Different tools in the toolbox. Pick the right tool for the job at hand, or realize none of the tools are going to help on a particular job. IMHO you need to learn to feel where you go from stable to unstable physiology. The tools being discussed simply help inform after the fact. Use structure to train above and below, it’s often more productive than training in the border zone power range (at threshold / FTP).
It’s an endorsement of limited power curve modeling, not any one particular model. I could just as easily call it a tacit endorsement of WKO4/5 (which it is). I have never quite understood why there’s this big divergence in opinion on CP/W’ vs. FTP/FRC modeling. Seems like people will ardently defend one or the other.
This wouldn’t be smart as WKO’s model is derivative, opaque and basically a marketing strategy tool. Where’s the CP model has a rich tradition of open research and physiology association.
2 Likes
…upon which a tool was built that ppl will actually pay for. I think where they have missed the mark is marketing and selling a “WKO Lite” type of package targeting the individual self-coached athlete.
intervals.icu is enjoying that lunch.
I think there are six ppl in the world who still care about CP v. FTP debates. Even Skiba is like “close enough”.
I went through a CP model > FTP model phase, largely because of my affinity to open source (not free source, open). But until someone builds a UI on top of that model that isn’t right out of a junior high hackathon, then good enough is going to have to be good enough.
1 Like
Exactly my point.
And yet Coggan himself endorses WKO because, well, he created the model for it. So, I am pretty sure it is “smart” to believe he is endorsing WKO, since he directly did so in post 212.
I’ve got a volunteer job for you in GoldenCheetah marketing….
I use WKO alongside Golden Cheetah…and I have to agree with you. But it’s a clean software that unfortunately still doesn’t have some very basic analysis features. And Golden Cheetah is, well…Golden Cheetah.
I’ve used a bunch of the analytics/models, in chronological order as best I remember: TP, Xert, Strava, Firstbeat/Garmin Connect, TrainerRoad, WKO4, GoldenCheetah, WKO5, and Intervals. Something I like in each of them. Far and away the most flexible and valuable for myself is WKO5.
1 Like
This is an error in thinking called appeal to authority. Coggan can be at the same time smart, biased and self serving.
You can take that up with him, but I took it as you saying it wasn’t smart to say it was an endorsement of WKO4/5. Maybe you think actually endorsing WKO4/5 isn’t smart, that’s fine - you’re entitled to that opinion. That’s not what I took you as saying, however.
But again, my point was that arguing about FTP vs. Critical Power is kind of pointless, as is - in my opinion - arguing the viability of WKO4/5 vs. CP modeling software.
3 Likes
Marketing strategy tool for what? I really don’t get the argument. WKO5 is an excellent value for $170 one-time purchase. (I paid $120 on a black friday sale years ago.) Most software companies today are trying to get $10-20/month out of you.
Since owning WKO5 I’ve gotten a ton of free seminars from Tim Cusick and they haven’t tried to sell me anything extra.
I tried Golden Cheetah - it was buggy so I quickly ditched it. Intervals.icu didn’t exist when I bought WKO5 and honestly that would probably suffice if I were getting started today. But if you want to go deeper, WKO5 is a great choice and value.
1 Like
GoldenCheetah has never been buggy for me on a MacBook Pro, but the UI is fugly although a LOT LOT better with the 3.6 beta releases.
I use WKO5 for a lot of stuff even when the model isn’t fed, like right now.
On a Mac, Golden Cheetah kept changing it’s default font to barcode on me. Believe me, that was tough to figure out how to change the font back without reading any of the menus.
I asked on their google group and got crickets so I ditched Golden Cheetah as way too unsupported for me.
I still don’t undnerstand how WKO5 is a “marketing strategy tool”.
1 Like
that falls into the category of things that get posted that I don’t understand 
No, I don’t see it that way. Formal testing (= something objective) and verification informed by feel (= subjective) form a feedback loop. Testing allows you to explore what being in certain power zones feel like. And that improved feeling makes estimates for your FTP and other zone boundaries more accurate. I’ve gotten a lot better at pacing since getting a power meter and threshold testing.
That’s why IMHO the FTP/CP algorithm or test protocol don’t matter much, as long as you verify the results.
I reckon even more people pay for TP with first-gen concepts such as CTL and TSS. WKO’s strength is analysis, although when I tried it, I felt it was way too much for me, I didn’t even know what metrics are relevant to me. (That’s where a human coach could help.)
Agreed.
After all, they both attempt to identify the same physiological state in slightly different ways. So in my mind they are practically equivalent.
Someone in here (honestly don’t remember who, perhaps it was @WindWarrior, but I could be wrong) posted their FTP estimates and estimated CP, and surprise, surprise, they were a few W apart (+/- 2 %).
Yeah, in the analysis department WKO5 is the one to beat. However, I think you need to be an expert or be guided by an expert to really know what metrics are relevant for you. I found that WKO did not really help me here, but perhaps it is just not the tool for me at this stage (even though I feel it should be given my background).
Also, maybe I didn’t get that far, but I really did not notice their special sauce (= their model, which I now know has been (co-?)developed by @The_Cog). E. g. I’d rather rely on a FTP test + verification than on SmartFTP. It was purely the analysis features that made it stand out for me.
Metrics? Advanced features?
WKO5 for the win because of graphing, and control over the graphing.
That simple.
Extended-CP model (GoldenCheetah) and WKO model. They give very similar results (but not always).
Formal testing over learning how it feels? Gosh I dunno, IIRC you’ve debated with me about long testing. Formal tests like the ramp test are a joke for FTP estimates, its a MAP test. Its so tedious debating stuff like this. I’ve been doing long testing since spin classes. Go long, learn how it feels, don’t be lazy. No shortcuts.
Except I did not write over, I wrote and and spoke of a feedback loop. The combination of formal testing and improving your feel that’s key, and superior to either by itself.
Yes, what do you choose graph? Graphs visualize metrics and help you understand aspects of your fitness. Apart from the obvious that are included in essentially all of the above, I did not really know what else I should look for.
When I tried it out, I wished WKO5 had some examples/presets. I did watch their videos, but did not find those helpful either. However, if you (or your coach) knows what to look for, I reckon WKO5 is the tool to have.
Probably around 30-40 min on a road bike. In a recent 30min time trial, I averaged 315W on my TT bike. I know I couldn’t hold 319W for 60min if my life depended on it, probably max. 310W, which is why I find the 354W NP so amusing, haha.
I don’t have TT bike experience, but as far as I know you lose a few watts by just being in a less favorable body position on your TT bike, no? Anyone have experience how much that is?
Depends on the fit and how often you ride your TT bike. The gap can be closed or eliminated with training.
1 Like