SBR Utopia - OPEN (Page 109)

So you don't have to worry about waking up, nice!

Sometimes I get that feeling with the shorter ones too. They're shorter, but you have to go so hard!

And now we have 3 Tuesdays in a row there has been snow. At least today is just a light dusting instead of a dump like the last couple weeks.

It went fairly well, +4w over the last test.

We are in the process of losing all of our snow.  It is supposed to be above freezing for the next 3 days and a bunch of rain as well.  It's good that we are losing the snow but I suspect it will get messy!

We had a great time riding up Mt Lemmon, awesome anniversary trip for us. I wrote more about it in my training log.

I'm on spring break now so as soon as my legs come around, I'm looking forward to getting some more good bike miles in!

This time of year is when it gets really hard to get on the trainer.  After 4-5 months of trainer rides I am ready for a dose of riding on some pavement.   We are getting another little dose of snow here the next few days and hopefully it starts to warm up some.

Playing in a hockey tournament this weekend and playoffs start in my regular leagues.  Could possibly play 6 - 1.5hr games between Thursday and Sunday.  Although I am thinking more like 4.  Probably not going to get much S/B/R done with all that going on.

Really nice job, Arend - I agree with Ben, it is the short, hard efforts that really get in my head. Especially at 5:30 in the morning - not really sure how you do that, quite frankly...

I have kind of a follow up on Ryan's question from last week: it seems like most people (myself included) use a 20 minute test to gauge increases and decreases in power. Convention says you take that number and multiply it by 95% to get an estimated 1 hour FTP, and then that estimated number is used in structuring workouts. Why not either a)Just use the 20 minute number to structure workouts (what I do via my coach's instructions) or b)Actually do a 1 hour test? I am pretty sure I know the answer to "b" which seems to make "a" that much more relevant. So in other words, why not work with a real, testable, repeatable, number (and just do slightly different math) than work off an estimate that may or may not be a true reflection of what you can do for an hour? Is there a reason that it matters?

Or c) do a 20 min test and a 5 min test and calculate/estimate critical power.    

I think from a training point of view, it wouldn't really matter which number you use.  However, if you are going to use power to race, I would think you would want to be basing off of FTP/CP would you not?  That would be a vote for a 1 hour test.  I don't think too many people would want to put themselves through that on a regular basis though and the recovery cost might be high as well?

Just speculating...

Sounds like a great trip!

Anyone here tried Hokas?  I've been running in the same shoe since I was 240#, I think I am a much different runner now and it's time to re-evaluate.  Interesting reviews in the Hokas and I seem to fit the demo well (older, heavier, etc). 

Probably don't have time to do anything before oceanside, but looking further toward Canada.

I just want to go outside. Anywhere. So close yet so far with the weather.

Well, "c" is part of it in that there are a few different protocols to estimate FTP. If you use the only 95% method, then you could just adjust all workout estimates derived from FTP off of that, but it wouldn't really change anything towards accuracy. You're just mixing up the order of the percentages some. 

The one hour test would be best, but it's harder to get it right. It would take some more rest going in and also some more recovery after. It's also quite a bit harder to pace it as well. Putting yourself in the hurtbox that long is HARD.

For a race, the values we find are just rough guidelines to help give an idea. It's in our training that we should be finding what would be appropriate for the race. Testing guides training. Training guides racing.

I like that.

Me too Arend.... whch leads me to the 64K question ....  If I am training with a CT (hence power) but don't have it to race with, and don't really have correlated HR zones, does it make any sense to continue to train with a CT if I don't get a powermeter for the road?

Me too - and thanks Arend and Ben for the insights. I was really mostly interested because I hardly ever do any formal testing. When I met with my coach today he actually pointed out that I do more testing than I know - he just buries it into different workouts over time and then assigns my training based on what he perceives to be my CP from those bits and pieces. He says he does it that way because he does not really want me "chasing a number," the sneaky bastard.

Do you know your FTP on the CT ? If so, calculate your target race pace, for example 80% for HIM. Do a 1 hour ride at that 80% and look at your HR. That would be your target HR for a HIM.

Use it in race rehearsals and up it or down it a bit based on the race rehearsal findings.

This is pretty accurate for me.

Nice, I think that is a smart way to do it.  Although the more I read about all you guys and your testing the more I just want to train by feel. 

Chris - I would, and often do, in a way, depending on the race. In sprint races I don't look at my computer at all - I just look up the road and chase everyone in front of me as hard as I can go. In Olympic races I go purely by RPE, but will watch HR just a bit at first to make sure I get it down some after the initial "escape from T-1 jack-up." In a HM, I watch power beginning to end like a hawk, and at the IM distance I will watch it very, very closely for about an hour or so, and bracket it against HR, but over time I will begin to privilege HR over power. On long races (and even rides) I have found that if I use power to moderate my effort for about an hour or so I will wind up racing from the back just a bit, but I will have a lot better day overall. So when I use power for racing the most (for longer stuff) it actually acts a little more like a brake than anything.

Nice! I strongly encourage you to do it - I tossed all of my technology away for about 3 years and wound up with some of my best short course performances ever. In hindsight it was somewhat of a game-changer for me and I think the things I learned still affect the way I approach my day-to-day training. I only got jacked back in when I decided to chase IM and hired a coach who wanted the data.

That's pretty much all I do and I really enjoy it a lot. I plan to do the same once I get into tri training. 

Hope you are able to get out there, Jason. On Saturday I did a route that was new to me that was only 37 miles but featured 4700' of climbing. Tomorrow I am headed back up to one of our regular rides (gonna catch up with some Georgia BTr's) that will wind up at about 34 miles and probably 4000-ish feet. I love climbing, I just wish I didn't suck so bad at it...