training stress/IF aren't all they're cracked up to be in terms of making different rides comparable (e.g., that kJ or true average power influence how I see two different rides of similar IF (and similar time)).


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Undecided said:


> My point is that I've decided that (for me) training stress/IF aren't all they're cracked up to be in terms of making different rides comparable (e.g., that kJ or true average power influence how I see two different rides of similar IF (and similar time)).


I can't argue with what works for you, but you should recall that TSS/IF were derived specifically to remedy perceived shortcomings in average power and time (from which kJ is the product).

I was going to write remember, but you said you've been training with power for only four years so that was before your time. http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/search/label/history (Sorry, that was just a little dig from someone who's been training with power for 10 years and was following the discussions behind these metrics as they were developed.)


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

asgelle said:


> I can't argue with what works for you, but you should recall that TSS/IF were derived specifically to remedy perceived shortcomings in average power and time (from which kJ is the product).
> 
> I was going to write remember, but you said you've been training with power for only four years so that was before your time. http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/search/label/history (Sorry, that was just a little dig from someone who's been training with power for 10 years and was following the discussions behind these metrics as they were developed.)


Hah! I do know what they were developed for, and I've read a lot of related discussion---if you followed it live, I'm sure you'd grant that I'm not the only person who has doubts about the value of TSS (and NP/IF) (although mine are limited to what it means for me; others have extended their doubts more broadly).


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Undecided said:


> I go completely the other way on this subject. My view, for purposes of my training (and based on four years of power data and a decent sense of how I feel and how I respond to training), is that this is an example of why you shouldn't ascribe too much certainty to the training stress comparability of two different types of rides simply because applying an arbitrary mathematical operation to the power data from each produces a similar result.


It sounds to me like you have slightly misinterpreted their function and how they should be used.

I don't think anyone suggests that a track workout with sprints and lots of noodling about is the same _type _of stress as an endurance ride, even though they may have an equivalent stress score.

Nevertheless, NP is an excellent predictor of what's feasible for any given workout. That's why "NP busters" are such a rare thing.


----------

