SBR "U" (Page 18)

Isn't this like the man with two watches saying ("A man with one watch knows what time it is.  A man with two watches is never sure.")  

Did 1:45 on the trainer this morning (Sufferfest's Blender video).  I can tell the bike fitness is coming back....felt much stronger today in comparison to yesterday.  Heading out for a short run later today.

Bummer.  Taking the long view, you'll be back at it soon enough, but it never feels that way in the moment.

That said, sounds like an otherwise stellar day - like the kind of day most people would remember for the balance of their life (whales from a kayak?!?).  Glad that part at least turned around. 

And my experience with aquajogging last winter for a strained hammy (continued intensity right after a HM did that one to me) was very similar to what Marc describes.  I will say that the long run did come back more quickly than if I just was doing cycling for the legs/engine (another rehab route I've taken in the past, including quite recently).  I hated most of the aquajogging, but it was effective for me.

Matt

Got through the first week of this free Carmichael training plan I'm doing.  Nice to have some structure that's a bit out of my hands.  Only realized that their definition of power ranges is a bit different though (more based off of a max 2x8' power than FTP), so the first few workouts I was doing about 10-15% lower watts than I should have been.  No wonder they felt just sort of challenging instead of really hard.  Once I figured that out though, the weekend rides felt like solid workouts.

Trip down memory lane for me.  I'd forgotten about the 8' test that he uses, but now remember that ride (very clearly, actually - gut buster) - and the run, too...  We used the Time Crunched Triathlete program for the two sprints Kim and I did when we "came back" into triathlon a few years ago.

I agree that the workouts were pretty solid.  Weakness for me was that his program worked well for sprint and OK for Oly, but I started to think about longer events and bigger base, which he expressly acknowledges took a different approach than the time crunched one. 

Have never tried his cycling specific workouts, though I have a book or two by him (for balance in my thinking about cobbling together my own "plan").  Will be interested to hear how you like it over time and what you think of the longer term results.

All in, I saw nice gains following the plan.  Glad the structure is a positive for you!

Matt

Yeah, the whales were actually from a stand up board.   Didn't get too close, just enjoyed the view from probably 200 yds or so.  It was a bit of a circus out there (it was right outside the harbor, and there have been reports for days of a mama and baby humpback, so it was quite the scene), so I let others try to chase and get close, and I just hung out to see if they'd come to me   

Aqua jogging, wow, my glutes were INCREDIBLY sore after that.  Not sure if it means I am doing it right or not, but something was firing down there.  Found a pool with evening lap swim (oddly, where I am in southern california, there are not a whole lot of available public pools without paying masters fees), and plan on going 2-3 times this week at night.  

That's because you guys don't have any water

Duathlons galore!

Got lots of water, it's all salty 

That sounds like a GREAT day, I am glad you can find the joy in other areas. It's so important.

I love the vantage point a SUP gives you. It's like walking on water. 

Did another trainer workout this morning with both PMs, VO2max this time.  The two PMs agreed within a couple of watts until I got into the higher power stuff at which point the PT was about 10-15w lower.  So, since I have the day off work due to snowmageddon, I started looking even more closely at the numbers and what I see is that the data from the PT will have 1 or 2 data points suddenly lower than those around it while the P2Max has consistent ones.  Here is an example of a 15s section

P2M    PT
359    368
358    368
362    318 <-
350    315 <-
338    338
337    346
344    357
348    325
350    326
350    328
344    346
344    346
344    346
341    329
343    312 <-
345    312 <-
338    350
346    337 - Avg

If I change those 31x numbers from the PT to 34x then the average for the PT goes up to 344.  So, I'm just going to stop torturing myself, say the PT is at fault and go with the bigger numbers.  

Admitting I haven't gone to look - is the new version of GC out that includes swim and run?

Autozero for a PT - where do I do this in my 910?  I took a look last night while on the trainer, but only found the Calibrate screen, which I do before every ride.

Well, actually she was using that PT for a few months....   when I bought the P2Max I sold a PT to a friend.  I sold him the one Tab was using because mine had a small ding in the brake track so I wanted to give him the one in better shape.  So that's what she used until I got her a P2Max.

Garmins (mine at least) used to have the option to turn it off in earlier firmware versions but they seem to have taken that away.

I wonder what the resistance from the trainer against the wheel does to the power numbers.  I remember calibrating the PT once after I had applied the pressure from the trainer against the rear wheel and it gave whacky torque values - but maybe that's just because it was stationary.

I tried the offset yesterday by stopping pedaling, but it didn't help increase my dismal power numbers...I was having a rough workout, and the legs had nothing.

But I am assuming that won't be accurate on a trainer unless the wheel can freewheel (i.e. no press on force)

All's I know with these numbers getting thrown around here and on FB is I'm gonna get crushed at Alcatraz   

Fred is switching to team Canada and part of our strategy is shock and awe...  

What's interesting about that sample is that even though at a glance the PT raises an eyebrow, they are both *really really* close in standard deviation.  Meaning the PT "lows" that you pointed out are offset by the higher end (~368).

P2M:
avg: 346.7
median: 344.5
stddev: 7.16

PT:
avg: 337
median: 337.5
stddev: 17.7

Although this is a small sample, it shows very similar accuracy.  With most folks using 3 second smoothing on the computer, the highs and lows of the PT won't make a difference.

EDIT: fixed my numbers... bad script   PT is slightly worse on deviation.

Ya, for sure!  I sat the two computers beside each other several times and the vast majority of the time I would have said they were reading the same (within a couple of watts).  It's only the overall AP and when I break it down to intervals that the differences show up.

I had an extra empty row where I pasted those numbers and it was throwing everything off.