Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012 (Page 11)

Just to put out my benchmark (tested on trainer inside w/ch always gives me hugely lower W's than being outside, use same bike w/quark power meter): 

5 min power: 143 avg. HR, 274w, 3.65 w/kg

20 min power:  144 avg. HR, 231w, 3.08w/kg

w/ch translates to a CPin watts: 208 absolute, 2.77 w/kg

I too am only human compared to some of the #'s being posted.   Strange thing is my HR is too low.  I run tempo runs at 150-155, so for some reason never got my heart rate up to that during these tests.  Maybe I am holding back some. 

Sure it's reasonable.  You could increase much more then that...or much less then that!!  It all depends where you really are right now---did you come into the program at a high level or had you been off the bike for a while?  It also matters how experienced you are at testing---as has been mentioned you "learn" to test well/better.  I think 10% is a reasonable goal to shoot for though for the most part--of course because there are different phases of the plan and testing goes with each it's a little easier/better (?) to have smaller goals for each block and then adjust as you go....

Ultimately I don't know the answer, but this sounds about right.  My LTHR is 10 bpm lower for the bike than the run.

Thanks, did Austin in late Oct (although not a great ride).  Took a week off and then started the program.   Your comment about learning to test is spot on.

As for HR, my HR on the bike is always much lower than running but than maybe I just don't push hard enough.

Did day 2 of week 3 tonight (20 min test was last night) and definitely feeling it.  Also doing a HM program and am going to so enjoy the pain.

Testing complete -- good news is my power increased from several months ago when I last tested; bad news is the workouts just got a lot harder.

I had a few of questions looking forward in the plan on some terminology (sorry I couldn't find this on the plan description page) --

Is the average power for the 20 minute test abbreviated as 20MP in the plan (e.g. day 36 week 6)?

FT is the abbreviation for 95% of the 20MP correct?

If a % is specified without indicating what it is a percentage of, should we use FT or 20MP?

Ahhhh yes the famous Jorge 20 min power sets....  YES use your 20min power for the 5x4' on day #36....you'll see a few of us have mentioned similar sets Jorge has used in the past---you repeat these sets each week where you hold your 20min power for the first 4 and then the 5th you bump up a couple watts and use that for the next week---so by the 3rd or 4th week you are bumped up around 10watts each repeat................OUCH!!

Not me.  My max HR during the 20min hit 179, and my avg was 173.  This is Z4/5 for me running, and is where I expect my HR numbers to fall during this type of test.

So, my 2 cents - you didn't push hard enough, and you have to be willing to suffer a bit more.  I've been doing Jorge's course since he put the initial version on BT, and you certainly have to learn to suffer.  If you thought you could go another minute by the end of the test, you haven't gone hard enough.  I'm basically ready to fall off the bike at the end.

If you were going just by HR, you'd know that you could do more to get the HR rate higher, and in a range that matched with your expectations.  So keep an eye on HR next time and if it seems low, even though power seems high, try and push a bit harder - ** There's always the chance that you blow up, but you kind of need to run that risk a couple of times to get a good idea of what you can really do. ** 

Last year I started the program at 3.07 watts/kg and finished in Feb at 3.5 watts/kg, with a 15% increase in CP. (It improved a bit more over the next couple of months as I kept doing the program even after it finished).

Testing complete!  Done on my trainer with a powertap

20 minute test - 243 watts - 2.52 W/kg

5 minute test - 303 watts - 3.14 W/kg

CP - 223 watts - 2.21 W/kg

Mathmatically I understand while you CP drops with a bigger difference between you 5 min and 20 min test but was is the physiological reasoning?

In the most basic terms - the higher your 5min power in relation to your 20min power, the lower your endurance/stamina/ability to hold closer to those higher numbers over a longer period of time (i.e. an hour).  What you'll likely see over the next few months is an improvement in both numbers, hopefully with a narrowing of the numbers showing you can not only generate the higher wattage, but do so for longer.

Do you using just a trainer and then following TR?   The numbers on TR for me just seem too high.   I use TR in conjunction with my ibike, but get drastically different numbers.

There's a lot of talk referenced to Watts/Kg.  How good is it to use this as a score relative to other people?  Obviously if my watt/kg score is 3.29 and person X's watt/kg score is 3.29, we won't have the same speed on the same course.  Why is this factor significant?  Is it just a personal measure of progress with respect to weight and wattage?

It is a better predictor and gives a little more information than pure Watts.  It will tell a lot about how a person climbs as well since this is very much power to weight releated.  You could have a person with a 300 Watt FTP.  Which would be good for somebody at 80kg but not so much for somebody at 100 kg.  Watts/kg helps with that. 

Watts/CdA would be better than Watts/kg but it's much tougher to get the CdA value.  Weight is usually also related to the A in CdA.  Somebody that weighs more will likely have a larger frontal area than a lower weight rider.  

With Watts/CdA on a flat course, your can pretty much calculate how fast you can ride at a given power.  With Watts/kg you can compare to other riders and guestimate how fast you may be able to ride a course.  Again, it's not as accurate as Watts/CdA but it is a better predictor than just Watts.

Just to avoid confusion - don't weigh your bike when figuring out your watts/kg. 

To josnowash's point, you have to consider the aerodynamics (cda), not just your pure watts/kg (pure cyclists would look at watts/kg more than TT/Triathletes).  There are plenty of AG Triathletes that post "okay" wattage numbers, but really fast bike splits, simply because they have an excellent position on the bike.  Obviously, this means that for long course racing if you can optimize your position on the bike you can conserve some of your power, and leave more for the run.

But to the original question, watts/kg also gives you an idea of where you fall (very broadly) in terms of current ability against other cyclists.  Treat it like a bit of a measuring stick.

Yeah, I understand the concept completely.  However, you cannot assume that two people will have similar drag.  That's really not the only variable either.  I can buy into the idea that for a hill climb it would be a good indicator...

I think it's the fact that it's a BETTER indicator than Watts alone.  As you know, it doesn't tell the whole story.

First time doing this program.  Did the 20 min test last night on a KK trainer and KK computer and got an average of 290.  That seems high to what I am seeing on here considering that I would say I'm not a strong cyclist and the bike is a weak leg.  Thoughts?  Because its not a "true power meter"?  I guess as long as Im using same apparatus, inflated #s won't make a huge difference?  Also I noticed most of you guys are talking about your meters changing 1 or 2 watts here and there.  My readout on the KK usually falls or rises between 5-10 watts without much change in RPE at times.

thanks!

Just curious.  How much do you weigh?

As long as the number is repeatable, then for the sake of the program and any training that you do on your trainer the number doesn't matter too much - the key is repeatability (so as mentioned before, always make sure the tire is the same, PSI the same, tension on the wheel the same).

As for the comment about the wattage swings, I typically see anywhere from 10-20 watts fluctuation on my PT, but when I'm talking about 1-2 watts during the test, this is watching the average rather than current watts.

Wow, I'm posting a lot today...

 I have a file from a test that came out to be 290W (see second lap).  Check it if you're interested.  YOu can see the average speed and power.  Quite a bit different than the formula.

http://connect.garmin.com/splits/87918367

I started the training last year without a power meter.  In my experience, it is relatively accurate at "lower" power levels.  At "higher" levels, I think it becomes less accurate.

Here are some numbers from a couple of today's intervals.

Speed / KK Watts / Powertap Watts   

18.4   /   219W       /    198W   /  10% Higher with KK

19.7  /    253W      /     225W   /  12% Higher with KK 

23.4 /     374W     /      330W   / 13% Higher with KK

I started last year without power and I was excited about the numbers.  When my I got my powertap, I was hoping that it was broken but I don't think it was.

However, it is still a valid training method.  I made considerable gains last year using the Watt estimation on the KK.

The way I look at watts/kg, I'll be faster at the same cp when I'm 20 pounds lights.  I might even be more areo dynamic but thats for a different thread.

Wishing good luck and good racing to everyone at IMAZ this weekend.

Best Regards,

Your final 90 seconds was amazing.  Nicely done.