Hello all, I have been lurking over the last few days and reading the comments from both Will Hopkins and Andy Coggan on the power normalization approach for non-steady state cycling that Dr. Coggan has developed. One key word in the discussion has been "arbitrary". Hopkins says the choices for the model parameters (4th power weighting and 30 sec averaging) are arbitrary. Coggan says they are absolutely not arbitrary, even if not formally tested in a controlled study. Here I would side with Coggan, if only because I think I know him well enough to say that he is not a guy who picks numbers out of the air.
But, the bottom line is that essentially ALL of the methods we use for training load estimation are based on more or less arbitrary weighting scales that are not derived directly from experimental data. Experience suggests that simple is superior to complex (and there have been some complex mathematical models proposed for quantifying training load, believe me). For example, Carl Foster's session RPE scale, which I have used to quantify training load both in published studies and practical work with Olympic level athletes, is based on a 10 point perceptual rating scale with verbal anchors. What is the actual "distance" between a 3 and 4 on the scale, a 7 and 8? Don't know. Why collect the data at exactly 30 minutes after the end of the training session and not 15 minutes or 60? Not sure. But I am convinced that the method gives meaningful information and shows good validity when compared with physiological measures. On the other hand, in my mind, any factor weighted "time-in-zone" approach using HR is VERY arbitrary. Straight HR based time-in-zone will always underestimate the stress of interval or intermittant exercise. And, linear weightings like 1 for 50-60%, 2 for 60-70% and so on STILL probably underestimate it, for several reasons. One published study we did where we quantified training load in XC skiers suggested that straight "time-in-zone" estimation of training load fit very poorly with the perceptual ratings of training stress provided by the athletes (session RPE). The problem is particularly apparent when working with elite athletes who may warm up for 20-30 minutes and cool down similarly, such that even their hard interval sessions come out looking "easy" when HR based time-in-zone is calculated for the entire session. Which brings me back to Coggan's power normalization approach. I confess that I am just now checking out. I'm a rower, not a cyclist! After a couple days of ruminating and then simulating some data in EXCEL, I have to say I like it. The numbers behave in a manner that is consistent with my experience from 2 studies on interval training responses and other data. For example, I used the method to normalize power from an imagined, but representative, ergometer interval session: Athlete had power at VO2 max of 450 watts He performed six, 4 minute intervals at 89% of this power (400 watts) separated by 4 minutes active recovery periods at 35% of PVO2max (160 watts). His average power for the 48 minute period was 280 watts. After 4th power normalization (and assuming each of my cell values was a 30 second average for power), the normalized power for this session was 338 watts, or 21% higher. Now, what if I go to the extreme case and model total rest during the recovery periods (0 watts), and still 400 watts during the work intervals. The actual average power drops to 200 watts (quite easy for this subject) The normalized power for the session is almost unchanged (336 watts). I believe the picture the normalized power comparison paints is quite consistent with the underlying physiology in the sense that zero intensity during the recovery periods would not be expected to dramatically reduce the stress of the session. Indeed, keeping the legs spinning a bit is thought to improve lactate elimination as we all know. 3rd and 2nd power normalization is more effected by the low power values. 4th power modelling clearly heavily weights the impact of high power outputs as it should. After this and some other simulations, I see why Andy chose 4th power. What I am less clear over is the statement that the difference is only about 5% for 2nd to 4th power. Using my extreme example of intermittent exercise, the differences were bigger (19% differene in normalized power for 4th vs 2nd order normalization in my extreme example of 400watt/0 watt interval exercise. However, when I modelled an athlete doing 4minute bouts at 350w and 250w, the actual average of 300 watts was normalized to 312, 291, and 304 watts, using 4th, 3rd, and 2nd power normalization repectively. And, yes, I checked this. 3rd power normalization actually resulted in a normalized power that was slightly below the actual mean for this condition. Numbers behave in curious ways sometimes. But, the point is that for this less extreme condition of stochastic loading, the differences associated with the choice of exponent were indeed very small, just as Andy suggested. Still though, 4th power would win my vote. Now, obviously the average power of a training session only has meaning when combined with some measure of the duration. Does the stress impact increase linearly with time or non-linearly? When we measured RPE during two studies employing similar 6 x 4 minute interval sessions, RPE increased linearly with each work bout. So, that data supports the TTS approach of just multiplying normalized power x exercise duration. However, we recently examined autonomic recovery (using Heart rate variability measures) following controlled time exercise bouts performed under VT1 (1mM lactate, 60% VO2 max), between VT1 and VT2 (3mM lactate, 86% VO2 max) and over VT2 (intervals at 95% VO2 max and 7mM lactate). We found that in these highly trained runners 1) increasing work duration from 60 to 120 minutes at 60% VO2 max had essentially no impact on session RPE or the rapidity of autonomic recovery after the bout, but 2) as soon as intensity increased above VT1, autonomic recovery was delayed significantly but similarly ("identical" time course) after lactate threshold and hard interval training sessions. THIS data suggests to me that maybe the time factor used to calculate Total Training Stress (TTS) should perhaps be different for low intensity exercise in highly trained athletes. But what should the weighting factor be? Arbitrary. My 2 cents worth, back to work. Stephen Seiler PhD FACSM Associate Professor Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences Agder University College Service box 422 4604 Kristiansand Norway tel: 47 3814 1347 fax: 47 3814 1301 Post messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To (un)subscribe, send any message to sportscience-(un)[EMAIL PROTECTED] View all messages at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sportscience/. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sportscience/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/