Average power is one of the easiest numbers to look at after an indoor cycling workout.
You finish the ride, glance at your data and see 185 watts average.
Then the next week you complete a similar session and average 192 watts.
It is tempting to immediately think:
“That was a better workout.”
But was it?
Maybe.
Or maybe you rode your recovery intervals too hard, pushed your warm-up harder than necessary, skipped some of your cool-down, or compromised the quality of the intervals that actually mattered just to keep your average power looking impressive.
Average power is useful—but it doesn’t tell you whether you executed the workout properly.
And when you’re completing a structured indoor cycling session, execution matters far more than producing an impressive number at the end.
What Does Average Power Actually Tell You?
Average power is exactly what the name suggests.
Your cycling computer or training software takes all the power you produced during the ride and calculates the average.
For a relatively steady ride, that can be a useful metric.
If you ride continuously for an hour at approximately the same intensity, your average power gives you a reasonable indication of the work you performed.
But structured interval sessions are different.
Imagine completing a workout containing:
- a progressive warm-up;
- four hard Level V VO₂ Max intervals;
- easy Level I recovery between intervals; and
- a relaxed Level II cool-down.
The purpose of that workout isn’t to produce the highest possible average power.
The purpose is to complete those Level V intervals at the appropriate intensity while recovering sufficiently between them to maintain the quality of each repetition.
That’s an important distinction.
The Average Power Trap
This is where I regularly see cyclists get caught out.
You finish a hard interval and enter your recovery.
Your programme might prescribe Level I.
But then you look at your screen.
Your average power is dropping.
So instead of recovering properly, you start pushing a little harder.
Maybe your recovery should be 120 watts, but you’re riding at 160 watts because you don’t want that average number to fall.
You’ve just changed the workout.
You might make the average power look better, but you’ve also increased the workload during a part of the session that was specifically designed to allow you to recover.
That can affect what happens next.
Instead of beginning the next interval relatively refreshed and ready to produce a quality effort, you’re carrying additional fatigue into it.
By the third or fourth repetition, you may no longer be able to produce the power the workout was designed around.
You’ve improved the statistic while potentially reducing the quality of the training session.
Research into cycling interval training reinforces the importance of recovery intensity. In one study involving well-trained cyclists, harder recovery periods increased perceived exertion while lower-intensity recovery allowed greater power output during the subsequent work intervals.
Sometimes riding easier really does allow you to train harder where it matters.
Every Part of the Workout Has a Job
A properly designed cycling workout isn’t simply a collection of minutes that you need to fill with as many watts as possible.
Every component should have a purpose.
Your warm-up prepares you for the work ahead.
Your work intervals provide the primary training stimulus.
Your recoveries allow you to perform those intervals effectively.
Your cool-down begins the transition into recovery.
If you ride every part harder simply to increase your average power, you’re ignoring the structure of the session.
Think about a workout containing 5x 4-minute Level V intervals.
If your first interval is fantastic but you gradually fall apart because you rode every recovery too hard, that’s not necessarily better than completing all five intervals consistently at the prescribed intensity.
I’d much rather see an athlete execute the entire workout properly.
Two Rides Can Have the Same Average Power—and Be Completely Different
This is one of the biggest limitations of average power.
Consider two one-hour rides.
Ride A
You ride steadily at approximately 200 watts for the entire hour.
Average power: 200 watts.
Ride B
You complete repeated hard intervals at 300–400 watts, separated by easy recovery riding well below 200 watts.
At the end of the hour:
Average power: 200 watts.
Same average.
Completely different workout.
The second ride may impose substantially greater physiological stress despite producing exactly the same average power. This is one of the reasons metrics such as Normalized Power® (NP) were developed. TrainingPeaks describes Normalized Power as an estimate intended to better reflect the physiological cost of variable power output.
That doesn’t mean you should simply replace your obsession with average power with an obsession with Normalized Power.
The important question remains:
What was the workout designed to achieve?
Look at the Intervals That Matter
When I’m reviewing an athlete’s structured workout, I’m much more interested in how they performed the important parts of the session.
If you’ve completed a threshold workout, I want to know what happened during your Level IV intervals.
Were you close to the prescribed power?
Was your power reasonably consistent?
Did you complete all the repetitions?
Did your performance deteriorate dramatically towards the end?
How did the effort feel?
Were you able to maintain good technique?
Those questions tell me far more about the quality of the session than simply knowing your average power for the entire workout.
For interval sessions, looking at average power for the individual work intervals—and whether the prescribed training objective was achieved—can be considerably more useful than looking at the overall ride average.
When Average Power Is Useful
I’m not suggesting average power is useless.
Far from it.
There are situations where it is an extremely useful metric.
A long, steady Level II endurance ride is one example.
A sustained climb is another.
A time trial where you’re trying to maintain a consistent output is another.
In those situations, average power can tell you a great deal about your performance because the objective itself involves relatively steady power production.
In fact, when evaluating performance during long climbs or time trials, average power may be more appropriate than Normalized Power (NP).
The problem isn’t average power.
The problem is using average power to judge workouts where it doesn’t adequately represent what you’re trying to achieve.
Don’t Turn Your Warm-Up Into Training
Another way cyclists accidentally inflate their average power is by riding the warm-up too hard.
Your warm-up has a job.
It should gradually prepare your cardiovascular system, muscles and nervous system for the training ahead.
If you’re already pushing substantial power five minutes into the ride because you want to protect your average, you’re spending energy that could be better used during the important intervals later in the workout.
The same principle applies to your cool-down.
You don’t need to finish your final hard interval and then continue pushing because you don’t want your average power to fall.
Let it fall.
That’s what the cool-down is for.
Follow the Workout, Not Your Ego
Indoor cycling makes it incredibly easy to become obsessed with numbers.
Power.
Heart rate.
Cadence.
Average power.
Normalized Power.
Intensity Factor.
Training Stress Score.
They can all provide useful information.
But they’re tools.
They’re not the workout.
The goal of structured training is to create a particular physiological stimulus repeatedly over weeks and months so your body adapts.
That requires discipline.
Sometimes discipline means riding harder.
Sometimes it means holding back.
And sometimes it means watching your average power drop while you spin easily between intervals.
That’s not weakness.
That’s executing the workout properly.
A Better Question to Ask After Your Ride
Instead of finishing every indoor cycling session and asking:
“What was my average power?”
Try asking:
“Did I achieve what this workout was designed to achieve?”
If it was a Level II endurance session, did you keep it controlled?
If it was a Level IV Threshold workout, did you execute the threshold intervals consistently?
If it was a Level V VO₂ Max session, were you able to produce quality power across the entire interval set?
If it was a recovery ride, did you actually recover?
Those answers tell you far more about your training than one number at the top of your workout summary.
Stop Chasing Average Power
There is nothing wrong with being interested in your numbers.
Power data is one of the most useful tools we have for understanding cycling performance.
But don’t allow one metric to dictate how you ride a structured workout.
Ride your hard intervals hard.
Ride your recovery intervals easy.
Warm up properly.
Cool down properly.
And let your average power be whatever it ends up being.
Because the goal isn’t to produce the most impressive workout file.
The goal is to become a better cyclist.
Take Your Indoor Cycling to the Next Level
If you’re looking for structured indoor cycling workouts that help you focus on executing the right intensity at the right time, check out Qwik Kiwi’s Velocity.
Velocity features coach-led video cycling workouts, with hundreds of sessions covering Level II Endurance, Level III Tempo, Level IV Threshold, Level V VO₂ Max, cadence, technique, recovery and much more.
You can also join the squad for two live coach-led sessions each week at 6:00 a.m. New Zealand time:
Tuesday: 45 minutes or less
Thursday: approximately one hour
And if you can’t make the live sessions, there are plenty of workouts available to ride when it suits you.
🚴 Try Qwik Kiwi’s Velocity FREE for 14 days:
http://app.vqvelocity.com/join?a=rhs956
Train smarter. Ride stronger. Execute the workout.