I take it that you are relatively new to power?

From almost 15 y ago:

http://lists.topica.com/...28483&start=9353

"TSS and IF - at last! Andy Coggan
Mar 13, 2003 14:49 PST

“A watt is not always a watt” – Dave Harris

“Not all kilojoules are created equal” – Andy Coggan

Statement of the problem:

At least in theory, one of the advantages of training and racing with a
power meter is that doing so enables you to more precisely control the
overall training load. By continuously recording power output, the exact
demands of each workout can be more accurately quantified, and the
intensity or duration (or both) of subsequent training sessions can be
modified as necessary to avoid either under- or overtraining. Successful
application of this approach, however, requires that the athlete or
coach be able to quickly make sense out of the huge amounts of data that
are amassed when power output (along with other variables, e.g., heart
rate) is recorded every second or so during multi-hour training rides.
This task is made more difficult by the fact that power is highly
variable when cycling outdoors, such that the overall average power may
give little insight into the actual stress imposed by a given workout.
This is especially true for races, since the fluctuations in power
normally resulting from hills, wind, etc., are further exaggerated by
tactical considerations, e.g., by the need to maintain one’s position in
a large field, or by the need to initiate or respond to attacks. The
issue is therefore how to best summarize or condense power meter data
while still adequately capturing or reflecting the actual demands of
each race or training session.
One solution to the above problem is to calculate the frequency
distribution of power output, i.e., the percentage of total ride time
when power falls within a certain range (e.g., between 200 and 250 W) or
level/zone (e.g., within level 4). Such frequency distribution analyses
can be useful, but have two major limitations:
1) a relatively large number of numeric values is still needed to
represent a single training session. Such data are therefore best
presented graphically (e.g., as a bar chart), and are themselves not
readily amenable to further analysis. Furthermore, while large
differences in power distribution are readily detectable using this
approach, more subtle differences are harder to detect.
2) more importantly, such analyses do not (and in fact readily cannot)
take into account how long each “foray” into a given power range or
level actually lasts. This has significant implications with respect to
physiological responses, as will be discussed below.
Another means of expressing power meter data that is utilized by some
is to simply record the total work (in kJ) performed during a race or
training session. Expressing the data in this manner can be helpful in
understanding the overall energy demands of training and e.g., how this
compares to energy intake (useful, for example, when an athlete is
trying to alter their body composition). However, like keeping track of
miles or hours of training, total work only provides a measure of
overall training volume, and says nothing about the actual intensity of
that training.
The limitations of currently available methods for analyzing power
meter data files led me to try to develop an alternative approach, which
is the topic of this post.

Proposed solution: TSS and IF:

Dr. Eric Bannister has previously described a way of quantifying
training load in terms of a HR-based “training impulse”, or TRIMPS,
score:

TRIMPS = exercise duration x average HR x an intensity-dependent
weighting factor

Since HR is essentially linearly related to oxygen uptake (metabolic
rate), the product of the first two factors in the above equation is
proportional to the amount of energy expended, or (since efficiency is
relatively constant), work performed. The third term then takes into
account the intensity of the exercise, since many physiological
responses (e.g., glycogen utilization, lactate accumulation) increase
non-linearly with increasing intensity.
Reasoning by analogy, it seemed logical that data from a power meter
could be used to derive what I have called a “training stress score”, or
TSS:

TSS = exercise duration x average power x an intensity-dependent
weighting factor

Similar to TRIMPS, the product of the first two factors in the above
equation is equal to the total work performed, whereas the “intensity
factor” (IF) serves to account for the fact that the physiological
stress imposed by performing a given amount of work (e.g., 1000 kJ)
depends in part on the rate at which that work is performed (i.e., on
the power output itself).
Clearly, for such an approach to have merit, the IF must have some
basis in reality, i.e., the relative weight given to higher vs. lower
intensity exercise cannot be determined at random, but must be based on
the actual physiological “costs”. Furthermore, since the physiological
responses to exercise at a given power output depend in part on the
duration for which that power is maintained, this fact must be
recognized as well. The algorithm used to determine the IF is therefore
the key to the whole approach, and so this is where developmental effort
was focused.
To derive an appropriate algorithm, I relied on blood lactate data
collected from a large number of trained cyclists exercising at
intensities both below and above their LT. This choice was made because
many physiological responses (e.g., muscle glycogen and blood glucose
utilization, catecholamine levels, ventilation) tend to parallel changes
in blood lactate during exercise – in this context, then, blood lactate
levels can be viewed as an overall index of physiological stress. To
reduce variability between individuals, the data were normalized by
expressing both the power output and the corresponding blood lactate
level as a percentage of that measured at LT. The normalized data were
then used to derive a best-fit curve. Perhaps not surprisingly, an
exponential function provided the best fit, but a power function of the
following form proved to be nearly as good:

blood lactate (% of lactate at LT) = power (% of power at LT)^3.90;
R^2=0.806, n=76

Based on these data, a 4th-order function was used in the algorithm for
determining the IF (the exponent was rounded from 3.90 to 4.00 for
simplicity’s sake).
The other physiological knowledge that seemed necessary to incorporate
into the algorithm for calculating IF was the fact that physiological
responses to changes in exercise intensity are not instantaneous, but
followed a characteristic time course. Because of this, exercise in
which the intensity alternates every 15 seconds between a high and a low
level (e.g., 400 and 0 W) results in physiological, metabolic, and
perceptual responses nearly identical to steady-state exercise performed
at the average intensity (e.g., 200 W). The specific reasons for this
are beyond the scope of this discussion, but the important facts are 1)
the half-lives (50% response time) of many physiological responses are
directly or indirectly related to metabolic events in exercising muscle,
and 2) such half-lives are typically on the order of 30 seconds. Thus,
the decision was made to smooth power data using a 30 second rolling
average before applying the 4th order weighting as described above.
Finally, the decision was made to 1) express the IF as a ratio of the
“corrected” power obtained by smoothing/weighting to the individual’s
power at LT, and 2) normalize the TSS to the amount of work that could
be performed during one hour of cycling at threshold power (=100 TSS
“points”). While these last two steps are not necessary for comparisons
within a given individual, they should make it easier for coaches or
anyone dealing with multiple athletes to more quickly grasp the
significance of a given value.
The steps required to calculate IF and TSS then become:

1) starting at 30 seconds, calculate a 30 second rolling average for
power (data point by data point)
2) raise the values obtained in step 1 to the 4th power
3) take the average of all the values obtained in step 2
4) take the 4th root of the number obtained in step 3
5) divide the “corrected” power obtained in step 4 by the individual’s
power at LT – this decimal value is the IF
6) multiply the average power (uncorrected) for the workout by the
duration (in seconds) to obtain the total work performed (in J)
7) multiply the total work by the IF (step) to derive the “raw” TSS
8) divide the “raw” TSS by the amount of work performed in one hour at
LT (LT power x 3600 seconds) and multiply by 100 to obtain the final TSS


(These calculations are obviously too cumbersome to routinely perform on
every power meter file, or part thereof, even when e.g., using a macro
in Excel – hopefully, in the near future software will be available to
automate the process.)

Applications:

The most obvious application of this method is to quantify the overall
training load, in terms of the number of TSS points accumulated during a
given period of time. (Indeed, this was the original purpose of
developing it.) For example, by keeping track of the total TSS per week
or per month, it may be possible to identify an individual’s “breaking
point”, i.e, the maximum quantity and quality of training that still
leads to improvements, rather than overtraining. As well, a very high
TSS resulting from a single race or training session may be an indicator
that additional recovery on subsequent days is required. Until
additional experience is gained with the method, it is difficult to say
exactly what a “high TSS score” exactly is – however, the table below
gives some rough guidelines:

<100 low (easy to recover by following day)
100-200 medium (some residual fatigue may be present the next day, but
gone by 2nd day)
200-300 high (some residual fatigue may be present even after 2 days)
300 epic (residual fatigue lasting several days likely)

Note that while the TSS score is normalized to an individual’s LT, such
that comparison across individuals is possible, there could still be
differences between athletes in how they respond to a given “dose” of
training. Such difference may be due to natural ability, or may be the
result of specific training (i.e, the more you do the more you can do).
This isn’t really a problem, however, since comparison within a given
individual is the primary interest.
While the goal at the outset was to develop a method of quantifying the
overall training load (duration x intensity) via TSS, the IF score may
actually prove to be even more useful. For example, it can be used to
compare the intensity of even markedly dissimilar training sessions or
races, either within (most valid/relevant) or across (to assess tactical
or drafting skill, or just for plain old “bragging rights” <g>)
individuals (see below):

Typical IF values for different events or training sessions:

<0.75 level 1 recovery rides
0.75-0.85 level 2 endurance training sessions
0.85-0.95 level 3 tempo rides, aerobic and anaerobic interval workouts
(work and rest periods combined), longer (>2.5 h) road races
0.95-1.05 level 4 intervals, shorter (<2.5 h) road races, criteriums,
circuit races, 40k TT (by definition)
1.05-1.15 shorter (e.g., 15 km) TTs, track points race
1.15 prologue TT, track pursuit, track miss-and-out

Perhaps even more importantly, *for the first time ever* the algorithm
used to derive IF makes it possible to estimate steady-state power at LT
from highly variable power data! That is, if sustainable power (either
constant or non-constant) is essentially “capped” by power at LT, and if
the 30 second smoothing/4th order weighting algorithm appropriately
corrects the variable power data, then the power estimated at step 4 in
the calculation of TSS/IF (see above) provides an estimate of the
equivalent steady power that could be produced for the same
physiological stress.* Stated another way, the correction algorithm
simply provides a means of expressing highly variable power data in
physiologically-relevant “language”. Consequently, if an individual
pushes themselves just as hard in a ~1 hour mass start race (or time
trial in very hilly terrain) as they might in a flat time trial, then
corrected power provides an estimate (generally to w/in 5-10 W) of their
power at LT. This observation reduces, or perhaps even completely
eliminates, the need to perform a time trial to determine power at LT.
Instead, the results of mass start races can be used for this purpose,
for example for beginning power meter users who have never done a time
trial using such a tool. Even for riders whose power at LT is well
established, the IF score can be used to detect significant changes in
fitness – for example, if a rider’s IF score for a ~1 h race is greater
than 1.05, then their LT power should be reassessed (ideally using the
same means used to establish it originally) to determine whether it has
truly changed.

*Astute readers will have already picked up on the fact that the IF
values given in the table above are the fraction or percentage of power
at LT that was equivalently maintained. Indeed, it was suggested to me
that the IF should be multiplied by 100 to express it as a percentage,
since decimal values less than 1 can be more difficult to immediately
grasp. I resisted this quite valid suggestion, however, because I was
afraid that scaling IF this way might result in people confusing IF
values with TSS scores. As well, expressing IF as a percentage rather
than a decimal could result in individuals confusing these values with
the percentages limits of the training levels I laid out previously. A
really astute reader will realize that they are in fact essentially
measures of the same thing, i.e., power output relative to the
individual’s power at LT – the absolute values differ, however, because
deriving the IF score corrects for the effects of variations in power on
physiological responses, whereas the training levels have simply been
offset to lower power levels to account for this fact (e.g., level 1,
recovery, is defined as an average power of <55% of power at LT, but the
IF value of <0.75 corresponds to <75% of power at LT).

Finally, yet another application of the IF algorithm/score is as a
teaching tool, as it helps demonstrate why, even when power is highly
variable, it is still an individual’s “metabolic fitness” (i.e., power
at LT) that is important in determining performance. That is, by
illustrating (via a 4th order relationship – greater even than the 3rd
order relationship between power and wind resistance!) how
physiologically “costly” every sustained burst above LT proves to be,
the IF algorithm may 1) help less experienced riders understand why it
is important to learn how to modulate their effort during mass start
races, so that they don’t fatigue themselves unnecessarily, and 2) help
even experienced riders understand how appropriate training aimed at
raising LT can improve performance even in events seemingly much
different than a time trial (a point Amit has already picked up on).

Limitations and concluding remarks:

As mentioned previously, the key to everything I’ve written about above
is the weighting algorithm, and thus the validity/robustness of the TSS
and IF scores/values depend entirely on it. I believe that it is based
on sound physiological reasoning, and in my experience so far it seems
to work quite well (better than I could have hoped, actually). I have
not, however, had the chance to evaluate thousands, much less hundreds,
of data files, so the possibility of the occasional “outlier” still
exists. A greater limitation to the entire concept, though, is that the
basic premise – i.e., that you can adequately describe the training load
and the stress it imposes on an individual based on just one number
(TSS), completely ignoring how that “score” is achieved and other
factors (e.g., diet, rest) – is, on its face, ridiculous. In particular,
it must be recognized that just because, e.g., two different training
programs produce the same weekly TSS total, doesn’t mean that an
individual will respond in exactly the same way. Nonetheless, I believe
that TSS (and IF) should prove useful to coaches and athletes for
evaluating/managing training."

Of course, NP and TSS were primarily designed to reflect metabolic demands...Quadrant analysis (released later the same year) provides insight into varying neuromuscular demands of generating the same power:

http://lists.topica.com/...5014&start=16280

 
This isn't really a watt question, it's a cadence question. If you search on that, you'll find lots of threads and research on ideal cadences. The nutshell summary: it depends on terrain, pace, and individual physiology.

I think the consensus these days is you're OK letting your body self-select cadence. Trying to train to a higher or lower cadence is pointless.

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

James Watt - perfected the Steam Engine





James Watt - co-founder of BrewDog

Nope, not all Watts are equal

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

For long time-trial-like efforts, sure. And that's probably what most here can be assumed to be asking about.

But if the cycling context involves rapid acceleration then comfort and efficiency over a wider range of cadences may be helpful. In mass start track racing you could even call it pretty much a necessity.

All Watts are torque × angular velocity.....

So your answer is, "No?"

A watt is is a watt.
It is simply a measure of power and in that regard is very precisely defined. It never changes.

But how your body responds differently to generating 1 x 1000w vs 10 x 100w is what Coggan is talking about.
It is a very good explanation and also outlines the benefits and weaknesses of using TSS scores and the like.

Others are talking about how your body efficiency to produce those watts may change with load and cadence.

Unfortunately, as with crank length, there have been no GOOD studies to really pin down this last aspect.
They are all quite limited and therefore flawed and sign off with "more research needed".

The time and resources required to really sort this out are as yet simply not out there.
The best we can do is have a look at hour records and such and see what has worked and work backwards from there.
What doesn't work will always point you closer to what does work.

Thank you. It took me a bit of time to fully digest this. Appreciate the detail.

Watts are created unequally, expended equally.

Watts are not spent equally. 1 watt going uphill will give you a faster finish time then 1 watt going downhill. More of the downhill watt goes to fighting air resistance instead of propelling you forward