Asphalt Junkies Winter Edition - CLOSED (Page 15)

Oh my ..... I cant' even look my wife in the eyes anymore..... She already knows. Before I go out, I get the warning. If I'm on the computer I get the "don't even think about it" talk. I'm afraid to tell her I lost a shoe during Ragnar... my favorite Brooks Ghost 6

good luck with the power meter...

Terry congrats on your run! That is awesome.

Tony I look forward to hearing the comparison with your power meter and the virtual power I'll bet you feel like it is Christmas

I will work on getting pictures, I never thought about the handlebars being to far away.
Also can someone post the "recipe" for water in the ears? I had water in mine from Sunday that I just couldn't get out and I think it is causing me some sinus trouble. Or it is just coincidental

Talked with the trainer on the dropping the arm durin my breath stroke, he did a couple tests and thinks its mobility/ stretchablilty and strength, lots to work on but at least there is plenty of time oh and I found out the size of the pool 21.666 yards...... Who makes a pool that size? Hubby reworked all my swim workouts so they are accurate, and so I wont under swim like I did last year.

We got a good snow storm yesterday so I guess I can be done with winter now, it is supposed to warm up to 40ish the next few days and rain on Thursday hopefully we won't have too much flooding.

Joanne, sorry to hear the last bike fit introduced some issues. Hopefully you can get through that to a comfortable position. I agree with Jeff that a TT fit and road fit are quite different, so everyone pay attention, and especially if you're trying to make your road bike into a TT bike position. In that case you are really fighting against the geometry of the bike and it's never really possible to get a perfect setup. Also, make sure you don't just get a fit for the absolutely "best" position. If you're totally aero but not comfortable enough to hold the position and put out good power for the duration of the race, it's a useless position. You lose an incredible amount of gains every time you stand up to stretch and whatever, so just be sure to make the trade off between comfort/aero/power output. And the longer the race, the more the comfort variable becomes the important one.

In terms of water in the ear, I wish I had an answer. I always got water in my ears swimming and couldn't get it out, to the point I now always wear earplugs. A side benefit to earplugs is that once you get outside it somehow helps keep your warmer in the colder water.

Terry - 50 miles?!?!? Seriously? That's unreal. I wouldn't even know how to begin to approach an even like that. Awesome job gutting through. Taking on a 50k the next weekend puts you into the "I'm pretty sure he's got issues" category!

I am not even going to comment on the bike purchases. I have detailed my 2013 expenses, and it was off the charts. As they say bike stuff must be made of unicorn bones. The only thing I'm spending money on this year is race fees, which is no small amount either. There is no end to the amount of money you can spend in this sport. And don't let people lie to you - it's mostly about training, but cool bike stuff does make you faster, at least in your own mind!

I got to give the new Garmin Vector power meter a test run tonight. I had 2x20 @95-100% as part of the workout tonight. The only thing I can say about 2x20's are that they are hard and they suck. I did get through them and I even got a 30 minute run in following the bike workout.

The other thing I wanted to mention was my power numbers. So there is a huge difference between the virtual power numbers I was getting with the Kurt Kinetic bike computer and the Garmin Vector. It was like 60 to 80 watts lower with the Vector. For example my KK FTP was 272 so tonight's ride at 95-100% was a range of 258 to 272. Watching the Vector is was more like 188 to 202.

I discussed this with my friends who I ride and train with who have power meters and their assessment which I agree with is that my KK numbers are overstated and that the Vector numbers are reality. So my FTP is really more like around 200 and not 272. So it is surpirsing to see the big difference but good to know the reality, putting ego aside the numbers don't matter unless they are accurate.

I have a test week next week so I'll be able to test with the Vector and get more realistic numbers. I will say the data you get is very cool. It's the first time I can actually see what I did and when I did it from a power perspective, like did I really stay within my zone during that set of intervals? I know you guys working with power or with trainer road get to see that. I think it's very cool to have the data like that and be able to analyze what you actually did on your ride as opposed to what you thought you did.

Your race sounds like one for the books but when combined with another ultra this weekend it sounds like one for the ages, or at least one with a bottle of Advil. Congratulations!! (In advance) Once you make it through this weekend's race be mindful of getting some solid recovery before diving back into any major training plans. Big runs like that, this close together can have a tendency to add risk for injury if you don't have a good running base.

Congrats on the new purchase! Someday I'll probably splurge on some type of "power tool" but it won't be for a while yet I suppose. Although I have gotten the okay for a set of race wheels coming up soon. More on that later.I often wonder about the power numbers put out by TR and the actual power output in the real world. I have a way of checking that and making sure it's somewhat close via the "Energy Lab" at my clubs store. They have computrainers there that measure power and I can ride in there for $5 a ride for a 10 mile TT. (I've mentioned before that I've done this.) The numbers there versus the numbers from TR are really close.I will disagree with you on one point. When using virtual power or true power the number do actually matter. Any measurement of effort that is less subjective than HR is a better way to go and virtual power numbers are a tremendous tool over the inaccuracies of HR. Virtual power can provide numbers in specific zones without the compromising effects of diet, lack of sleep and so on. The effort used during the testing may not be "true power" but the baseline effort is there and the training numbers accurate to use within the parameters of quality training. I am fairly confident that you already understand this principle but with a couple of newer people to the sport and training I thought it best to make sure everyone had a similar understanding of the benefits of training with power in general.

Yesterday turned out to be a test as the day progressed I felt sicker and sicker, the power at the salon went out in the early afternoon......I thought of you Dirk there were about 4200 people who were affected by this, and it makes for an interesting day,( we seem to lose power a lot where we are) and my son needed someone to watch Gabi and that turned into a little longer than expected but that is fine by me, and by this point the whole side of my face hurt and I couldn't tell if it was the recent filling I had, my ear, my sinus or what, so I vicksed up, missed my workout and called it a day. On a great note, we were almost at 50 degrees today and after 6 long months it is looking like we have come to an agreement with the bank that will give us some breathing room, but I won't hold my breath until I have signed papers.

Tony Congrats on the new purchase! Good to know the difference with the KK, I know just with TR there's is a big difference compared to KK

Thanks Dirk. I have a pretty good running base but I'm still taking it easy. I had a nice swim yesterday and decided to put off my run until today and adjust my training program a bit to accommodate my recovery...I'll be running and easy 5-8 this evening and a 40 min spin afterwards at 95-110 cadence with no intervals.

Tony.... I'm excited about your power training.. I'll cycle vicariously through you. I have to say that i have spent considerable time looking at the Garmin and am excited to hear all about it in your posts and the improvement that will undoubtedly happen.....That's probably my next upgrade, but it wont be for a while. I'm still a relative newbie on the bike. When I get to +/-20 mph for a HIM distance I'll make the investment.

Jo. ... be careful, listen to your body ... I'm watching the weather and it looks like Dirk will be busy again with the latest storm passing through.

Dirk I didn't mean to imply the numbers didn't matter in that sense. I totally agree with you in that power is the better way to train over HR. Regardless of whether you are using a power meter or you are using virtual power I agree it is a far better metric to train with and measure your progress. What I meant to say is it doesn't really doesn't matter whether my FTP number is 272 or 200. I think it's more important to have the right numbers and work from there. For me that was a surprise and a huge discrepancy but if the lower number is more realistic then so be it. I also think it's great that you've been able to validate you're power numbers from virtual power to real power. It sounds like TR may be fairly accurate where as the KK bike computer is not. I may do that as well. One of my friends has offered one of his wheels with a PowerTap that I could use to compare against the Vector numbers. That would validate what I am seeing from the Vector. Either way it's like you said it is a great tool to train and race with.

JoAnne that's good to know about the difference with TR and KK. After what Dirk has said about his comparison in his power numbers and what you are saying here it just adds more confirmation to what I know is probably true that the KK numbers are way overstated and my Vector numbers are more accurate.

I hope you are feeling better and sorry to hear about the power loss yesterday at work. That is also great news about the banking working with you guys as well. Hopefully things will get better with that.

Tony, congrats on the purchase. Training and racing with power can be an awesome tool. But remember it's just a tool. The absolute numbers don't really matter as much as just getting the target ranges right so that your training hits the right systems and then racing is a study in planning and discipline. I'm not disagreeing with Dirk that the numbers don't matter, just that it doesn't matter if your FTP is 200 or 400, as long as it's consistently measured and you use that number to set output levels for training. I totally agree that having a power number to hit is important, and the power meter doesn't lie so if your workout says hold 180 watts, you know that you are holding 180 watts and not easing up or going too hard. All those EN podcasts are right on - it's analogous to lifting weights, where you know exactly how much to put on the bar to get the desired training results.

Another piece of advice I'd give is to maintain your awareness of how RPE relates to power, as the all too common scenario is that during a race something happens and your power meter doesn't work, or is giving you totally goofy numbers. and yes, 2x20 at FTP is nasty hard. The EN plan throws those in the middle of long rides at some point I believe - that's a study in pasin management or insanity, your choice. Otherwise known as just a casual weekend ride for Dirk!

If people are curious how power translates to speed, this site has been fairly accurate if you add in the wind and slope. You enter things like bike type, weight, wind, elevation slope, etc. and then you can put power in and it shows speed, or speed and it shows power. You can also play with the numbers and see what huge difference slope and wind make on the required power to hold a given speed, or how wit

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

And here's a cool site where you can plug in your existing rides if you have gps and/or power files and then it will try to guess how you might ride on other courses:

http://www.bestbikesplit.com/


Edited by wbayek 2014-02-19 9:16 AM

Warren, thanks for this info. I definitely want to second your words about the value of knowing your RPE. It helps me to take time to (when on the trainer) close my eyes and really evaluate how I feel.
I also like to pace by feel, with any power number hidden, and then just peek at it. or review it after the workout to find what it said. So one way is to hit an RPE and then learn the wattage of that RPE and the other direction is hit a wattage and memorize that RPE.

I went to that watt calculator you linked to and put in my bike split from Tri Indy (had to ignore any small hills the course had) and it calculated an average power of 327 Watts. Makes me feel good.

Warren thanks for the info and the feedback. I'll check those sites out and again I'm with you and Dirk on this and didn't want to mistate the importance of using power or the use of the numbers. It's like you said it doesn't matter if your FTP is 200 or 400 but having a consistent measurement of your output levels. Truth be told I'd love to have an FTP of 400 as I'm sure we all would.

I think you also bring up a great point about factoring in your RPE. I think even with power you should always take that in to consideration during your workouts and like Jeff I try and do the same thing and get a feel for my effort in the different power zones. Although I'm sure I've not acheived the zen like state Jeff may achieve during his rides. I can tell you with certainly that I have not achieved an avg power of 327 or anywhere near that like Jeff has and unlike Dirk 2x20 is certainly not a casual ride for me

2x20 isn't casual for anyone! You know the saying: "It never gets easier, you just go faster"

I suggest an experiment for everyone that has access to power values....It's MUCH easier on an ergometer...at least I think that's the right term...Anyone that rides on a CompuTrainer, use the Erg mode setting. How that works is you program in a power value, say 200 Watts and the computrainer (or other ergometer) dynamically adjusts the resistance value on a continual basis to force you to continue making 200 watts. If you slow to 30 rpm, then the resistance is HARD, sort of like a standing climb. If you spin up to 100 rpm, the resistance goes WAY down.

It's a completely intuitive feedback system to teach you how to find the most efficient pedal cadence for your body. If you have a CompuTrainer available, that's perfect. But if you have a power meter then you have to use a lot of mental effort. Hit a comfortable wattage for a while (say 80% of FTP for 5 minutes) and try to keep the power steady and note your RPMs. Then increase RPMs by 5/min and adjust gearing as necessary to maintain the same power output for another 5 minutes....then drop by 10rpms (5 rpms below original) and hold for another 5 minutes.
Note any change in perceived exertion and/or average HR over the 5 minute intervals.
Yes, HR is very, very variable...but during 1 single workout with 3 segments (and after a solid warmup) it should be more or less consistent within the context of that one workout....especially if it's on a trainer and not the open road.

My ride yesterday was similar to this it was
4 sets of 2x4-minute Force intervals at 90 or 95% FTP, and what I discovered is that I can ride at a lower cadence, keep my power the same by adjusting gears and my HR is lower and I felt good, almost like i could ride like this all day, while riding there was a screen comment that said to ride at a higher rpm it takes endurance, when I ride with a high cadence....anything over 84 is when my HR shoots thru the roof, and I become tired quick so the based on this comment I need endurance so should I add a 4th ride and spin at a high cadence say 90-100, if so how long would you suggest to start rides at? Say 45 min? An hr?....... 10 min?

OK, I'm going to go off the reservation a bit here. High cadence became truly en vogue when Lance was the king of the heap and spinning the Tour at 100 rpm. However, research over the years has shown that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to cadence.

In fact, the latest research suggests that optimum cadence is not only individualized but also seems to follow a pattern of higher cadence is optimum for higher FTP athletes. In triathlon, because we have to run after a bike, the assumption is that of course higher cadence is always better since higher cadence implies lower force for the same power (power = force x cadence). But it isn't always true that higher cadence is necessarily better FOR YOU.

Are your legs tired pedaling at 84 rpm? Do your knees or other joints feel some discomfort? Could you run effectively after a long effort at that cadence? If you are efficient at 84, maybe that's a great cadence for you. My own personal experience is similar in that I was naturally very comfortable at 85-88 rpm. As I've ridden more, that naturally efficient cadence has risen to maybe 93-95, but I never tried to force it higher and I'm not sure if the rise a natural outcome of being a stronger rider, therefore a higher cadence makes sense per the research.

That's my long answer to say I'm not entirely convinced we should all be pedaling at 95-100 or more rpm, but I do still believe there is benefit in doing some sessions with higher (and lower) cadence. I would start by adding in some higher cadence time within a 1 hour steady power ride, maybe 5-10 minute segments with a few minutes at your self selected cadence. Over time see if the higher cadence feels more natural or not.

Thanks to Warren for a great reply!

It is entirely possible that 85 rpm is always going to be the best cadence for you...but I have a suspicion, like Warren, that as time goes on you will find that you are a faster rider with a higher cadence.
So to continue Warren's thoughts a little...this will NOT mean that you force yourself to turn a faster cadence in a race thinking you will be faster. You first have to force yourself (through training) to efficiently turn a higher cadence. And then as that training progresses, your natural cadence will come up.

So, as of this upcoming race season, pick your natural cadence. In fact, feel entirely free to race WITHOUT cadence displayed on your computer.

but in training, do like Warren suggested and throw in particular blocks of time with your cadence pushed up by 5. So target 90 rpm, nothing faster. And do this perhaps during warm-up (with little resistance) and cool down (again, little resistance) just for the leg speed acclimation. Then, also throw in some harder efforts at 90 rpms...near FTP for instance. And I would say you should target 10 minutes per week to start out.
So without counting the warm up and cool down time you might spend at 90 rpm, do 10 minutes of total weekly time pushing FTP or above at 90 rpms.
And I don't care of it's 1 block of 10 minutes or 10 blocks of 1 minute. However, and whenever you want.

I have a theory why some people do slow cadence more efficiently, but I won't unleash that on anyone here until I have my thoughts together.

Let me ask you though, what size is your bike? And what length is your crank?


I think Warren is right that higher FTP athletes run a higher cadence than lower FTP athletes. There is a similar thing in running. Elite runners have a higher cadence than middle pack runners (except that people have mistakenly tried to get EVERYONE to run at a 90 cadence).
It's the same in swimming with stroke rate.

But there's another correlation. Most people tend to think that the ideal cadence decreases as the distance of the effort increases. So for Oly tris, you might be 5 or even 10 rpm higher than for IM distance.

Warren I agree with you on cadence. I know my cadence can be low like in the 80 to 90 range depending on gearing and what my effort is. I think I focus more on power and less on cadence. I think my cadence has naturally risen a little as well over time but I don't get hung up on that. I do as you say and pedal at a cadence that feels most comfortable to me.

The one thing I would question is the intervals that JoAnne was doing really shouldn't be so much about cadence or endurance IMO unless I am misunderstanding. Those shorter harder intervals are there to work and increase your VO2 max like the 4x(4x30/30)'s. Those that are a little longer are to increase your lactate threshold like your 2x10's or 2x20's for example. So I'm not sure why they would throw the cadence and endurance thing out there. When I think of increasing endurance I think of longer rides where you may be doing 75% of FTP for 30 minutes and maybe you increase that 5% every 30 minutes going to 80% then 85% etc something along those lines but as always I defer those who are more knowledgeable than I am in regards to this stuff.

I can't really answer your question about her workout plan, but I assumed the comment she saw and relayed to us just had to do with the old adage that lower cadence requires more of the leg muscles and less of the cardio system while higher cadence switches that.
So as a very fast, but weak legged runner back in my college days when I took up cycling, I tried to minimize my leg strain and maximize my high functioning cardio system.
Then when I came back to cycling after more than a decade away from cardio training, but having a lot of strength training behind me, I started by riding the big ring everywhere and going heavy on the legs.
So I would suppose that I can say that what I experienced matched the conventional wisdom there.

Good discussion on cadence, I also agree that it a personal preference but also feel you can train yourself into a different range. Late 2012 I held around 85, then over the winter I concentrated on holding a higher cadence and was able to ride comfortable between 95-100 and could actually get up around 110 with minimal issues. I have found though that if I relax and allow my body to hold cadence that I tend to slide down around 92.

I think I may try Jeff's suggestion and see what happens when I try to hold output at different levels. A lot of the cycling videos tell you to hold power but at a different cadence, normally I just hold steady.On a different note: Terry, holy Cow that is a lot of running and on consecutive weekends! I would be curled up into a little pain ball if I attempted something like that....Have Fun!

Jeff thanks that does makes sense and probably what they were referring to.

Oh man a lot of information on cadence thanks!
So don't judge and I know we've gone over this before but I have no clue on my bike size or chain length, I will figure that out this weekend...

During the ride they throw out tidbits of information so that is why the thing on cadence it didn't really have anything to do with the ride I was doing, I also remember from last year about cadence being based on the individual, and as you know I am looking to get faster (arent we all) because i have been rediculously slow in the past, so I thought spinning might be a piece I was missing, with that said although the length of the interval weren't as long as Jeff suggested there were more of them and I never felt my muscles get tired, my knees hurt etc, and I also followed this immediately with a 30 min run with no problem.....I have always trained with more weight, more power etc, so this is where I feel most comfortable, but I also am concerned that riding like that for 112 miles might not be a good thing.

Oh and by the way I re- evaluated my seat position and discovered it was at -4 so I changed it to -3 and it is much better !!!

Terry I am thinking your race is tomorrow? Good luck!

Yes, Jo. the 50k is tomorrow. Thanks.... I was able to get two recovery runs in this week and should be good to go on Saturday. Feeling pretty good this morning. I'm leaving this afternoon to attend the safety briefing and package pick up and will spend the night in Naples FL about 30 min away from the course. I'd rather get a good night's sleep than wake up at 3:30 and drive 2.5 hours in the morning of a race. I have done it in the past, I am capable of doing it tomorrow... i just choose not to. Sleep is a necessary ingredient for my race day well being


Wow.... I've been following the recent "Cadence" thread and have learned more about cycling in a few short weeks in this group than in my entire short career in tri. Simply an awesome resource. Thanks guys....