WKO Performance Management Chart - Anybody use it?

bahzob

With a bit of time on my hands I finally took some time out to read up on the feature that comes with WKO+ (for power based training) called Performance Management Chart.

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/performancemanager.asp

Once you get through some of the technospeak it actually seems to be a pretty good tool that in one (quite) easy to understand graph provides you with a summary of training load, actual performance and a measure to help you peak for chosen events.

I plan to try using it 2008, wondered if anybody was already doing so and if so has any feedback

BeaconRuth

Yes, it's a useful tool for those people who like everything nicely quantified. The real benefit comes in the long-term when you have months (and even years) of data and you have personal history of successful performances, periods of peaking, downtime etc to relate to the trends on your PMC.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say it provides you with your "actual performance" though? How does it show your performance?

Ruth

Mike Willcox

A measure on the scale doesn't differentiate between a long moderate ride and interval training as they may well have the same score.

My best performances always seemed to be the week after the one I wanted to peak for. That could be down to pure nerves. To my mind the PMC is only going to confirm what should be obvious. You are unlikely to do your best ride after only one month's training or without resting up for a couple of days in the week before.

CF Uber Alles

Mike Willcox wrote:

A measure on the scale doesn't differentiate between a long moderate ride and interval training as they may well have the same score.

That's a good point, but I imagine that the creators have assumed that users will have some idea of how to meet their personal objectives, or at least their coach will.

IMHO, this doesn't detract from the concept that two very different training sessions can achieve the same stress whilst having very different, specific adaptions. There are other elements of WKO that can help with measuring specific adaptions.

cervelorider

I've been using it for just over a year, and find it very useful - great for looking back over a season to see how short and long-term training loads might have affected the highs and low points of the season.
It also bought home the whole notion of the 150tss/day - I have found that my sustainable tss is much closer to 100 rather than 150 per day, suffice to say this is a different issue for each individual.
Other than the acute and chronic loads, and daily training stress, it also allows you to add other info to the graph, for example, I also use it to show power/duration stats, which allows me to see precisely when my PB's were in relation to the other info.

Mike Willcox

cervelorider wrote:

I've been using it for just over a year, and find it very useful - great for looking back over a season to see how short and long-term training loads might have affected the highs and low points of the season.
It also bought home the whole notion of the 150tss/day - I have found that my sustainable tss is much closer to 100 rather than 150 per day, suffice to say this is a different issue for each individual.
Other than the acute and chronic loads, and daily training stress, it also allows you to add other info to the graph, for example, I also use it to show power/duration stats, which allows me to see precisely when my PB's were in relation to the other info.

If you divide your training year up into periods, then you are looking to reach certain goals in a certain aspect of your fitness by the end of that period e.g The winter period is building a base mileage for endurance and developing skills and strength. Difficult to measure much of that.

On the other hand your weight, RHR and recovery from training, all better reflect your levels of fitness, rather than simply toting up hours in the saddle, and analysing from that what combination of hours produced the best performance.

cervelorider

Mike Willcox wrote:

If you divide your training year up into periods, then you are looking to reach certain goals in a certain aspect of your fitness by the end of that period e.g The winter period is building a base mileage for endurance and developing skills and strength. Difficult to measure much of that.

Not if you have a PM/WKO+

Alex_Simmons/RST

I use it extensively for all the athletes I coach. Peak performances can be charted by showing peak power or power/weight PBs against the trends in Acute and Chronic training loads. And of course you would already know when good and poor race performances occur.

And of course the underlying metric (TSS), which is a function of duration and intensity (and your current fitness level - since it scales as you gain/lose fitness), doesn't distinguish between rides designed to target specific adaptions - but that's not its intent. Clearly you (or your coach) should know the primary physiological development needs at any point in the season and note how the PMC tracks during those phases.

No-one is suggesting that this is the only thing you use, it is intended to complement and add value to the other measures be they quantitative (e.g. weight) or qualitative (e.g. a rider's feedback on how they feel - stressed/fatigued etc). But it is remarkable (when used correctly) how good it is at picking training trends and past mistakes.

If a rider is consistently miss-timing a peak, I can almost guarantee there will be a pattern that shows up in the PMC and that could help a rider re-shape their pre-race training strategy.

There are a lot of subtleties in the PM and enourmous value in understanding how to apply it.

The other aspect of course in the ability in using the algorithm for forward planning. That is a super powerful application.

Mike Willcox

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I use it extensively for all the athletes I coach. Peak performances can be charted by showing peak power or power/weight PBs against the trends in Acute and Chronic training loads. And of course you would already know when good and poor race performances occur.

And of course the underlying metric (TSS), which is a function of duration and intensity (and your current fitness level - since it scales as you gain/lose fitness), doesn't distinguish between rides designed to target specific adaptions - but that's not its intent. Clearly you (or your coach) should know the primary physiological development needs at any point in the season and note how the PMC tracks during those phases.

No-one is suggesting that this is the only thing you use, it is intended to complement and add value to the other measures be they quantitative (e.g. weight) or qualitative (e.g. a rider's feedback on how they feel - stressed/fatigued etc). But it is remarkable (when used correctly) how good it is at picking training trends and past mistakes.

If a rider is consistently miss-timing a peak, I can almost guarantee there will be a pattern that shows up in the PMC and that could help a rider re-shape their pre-race training strategy.

There are a lot of subtleties in the PM and enourmous value in understanding how to apply it.

The other aspect of course in the ability in using the algorithm for forward planning. That is a super powerful application.

I'll have two. You can't beat an algorithmn for forward planning.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Mike Willcox wrote:

I'll have two. You can't beat an algorithmn for forward planning.

GIGO applies of course.

Mike Willcox

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Mike Willcox wrote:

I'll have two. You can't beat an algorithmn for forward planning.

GIGO applies of course.

bahzob

BeaconRuth wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean when you say it provides you with your "actual performance" though? How does it show your performance?
Ruth

I meant the facilty to show power bests for given time period which should be one indication of performance and hopefull tie in with the training plan.

BeaconRuth

bahzob wrote:

I meant the facilty to show power bests for given time period which should be one indication of performance and hopefull tie in with the training plan.

Ah, I see what you mean - I'd never thought of those as being 'performances'. That raises an interesting question of what constitutes a 'performance' doesn't it? My feeling is that I only 'perform' when I take part in a race, though for others this might mean when they do a challenge ride or sportive - to me there needs to be some kind of public element of delivering a 'performance'. It's something I've never contemplated - the idea that I might achieve a stunning 'performance' on my turbo in the shed........... achieving an all time high which I can raise my arms to celebrate, and rush back into the house, eagerly download my data and luxuriate in the joy of seeing a little dot on a chart to prove to everyone within earshot that................... I've put a little dot on a chart.

Yeah, OK, I know I'm being cynical. Dots on charts can be highly motivating if interpreted correctly, but maybe we run into strange territory when dots on charts become performances in themselves?

Ruth

ut_och_cykla

Ruth - I see your point but those little dots can be so.... dotty!
Performance is often used when talking about engine /machine outputs which is perhaps why guys like it more than gals - there is an often unacknowledged gender slant in the words we choose to use

but that's another story....

bahzob

Also the power bests will include those from "real" events. They do for me, be surprised if it were otherwise given stimulus of competition.

Off this subject but genuinely interested Ruth if you are saying you can maintain a higher power output, on a turbo or otherwise in training than you do in competition.

BeaconRuth

ut_och_cykla wrote:

Ruth - I see your point but those little dots can be so.... dotty!
Performance is often used when talking about engine /machine outputs which is perhaps why guys like it more than gals - there is an often unacknowledged gender slant in the words we choose to use

but that's another story....

LOL! You're absolutely right of course. There's more than one way to define 'performance' and the performance of a car engine doesn't imply some kind of public demonstration. :oops:

Bahzob wrote:

Also the power bests will include those from "real" events. They do for me, be surprised if it were otherwise given stimulus of competition.

Yes indeed.

Off this subject but genuinely interested Ruth if you are saying you can maintain a higher power output, on a turbo or otherwise in training than you do in competition.

I can't answer that, Bahzob, I've no idea what 'performance' I achieve in competition except for the time the time-keeper gives me. I don't personally use a powermeter and I don't race with a HRM. But I'm sure I achieve greater 1min, 2min and 5min powers on the turbo than when racing because a high power for anything less than 20mins isn't the aim in a time trial. There'd be something very wrong if I did achieve an all-time 2min PB in the middle of a 50 mile TT!

Ruth

cervelorider

BeaconRuth wrote:

ut_och_cykla wrote:

Ruth - I see your point but those little dots can be so.... dotty!
Performance is often used when talking about engine /machine outputs which is perhaps why guys like it more than gals - there is an often unacknowledged gender slant in the words we choose to use

but that's another story....

LOL! You're absolutely right of course. There's more than one way to define 'performance' and the performance of a car engine doesn't imply some kind of public demonstration. :oops:

Bahzob wrote:

Also the power bests will include those from "real" events. They do for me, be surprised if it were otherwise given stimulus of competition.

Yes indeed.

Off this subject but genuinely interested Ruth if you are saying you can maintain a higher power output, on a turbo or otherwise in training than you do in competition.

I can't answer that, Bahzob, I've no idea what 'performance' I achieve in competition except for the time the time-keeper gives me. I don't personally use a powermeter and I don't race with a HRM. But I'm sure I achieve greater 1min, 2min and 5min powers on the turbo than when racing because a high power for anything less than 20mins isn't the aim in a time trial. There'd be something very wrong if I did achieve an all-time 2min PB in the middle of a 50 mile TT!

Ruth

I would interpret sections of the Little Mountain TT, like the timed hill climbs as examples, of where 1/2/5 minute power could be used to guage 'performance' within a longer event.
I would also add that an improvement in 5 minute power would help in guaging 10 mile TT 'performances'.

BeaconRuth

cervelorider wrote:

I would interpret sections of the Little Mountain TT, like the timed hill climbs as examples, of where 1/2/5 minute power could be used to guage 'performance' within a longer event.

I've no interest in achieving an especially high 1/2/5 minute power on the hills of the LMTT. What purpose would it serve? I might go faster up the hill but what effect would a maximal 2min effort on a climb have on the rest of my ride? Disastrous, I would suggest.

I would also add that an improvement in 5 minute power would help in guaging 10 mile TT 'performances'.

I didn't say I have no interest in improving my 5 min power. I have every interest in improving it. But it's not necessary to quantify it in accurately calibrated Watts in order to improve it, or in order to know that it is an all-time high.

Ruth

cervelorider

BeaconRuth wrote:

cervelorider wrote:

I would interpret sections of the Little Mountain TT, like the timed hill climbs as examples, of where 1/2/5 minute power could be used to guage 'performance' within a longer event.

I've no interest in achieving an especially high 1/2/5 minute power on the hills of the LMTT. What purpose would it serve? I might go faster up the hill but what effect would a maximal 2min effort on a climb have on the rest of my ride? Disastrous, I would suggest.

I would also add that an improvement in 5 minute power would help in guaging 10 mile TT 'performances'.

I didn't say I have no interest in improving my 5 min power. I have every interest in improving it. But it's not necessary to quantify it in accurately calibrated Watts in order to improve it, or in order to know that it is an all-time high.

Ruth

Fair enough - points taken, but if you were stronger in these power/durations, the climbs could be done at a *higher* intensity(not maximal), and recovery would be quicker.

TBH, it was after I started using CP/WKO+, where these statistics are displayed by default, that I started to take an interest myself.

However, I do think they play a part in creating a well balanced energy system.

BeaconRuth

cervelorider wrote:

Fair enough - points taken, but if you were stronger in these power/durations, the climbs could be done at a *higher* intensity(not maximal), and recovery would be quicker.

Oh yes, of course, I completely agree. I work extremely hard and in a very focused way on developing my 2min and 5min power (though not quantifed in Watts) at certain times in the season (not so bothered about 1min), but that doesn't mean I'm interested in my 2 or 5min power on the hills of the LMTT.

TBH, it was after I started using CP/WKO+, where these statistics are displayed by default, that I started to take an interest myself.

That may well be so, but the use of a powermeter and WKO+ are not necessary in order to address these vital aspects of fitness.

Ruth

cervelorider

BeaconRuth wrote:

cervelorider wrote:

Fair enough - points taken, but if you were stronger in these power/durations, the climbs could be done at a *higher* intensity(not maximal), and recovery would be quicker.

Oh yes, of course, I completely agree. I work extremely hard and in a very focused way on developing my 2min and 5min power (though not quantifed in Watts) at certain times in the season (not so bothered about 1min), but that doesn't mean I'm interested in my 2 or 5min power on the hills of the LMTT.

TBH, it was after I started using CP/WKO+, where these statistics are displayed by default, that I started to take an interest myself.

That may well be so, but the use of a powermeter and WKO+ are not necessary in order to address these vital aspects of fitness.

Ruth

That also may well be so , but the PM is possibly the easiest way to quatify these improvements on a daily/weekly basis.

I am also trying to point out some of the benefits of WKO+, to someone having a PM already, as the topic title suggests.