A long easy ride on flat terrain should have AP and NP very close. My basic rule is that the shorter the race the less I'm concerned about my VI. For 70.3 or 140.6 you want them pretty close so that you can have a good run (as long as both aren't too high!).

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

It's a bit simplistic but think of it as average power moving you down the road while normalized power is tiring you out. Do you want to be really tired out for how effectively you are moved down the road?

YMMV,

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

I wouldn't say you are throwing any power away. I would say that you are inefficiently burning some matches that you might like to have for the run.

If you've selected a target power value for a given ride correctly, you probably should be able to produce that wattage for the entire ride, right? Why let off on the downhills?

If you've selected a target power value for a given ride correctly, why burn those matches that you don't need to burn by hammering up a hill at 100% FTP?

A friend of mine that is not familiar with power meters, but is a long time cyclist asked me about how I use a PM. He figured that it was used to make sure I keep my power numbers up high enough. I told him that a lot of the time on a hilly course like IMWI, the PM's primary use, for me, is to keep me from putting in too much power (in the hills). I ended up with a VI of 1.03 at IMWI and was ready to run afterwards.

Take this all with a grain of salt as I'm just some guy at a computer.

I personally found that VI was fairly useless to worry about in an Olympic tri....think about the ITU guys for a second and my personal experience largely agrees with that. Next over to Half IM. It matters, but not totally. In race mode I am a 137 lbs 4.2W per kilo guy, so from a competitiive standpoint, I gain more spiking my watts on the climb and then top tube riding the downhills at zero watts and keeping up with much larger riders. Tactically this is a good use of my overall joules. On the half IM run though, I will go on a very steady power curve (if I could measure power....I just keep perceived exertion steady....spiking effort on the run is useless since there is no coasting recovery like biking). Over to IM, I keep it steady. My average power is around 180-185W and I will only take it up to low 20x's on climbs unless they are really short with a downhill on the other side. Then it is tactically better to carry more momentum, spike it a bit, keep the speed up get to the downhill and coast at zero watts. The key is if the next downhill is a zero watt coast. I see guys trying to keep iso power losing a ton of time on the uphills and then they are pedaling like madmen on the downhills where you can do nothing and coast and rest. As long as overall kilojoules are lower at the end of the race by doing this it will work. If you reach T2 with lower kilojoules, yes your average power will be lower with a slightly higher NP, but the key is to get to T2 using the less kilojoules so you are topped up for the run. That's the key metric....how do I get to T2 as fast as possible consuming the least joules. Don't worry too much about NP, worry about finishing the ride using an ultra low amount of joules and go just as fast. In that mode your NP may be "higher", but you SHOULD have more glycogen in the tank for the run if you could largely stay in fat burning mode. Just use your high octane glycogen sparingly. NP is a bit of a fake metric, in that is tries to equate the dispensation of effort to a physiological equivalent. AP which is total kilojoules/total time relates to real physics and how much energy you actually burnt through....that's the one you want to see being ultra low.

My rule of thumb

Olympic, cap spikes at 115% FTP
Half IM, cap spikes at 100% FTP
IM, cap spikes at 90% FTP

The above are short duration. I'm talking 20 second or so to tactically take advantage of terrain to get to T2 a bit faster. If not stick to the guidelines.

Yes. Wasted watts.

You will certainly go faster when AP is closer to NP goal. Becoming efficient is certainly important. You do not want to burn matches either and waste energy with high outputs for longer periods of time. Getting momentum up/over hills at 120% FTP for a minute or two doesn't use up too much energy and you should not be spiking to 100%. Over time, you have to begin to know what's in your own matchbox.

And another thing to think about when discussing this: coasting will affect both numbers and often increase the VI (at least by my experiments). And if coasting in aggressive aero position is faster than high cadence spinning, then I'd favor coasting. Many simply don't 'spin out' though..

It would probably help you to try to do a 10 or 15 mile ride that is flat and stay aero and be efficient with good shifting and an optimal cadence. Then look to see how low you can hold your VI at and then try to do longer rides with some hills at that same efficiency. And practice this along with other types of training.

Like Billy Beane said, 'it's a process, it's a process, it's a process..'.

(One of my Garmin screens is: averageAP and NP(for the entire ride), along with HR and cadence and I just look at that when I'm practicing pacing for a certain distance like HIM with my goal AP/NP at 0.83 of my FTP for example)

Why even spike power on hills/climbs? Only reason I can think is when climbing you aren't fighting much air resistance so all power is forward vs pushing power into exponentially more drag going down.

Put simply, average power is the power that actually affects your speed, so why use more energy to achieve the same average power. An average power of 200 in two different rides on the same course with same conditions, say with a normalized power of 250 and a normalized power of 210, is going to yield roughly the same results both times, yet one is going to tire you out more than the other.

From TR:
(with a tip of the cap to AC and HA)

A match-
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/what-is-a-match/

NP-
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/...is-normalized-power/



Variable power is necessary but at a cost...

This guy is so spot on. Like him, I am not an expert but I have read and trained this a lot.

At IM Muskoka a couple years ago (very hilly) a bunch of guys would fly by me on the uphills and then I would fly by them on the downhills. I had picked a cap to the power I was willing to put out on the uphills..... which I was concerned was too high. I would hit that number and these guys would just fly by me (and judging by my numbers, they had to be putting out huge power surges) but then they would ease off and 'coast' the downhills while I continued to push my goal power. I ended up hitting T2 in front of all of them and on the two lap run course I had the opportunity to see all of them walking the run while I ran my goal pace for 26.2 miles.

IM racing is not kind to the stupid or egotistical. You have to have a plan and race it. Getting caught up (at the amateur level) in racing others is a recipe for disaster. Race your plan (and make sure it is a good plan)!

---

----------------------------
Jason
None of the secrets of success will work unless you do.

Learning to put out power smoothly is very important if your races are flat ones.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

I'd go one step further and say it might even be more important on hilly long courses. Too many little opportunities to burn up those precious matches.

This is only occasionally be true, simply by coincidence, and is definitely not a universal truth. With many courses and conditions, it can be advantageous to deviate from average power.

The case study would be a loop with a long, steep climb into a headwind followed by a long decent with a tailwind. It’s obvious that pushing harder into the wind and up a hill is advantageous to overall speed.

I didn't watch the CrossVegas races, but some of that may also be situational/tactical. In CX racing it's tactically advantageous to quickly get ahead of everyone slower than you and then switch into TT mode with a select group of racers. Or solo. That's why pro CX starts are apeshit crazy fast. While in amateur/masters CX racing often you're just fighting through traffic a lot more if there's a wide disparity in talent. If you want to make a pass you simply have to gun the power.

The longer the race the more important this is.

I'd say that it's exponentially more important as you go from a oly to a half and a half to a IM.

Another way to look at this is the smarter you race the smaller the AP/NP difference will typically be.

Other food for thought:

It's better to use your watts where it matters the most
better to under shoot your target watts in the first 40k than over shoot them, especially as the race distance grows (ie half to IM)

if you search the archives there are some really awesome threads about answering your pacing question at the bottom of your OP that go well beyond what anyone has written so far

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

A few examples for some understanding of the "it depends"

IMAZ (mulitple times,1200 ft climbing): ~1.03 or less with good runs
IMLP: 1:07 (6000 ft climbing) good run
IMWhistler: 1:10 (5000 ft climbing) Bad run

The later was mostly due to the final climb coming into town after a flat halfway up the hill and I tried to get back what I lost and paid dearly. For most HIM (some form of hills) I am usually at over 1.1 and have run well with 1.15 in the Vegas HIM (it is/was a punchy course with a lot of passing on hills).

Keep in mind that this is a relative number and assumes that your AP target was correct for the level of your fitness and conditions. Ex: The Whistler 1.1 may have been ok if my AP was at a lower IF or it could have compounded a problem if I was overreaching already with my AP target. So get your target AP right. This all relates to Dev's point for overall work or stress (other metrics).

For me most of these numbers are for post-race analysis do gauge performance, I am with Dev and and just set targets and ceilings for my power based on course profile, solid FTP testing and specific training ride data (I have a slightly larger spread than him due to weight) and it has worked out well.

Some folks look at NP and/or AP during their long races, but I usually don't as the cap method works well for me and I just keep 3 second power on the main screen, this can help avoid chasing watts later in race or pushing the panic button. tons of subtle variables and personal preferences enter the equation here and you will find a boat load on the site.

Cheers!

i have no idea how that is possible...

i'm 125lbs race day. my ftp is anywhere from 205 to 230 (yes, it varies that much in season)

when i'm climbing a steep hill, in the lowest gear, there is no way i'm doing anything less than 270 watts. how can i possibly ride up the hill if i was capping my spikes at 180...?

OK, let me try the math on myself....FTP 260-265 at 137 in peak form for IM's. Let's use 260.

115~ 300W (Olympic tri short spike)
100 ~ 260W (Just over Olympic tri pace, half IM spike)
90 ~ 235W (IM spike)
85 ~ 220W (high end of half IM race pace depending on fitness)
70 ~ 182W (IM race pace)

My low gearing is 34x28. I can usually climb pretty steep stuff in tthat at IM race pace such as Brockway at IM Tahoe or coming out of Pemberton at Whistler. At IMLP with some downhills on stairstep climbs, I don't't mind taking it up to half IM pace or a short IM spike to get over the top knowing that I have zero watts on the other side and I can cover ground faster and get to T2 with lower average watts this way.

I think in an ideal world, you get to T2 in the same time and same NP but with the lowest possible AP. For example, I prefer doing a half IM where my NP is 220W but my AP is 205W vs one that is 220/215, assuming I get to T2 just as fast in both cases. Basically I think you don't worry about your NP. Your NP should be the "target watts" based on FTP. Now get your AP as low as humanly possible for a given bike split. That's going to save your glycogen stores for the run.