Using W balance

is it possible to have w balance in the custom charts on fitness page ?

Do you mean the W’ number? I can add that easily.

Yes if that’s the same as you work balance calc Would be interested to see it daily on chart.

This is live now. Look for “W’” at the bottom of the plots list.

1 Like

Thanks David, now i just realised need to do longer bulk edit backwards for activities. I’ve noticed a substantial difference though in Mortons 3P verses power default, 28kj or 45 Kj values. Not sure what is right, I’ve recent 1m, 5m, 10m, 20m efforts.

1 Like

Mortons 3P is the one to use for this if you have the correct inputs. The default algorithm uses pre-defined curves i.e. it assumes everyone on the same FTP has the same W’. This is fine for FTP estimation from single max efforts but not if you want to track W’.

1 Like

So, this is possibly a general question about W’Bal rather than about Intervals, but here goes… what, if anything, is the relationship between W’Bal and your power curve?

The reason I say that is that if I take my curve-predicted power at 8 minutes (316), and my current FTP of 276, that gives me a Kj output above threshold of approx 19200.

But if I take my curve predicted power-output at 2 minutes (416), that gives me a Kj output above threshold of approx 16800.

Which means that if I do an all-out 2 minute effort, the W’bal would not show me going down to zero.

First question, am I missing something here? Or is W’Bal always going to be less accurate at different power levels?

Second question, is there a way you could create a flexible W’Bal from your power curve and apply it intelligently to rides? So it isn’t so much of a simple “this many Kj available above threshold”, but more “what % of my resources at this intensity have I burned through?”. Might be an impossibility, but worth asking!

Not an expert but I have a little bit of knowledge, so here’s my take:

The 2 parameter model works exactly as you would expect - take any point on the curve, take off your FTP and divide by the time in seconds gives you W’. The trouble with that model is that you can’t actually produce the power it thinks you can at very short durations: 10 seconds at 2816 Watts! No chance.

This model assumes that when you deplete W’ at any given power output, you will be unable to continue pedelling which is only correct in one sense: you can’t continue to pedal at that particular intensity.

Now, I’m not particularly familiar with the 3 parameter model, which, as you described, does not follow the same pattern.

Here is a comparison between the actual power curve and the constant work above FTP curve:

They start diverging significantly once you get down to about 180 seconds. It makes intuative sense that you could never output a wattage of 25000 for a single second or 5000 for 5 seconds etc so there is some sort of degradation of W’ in the very short durations.

Less obviously, there is also a reduction in W’ even much further along the curve which isn’t so intuative.

Above I referred to not being able to continue pedalling at the same intensity once you hit the point on the model curve (assuming it is correct), but that doesn’t mean you can’t continue to pedal above FTP, it just means that your ability to continue producing, say 400 Watts is compromised. This is due to being not only being limited by the amount of energy that you can use, but also by the rate that you can use it. In this case you get to a point where you can no longer produce 400 Watts, but can continue to produce 399, 398, 397 etc for a few seconds each until you finally get down to your threshold. This energy is also part of W’ but can never be represented on the power duration curve because it’s imposible to deplete it fully at a single intensity.

Now, I must admit that my knowledge of this comes from learning about Xert and that may well be different to Morton’s model in the exact detail (no doubt it is) but it shows exactly the same sort of ‘behaviour’.

Mike

6 Likes

There is a good explanation of the Monod 2 & Morton 3 parameter models within this publicly accessible thesis:
https://ssudl.solent.ac.uk/id/eprint/4099/

I have played around with calculating CP & W’ from a number of maximal efforts within a single ride (1 min, 3min, 20min - a bit like a 4DP power test) and then calculating CP & W’ using the 2 parameter model and I am happy with the results. It does have the limitation of not being realistic for very short durations but that is an acknowledged model limitation, and there are more complex models that account better for this such as the Morton 3 Parameter model that David has implemented within intervals.icu.

There is an interesting quote within the thesis: “In theory, the 3-parameter mathematical model should result in the most accurate calculation of CP and Wʹ and is often regarded as the criterion method within the literature
(Mattioni Maturana et al. 2018); however, due to the complexity of calculating CP and Wʹ
from this model, it is not often used by coaches, athletes or researchers.”

3 Likes

Hi, I really like the concept op W’ as a way of eyeball gauging how deep I went during a ride.

I do find it a bit of a struggle, however, to really see how deep I went on the sprints or climbs due to the fact that there are no gridlines.
I think a couple of horizontal lines (every 5 kJ, or maybe every 20 or 25% of max W’?) would work wonders in readability of the graph!

4 Likes

I assume somewhere there is an IQ app where you can select a live W’ data field??

I use Xert’s MPA :joy: But, there are more; https://apps.garmin.com/en-US/search?q=w’bal&device=&deviceLimit=&appType=&sort=&start=0&count=30

1 Like
1 Like

Great thanks for that. Is this something you have used or only searched for? I have an Edge 520 and a review says it no longer works on this model. I’ve sent a message to the developer but I guess I can install and check it.

No personal experience with it. W’ has been an interest of mine for some time and I learned about this CIQ app several months back. Strange that it wouldn’t support the 520, as I use it on my 1000 without issue and it was released about a year earlier… Will be curious what, if anything, the developer can offer on why the 520 was excluded.

1 Like

Try it or try dr Skiba’s - that seems to work with the 520.

1 Like

Zac, ref the one you linked to he replied really quickly, just said some people had to reinstall then all was good.

Cyclopaat , I’ve downloaded and installed both and will try them tomorrow once I can work out where the value settings are :grin:

EDIT - settings found in Connect mobile app.

2 Likes

I have used this connnectIQ data field on Edge520 since shortly after learning about W’ - I highly recommend!

Ah which one William? I have installed both anyway so I’ll see how they perform tomorrow.

This one: https://apps.garmin.com/en-US/apps/6dcfffe5-cd3d-41f3-8ba3-13fa0647b003

1 Like