I have power measurement on all my bikes including the track. I use Cycling Analytics which is a cloud based service similar to WKO. I use a Mac so WKO will not run work and I do not like running PC simulation software to run PC programs. I am a data junkie and like the on the bike power measurement as well as post ride analysis. I used GC for awhile but prefer CA.

I have found that the construct proposed in Training and Racing with a Power Meter and the performance manager in training peaks as proposed by Coggan not applicable to me and probably not applicable to the track. I can do a very fatiguing track workout - high cadence, high power short duration efforts. The TSS for that effort will be low. Likewise, I am very good at high power shorter duration efforts but my FTP is low. I can do a hard road group ride which will indicate a very high TSS showing a lot of anaerobic threshold efforts and I will recover from it quite easily. IMO, for those athletes that are younger road racers with "traditional" FTP numbers, the construct will work and the TSB readings indicative of fatigue. However, for older athletes that are specialists, it seems off.

IMO, the other problem with the FTP model is that it focuses athletes on FTP that IMO, is applicable for time trialists who do 40 ITTs. So an athlete does an FTP test and scores low and becomes demotivated. Well, he/she may not be good at constant torque, constant power work. He/she may be more bursty and do well where there are shorter accelerations and faster efforts.

IMO, power measurement training is excellent but focus on FTP and the Coggan construct may be counter productive to improving cycling and finding what type of cycling best suits an individual.