Increase your Cycling Power over the winter = Faster times on 2009 (Page 20)

This is what I have been doing as well and it makes following a defined workout like these alot easier.

I also have the Garmin speed/cadence sensor on my bike and it makes it possible to do these workouts using estimated power instead of heartrate.  I just convert power to speed using the data provided by the manufaturer, and plug the speed range into the Garmin.  CycleOps and Kurt Kinetic have information on the power output at different speeds, but information is available on the web for many other traner models and some rollers as well.  The power is approximate and not really useful for comparing to others (unless they have the same trainer) but as long as you set up the bike and trainer consistenlty it gives you consistent numbers to use in your training.  I've even created a plugin for the Sporttracks application that I use to analyse my Garmin data that wil create a power profile based on the data from the Garmin speed/cadence sensor.  I'm working on adding more trainers and rollers to the plugin so it will be more useful and will eventually publish it on the Sporttracks plugin catalogue.

Zia_cyclist - do you have the speed/cadence sensor and if so what model of trainer do you use?  I might have seen speed/power data for it.

D

First, Thanks Jorge!!  I finished wk 4 Q2 this morning and I'm already feeling stronger!!

I have a question for the WU.  You have 10 min @55-65 (I think) and the (5)30x30 @ FTP x @ 55-65 (roughly)   Sorry, I can't give exact numbers because I can't access your blog from work.

Anyway, my question is....Can I do say 5 min @ 55-65 then (5)30x30 then 5 min @ 55-65 before doing the Main set?  Or, is there a physiological advantage to doing the 30x30 last and then going right into the main set?  <==Hope that all made sense.

herridge - that is very cool.  I've just started to plug a couple of my workouts into Sporttracks just to see what it will give me.  I'm riding a Tacx i-magic, so I get the power data from the trainer and them import the .hrm file. 

But - I don't have a powertap or equivalent, so my question to you, is there any kind of plugin that will help figure out power while riding outdoors?  Obviously it becomes much more difficult to calculate since there are so many external variables.  I was just wondering if you know if it's possible.  (I ride with a Garmin 305).

There is a plugin - it calculates power using known formulas taking into acount wind direction and speed, slope, tire rolling resistance, weight, riding positions, etc.  I have played with it a bit, but I'm not sure I place much value in the output - just to many variables.  One day I would like to rent or borrow a Power Tap or similar and field test the results of the plugin to see how close the plugin comes, and how much bariability there is from ride to ride between the plugin and the PT data.

The plugin is called Power for Cycling or something like that (can't get on the SportTracks website right now) and is written by a guy who goes by the name of "Old Man Biking".  He has written some very nice SportTrack plugins, I am just skeptical of all the variables involved.

David

edit: found it - teh plugin is called GPS2PowerTrack

Jorge's Blog with all the required info:

http://jorgepbmcoaching.blogspot.com/2008/11/winter-cycling-plan-notes-and-how-to.html

 Good luck with the shoulder.  Hope you can start this soon - it is fun

D

If you don't mind, I may be lurking around and incorporate some of this in my winter training.

AO, Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

Later

I have a Kurt Kinetic Road Machine.  I have the power formula for it in a spreadsheet.  I use it to calculate my power for tests. 

Question - power is power, right?  If I'm riding at 200 watts on the flats, or 200 watts up a hill, my output is the same, so my level of exertion will also be the same.  Is this right, or is it in fact harder to maintain the same power as the gradient increases?

Thanks

Gang,

By posting at the watts/Kg thread on tri talk I realized I might have been a bit unclear on some of the info I’ve provided on this thread. I’ve tried to keep things simple so you guys have a basic understating of what we are trying to accomplish and for you to just do the work, get fiitter and better! However as a coach I am also concerned that all of you get to learn about training concepts accurately so you don’t get confused or get misleading with info from other sources. After all we already have plenty of misinformation floating around tri-websites, books, magazine articles, etc.

Anyway just a FYI - the critical power model wasn't created nor used by Andrew Coggan. Dr Monod and Scherrer on 1965(1) actually developed the Critical Power model which describes the work/time relation and allows you to separate between aerobic and anaerobic capacity. Using this model you can compare different efforts for different durations and calculate the power that you could maintain for a longer period of time given your current fitness level.

A Coggan on the other hand developed the functional power threshold concept (or FTP) which is the power we can generate for a 1 hr maximal effort. Other coaches such as Hunter Allen co-author of the training with a power meter with A Coggan has taking this FTP concept and popularized it on his site Training Peaks and is the main proponent for estimating your FTP of a 20 min maximal effort and use the 95% of that figure which many of us have used at some point. However it is my experience (and that of other coaches) that his method can overestimate FTP and misled athlete on training decisions. The reality is that the best way to get your true FTP s by doing a 1 hr maximal test, however this test is rather challenging and most AGers will have trouble repeating this test through the training plan.

Monod’s Critical Power Model however allows us to get a fairly accurate estimate for our 1 hr power (or longer distance). As you experienced, these tests while challenging are easier to accomplish by most AGers given the duration are short enough that most will actually do it but long enough it allows getting good data.

The reason I've used the concept FTP it is because athletes have learned to equate FTP with 1 hr work capacity. I should really be more concise and suggest using (call it) Critical Power 60min instead of FTP given that we obtained our estimate via shorter effort (5 and 20 min tests) and using the CP model  and we should only call it FTP if you were to do a 1 hr all maximal test. But as long as you understand where each concept came from I will continue to use is the way we have simplicity purposes. IOW CP60 or FTP are obtained in different ways for us in the context of this plan, it means the same = the power we could sustain for 1 hr going all out

Let’s just say the above info is a disclaimer to avoid for you misusing the terms in the future and then blaming me (justifiable) for teaching you that. Now you know

But it's so much easier just to blame you ... 

Actually I just posted a quick thank you on the other thread for the info, being new to power, and on the 2nd reading through of "training with power" I know I'm missing bit's and pieces of info.  reading threads where a couple of knowledgable people are asking each other what they mean by certain terms, and how those terms apply to training is a HUGE help. 

Thanks again

Week 3 Q1 20 minute test done  20 minute Watt avg 216, lower then what I thought I could do.  I rode the big ring and was going between two gears on the back so 52/15/17.  That's what testing is for, to get a baseline, to improve on.

I also wore the HRM tonight and seen my rate was 167 at the end of the 20 minutes.  I did have a "oh this sucks" moment at 9 minutes, but got over that.

Looking forward to the next session.

Joe

week # 5 is up! http://jorgepbmcoaching.blogspot.com/

I'll catch up with Qs soon

Gregkl - Yes that difference seem normal, LTHR for the bike tend to be 5-10 bpm lower than on the run so it seems you had a good test and you now how a solid benchmark to work on!

GoFaster – yes a watt is a watt. If you can generate ‘x’ FTP, then you should be able to hold it for the same duration however terrain does plays a factor. The reason for that is that training is all about specificity, hence while you should be able to hold your FTP for 1 hr for a flat 40K TT, it might be a bit tougher to do so for a hilly TT even when producing the exact same power because your legs might not be as adapted to do steady long climbs, or adapted to handle variability terrain, etc. Hence if you are doing a flat IM like FL it will better (specific) to do long rides at your IM power on flat terrain  or if doing LP it will be a good idea to train on climbing and long descents, while for CdA it will be wise to train  on rolling terrain.

Rencor – yes it is ok to do a longer warm up to get your legs going as long as you ca compete the MS without any issues.

If I missed a question please remind me!

I did Week 5 Q1 last night (5 minute sets) and my HR definetly rose as I went through the sets.  The power remained fairly constant throughout, but I saw my HR going up.  It was nowhere near the power tests which saw my HR in the high 170's, but I definetly was feeling it (not sure how I would hold this CP for 60 minutes at this point).  For what it's worth this is how the numbers looked.  160 is where I figure I cross over from Endurance into Threshold for HR zones.

Neil

(Week 5 Q1.jpg)

Micawber – as long as you are riding at your know power (i.e. 95-10% of FT) then what your HR does as long as it is on the ball bark of your usual sessions is not very relevant. There could be many reasons for your HR leveling off (or plateau) and even none of them could be directly related to the work done on your muscles. Also, it might be that you are getting fitter and you are able to produce the same amount of work (power) at a lower HR.

GoFaster – the same applies to your observation about your HR and how it breakdown as your sessions progresses and intensity increase or duration gets longer. It is rather normal to see a HR trend on your workouts; in general many times for the first few sets HR avg can be lower of your actual LTHR even though your power is right on the money all the time (at your FTP). Then as you get to the middle of the session some intervals will be right on the money for both FTP and LTHR. Finally as you move through the session and you get to the last intervals your LTHR might even be higher but you are still riding right on the money for your power. The point, while HR can be a good estimate for effort, when doing intense sessions it gets trickier to rely on it as HR is a reflection of cardiovascular strain and not necessarily the strain we are generating on our working muscles which is what matters the most to us.

The take away for this is: if you are training only by HR, then be aware that you need to pay lots of attention to RPE to get the right workout as your HR while eventually will get in the right ballpark it can take a bit for it to get there due to the limitations a HR provides. As long as you are aware of this and adjust properly it can be a great training tool.

For those training with power and also tracking HR, well you can do so for fun and information purposes but you should rather focus on power and RPE primarily. Because as you get more and more data from different sessions you will begin to notice that the power meter will always give instant feedback, you are either generating the power you are suppose to or not. No guessing, just real live data of what your muscles are doing, HR OTOH might be giving you similar information or not.

I just wanted to say that Q1 & Q2 both made me think...Uh oh... when I was about to do them.  While they were both challenging I did well and I know it's due to getting back into bike fitness.

W00t! Go me!

Jorge

I finished the test tonight.  I have a 216 & 254 for my averages.  I used your spreedsheet and came up with 208 as my CP60 number.  I am a bit confussed or questioning my results.

I have been riding higher then that on the rides up to this point.  Tonight for the 25 minute ride after the test I rode in the 200-210 range for the time.  I am not sure if screwed up the test ride or if I am actually trying to ride to hard in the other sessions.  I do start out stronger on some of the sessions and fade, so maybe I am answering my own question.

I did gear up to the big ring on the test and I usally ride on my middle ring for the rest of the sessions.  I thought my cadeance was slower, could this have screwed my results.

Or am I overthinking this and need to SUAT

Joe

can you post your graph/info?

Well I did my 1st test and while I am happy I completed it and now I have a baseline to start building upon, it was also kinda depressing to see how much my power has dropped. Today my 20 min maximal power was 250w and at 142 pounds it gives me 3.9 W/Kg ratio.

To give you an idea when I was in great cycling shape in September 2007 when I had my best season cuz I was able to train consistently throughout the year, my best 20 min power was 285w and my weight was 138 pounds for 4.5 W/Kg. In March of 2008 I still had solid fitness and my then 20 min power was 275w just. Right after that I battled all year with weird ankle/Achilles injury (weird cuz it came out of the blue and many sports MDs couldn’t never figure it out). My last 20 min test I did this year was on September and my 20 min power had dropped to 263w.

So as you can see my 20 min power has been like the stock market dropping badly due to the injury, inconsistency and lower training. Anyway, today 35 watts lower of my best 20 min test, I am eager and determined to get back in shape and hoping my weird injury behaves, then I might have a chance to have a kick 2009!

We’ll do 5 min test on Friday…