Other Resources Challenge Me! » Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012 Rss Feed  
Moderators: the bear, kaqphin, tinkerbeth, D001, k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 33
 
 
2012-01-23 3:44 AM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Extreme Veteran
532
50025
Northampton, UK
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
Week 12 day 1 of the HR version  (3x10' (3' @ 68-73%) @ 100-105%) is painful!


2012-01-23 9:04 AM
in reply to: #4002262

User image

Veteran
249
10010025
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
I've been thinking about this post quite a bit lately as I'm attempting to do something very similar, although I'm only starting week 7 of Jorges plan today. I've really only come up with two thoughts on the matter.

1) Perhaps you are running too hard. I did Finks plan back in 2009 and if I remember correctly, these should all be easy runs, no intensity at this point. None of these runs, save maybe the weekly long run, should be taking much of anything out of you.

2) Maybe it's a matter of scheduling Jorge's workouts a little better so you are as rested as possible. Make these the priority and schedule your other workouts around Jorge. Running on tired legs isn't the worst thing.

Those are my thoughts, not an expert by any means. But having gone through Fink's program, I think you'd be much better off working in the intensity now.


japewang - 2012-01-20 3:59 PM

Question for Jorge and others:

Well, its finally caught up to me.  I'm on week 8 of Don Fink's IronFit plan for IMCDA.  I was replacing the weekday bikes with Jorge's plan (I'm on week 10) and the past two weeks, my power has been falling on the interval rides.  I just don't know that I have the fitness.  Should I, 

A) Continue the plan just knowing full well that my power numbers may not show progress due to the extra load I'm taking on during the IM plan.

B) Scrap Jorge's plan knowing that I at least got 10 weeks worth of gains and fully focus on the IM plan.

Thanks all!

2012-01-23 1:37 PM
in reply to: #4004428

User image

Extreme Veteran
759
5001001002525
Villanova
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
powerman - 2012-01-22 12:08 PM
japewang - 2012-01-22 6:07 AM
powerman - 2012-01-21 10:49 AM
japewang - 2012-01-20 2:59 PM

Question for Jorge and others:

Well, its finally caught up to me.  I'm on week 8 of Don Fink's IronFit plan for IMCDA.  I was replacing the weekday bikes with Jorge's plan (I'm on week 10) and the past two weeks, my power has been falling on the interval rides.  I just don't know that I have the fitness.  Should I, 

A) Continue the plan just knowing full well that my power numbers may not show progress due to the extra load I'm taking on during the IM plan.

B) Scrap Jorge's plan knowing that I at least got 10 weeks worth of gains and fully focus on the IM plan.

Thanks all!

Which days are you doing? A;ll 3 week days and no optional 4th? It was mentioned doing only 1 and 2 for less intensity. Do you take recovery weeks?  Nothing wrong with taking one when needed.

I'm doing the 1st and 2nd days with a long ride on the weekend.  Tell me more about taking a recovery week.  I certainly know what you mean, but I'm curious about recommendation about application.  Both Jorge's plan and my IM plan (IronFit) are pretty well spelled out.  Are you suggesting I just throw in a random week that's recovery off plan?  Take a week off of Jorge's plan to do easy bikes and then come back in where I left off?

thanks!

Ya, that was the "less" intense one. Or leave off the optional long ride.

I am not the guy you want to be taking expert advice from....

Last year I tried to stay on programs and what ever... now people that have been doing this for a while don't seem to take "recovery" weeks, they just alter things a bit. So I do my running plan and now this plan and I will adjust depending how I feel and if I am feeling run down then I will take it easy for a week to recharge. I don't plan on "recovery weeks", but I will need to recharge from time to time.

This plan is "cycling specific" but for triathletes... so if you need to cut back or rest up because of your running, do so... you could just substitute one of the beginning weeks as a recovery week since they were sort of short and easy. I don't know how much help that is, take it for what it's worth.

Thanks for the thoughts.  I don't think I want to scrap the long ride, as that's one of the core workouts in the fink plan and my A goal is to certainly complete IMCDA.  I'll tinker around with moving the days around, but since my A goal is the Ironman, I may just take what I've gotten at this point from the Jorge.

2012-01-23 1:39 PM
in reply to: #4005591

User image

Extreme Veteran
759
5001001002525
Villanova
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
bertgwen - 2012-01-23 9:04 AM I've been thinking about this post quite a bit lately as I'm attempting to do something very similar, although I'm only starting week 7 of Jorges plan today. I've really only come up with two thoughts on the matter. 1) Perhaps you are running too hard. I did Finks plan back in 2009 and if I remember correctly, these should all be easy runs, no intensity at this point. None of these runs, save maybe the weekly long run, should be taking much of anything out of you. 2) Maybe it's a matter of scheduling Jorge's workouts a little better so you are as rested as possible. Make these the priority and schedule your other workouts around Jorge. Running on tired legs isn't the worst thing. Those are my thoughts, not an expert by any means. But having gone through Fink's program, I think you'd be much better off working in the intensity now.
japewang - 2012-01-20 3:59 PM

Question for Jorge and others:

Well, its finally caught up to me.  I'm on week 8 of Don Fink's IronFit plan for IMCDA.  I was replacing the weekday bikes with Jorge's plan (I'm on week 10) and the past two weeks, my power has been falling on the interval rides.  I just don't know that I have the fitness.  Should I, 

A) Continue the plan just knowing full well that my power numbers may not show progress due to the extra load I'm taking on during the IM plan.

B) Scrap Jorge's plan knowing that I at least got 10 weeks worth of gains and fully focus on the IM plan.

Thanks all!

I suppose I could be running too hard...that said, I'm within the HR zones for the Fink plan, and I FEEL like I'm running at a slower pace.  I think I'll go another couple of weeks of trying to strategically place Jorge's bike days to optimize my rest.  If it doesn't work, so be it.  Not the end of the world as my A goal is IMCDA, but certainly want to be as fast as possible.

thanks!

2012-01-23 2:01 PM
in reply to: #4005591

User image

Extreme Veteran
759
5001001002525
Villanova
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
bertgwen - 2012-01-23 9:04 AM I've been thinking about this post quite a bit lately as I'm attempting to do something very similar, although I'm only starting week 7 of Jorges plan today. I've really only come up with two thoughts on the matter. 1) Perhaps you are running too hard. I did Finks plan back in 2009 and if I remember correctly, these should all be easy runs, no intensity at this point. None of these runs, save maybe the weekly long run, should be taking much of anything out of you. 2) Maybe it's a matter of scheduling Jorge's workouts a little better so you are as rested as possible. Make these the priority and schedule your other workouts around Jorge. Running on tired legs isn't the worst thing. Those are my thoughts, not an expert by any means. But having gone through Fink's program, I think you'd be much better off working in the intensity now.
japewang - 2012-01-20 3:59 PM

Question for Jorge and others:

Well, its finally caught up to me.  I'm on week 8 of Don Fink's IronFit plan for IMCDA.  I was replacing the weekday bikes with Jorge's plan (I'm on week 10) and the past two weeks, my power has been falling on the interval rides.  I just don't know that I have the fitness.  Should I, 

A) Continue the plan just knowing full well that my power numbers may not show progress due to the extra load I'm taking on during the IM plan.

B) Scrap Jorge's plan knowing that I at least got 10 weeks worth of gains and fully focus on the IM plan.

Thanks all!

I suppose I could be running too hard...that said, I'm within the HR zones for the Fink plan, and I FEEL like I'm running at a slower pace.  I think I'll go another couple of weeks of trying to strategically place Jorge's bike days to optimize my rest.  If it doesn't work, so be it.  Not the end of the world as my A goal is IMCDA, but certainly want to be as fast as possible.

thanks!

2012-01-23 6:44 PM
in reply to: #4006303

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
japewang - 2012-01-23 12:37 PM

Thanks for the thoughts.  I don't think I want to scrap the long ride, as that's one of the core workouts in the fink plan and my A goal is to certainly complete IMCDA.  I'll tinker around with moving the days around, but since my A goal is the Ironman, I may just take what I've gotten at this point from the Jorge.

Ya, there is no way around having to do the long miles. Seems to me my focus this year is about proper intensity.... last year I was running too hard and cycling too easy. Running takes it out, cycling doesn't. All my runs are easy. Just volume. The Barry P 3,2,1. And now that I'm doing it I can run every day and I understand pace so that I can get my weekly miles in, not a killer work out or a PR and be wiped out for 3 days.

With Jorge's plan... I'm loving the intensity. It does not wipe me out. I can still run and I'm ready next workout. So I don't want to skimp on the higher intensity or the long rides... in a century you will need both. I plan on doing a full this year too in July and that is the plan for now. Get my threshold up, bike easy on the ride, have the volume to do the run.... not get injured in the meantime to be able to train. Sounds easy enough...



2012-01-23 8:41 PM
in reply to: #3983272

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
billycairn - 2012-01-11 5:04 AM

Jorge

I've read in the past that once you know your FT in watts you can just dial that number in for a race and keeping as close as possible will deliver the best performance you can manage. Does the same apply for heart rate?

Now I know my FTHR can I keep that number in mind and aim to maintain my heart rate at or near for the duration of the race (Olympic, so the numbers from the cycle programme are roughly correct) and achieve the same result?

 

Thanks

Sorry, just catching up:

yes, in theory it works the same. In practice it can be a bit more challenging because HR can be affected by variables external to the work done in your muscles. Hence, HR is not a measure of muscle strain, more a reflection of how hard your heart is working due to a particular stimulus. That's why a lot of athletes experience a higher than normal HR during a race, or after coffee, or when dehydrated, or when getting hot, or after a bad night of sleep, etc. 

So, practice your target during race simulations and make sure to account for daily HR variations. 

2012-01-23 8:47 PM
in reply to: #3991817

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
Anton84 - 2012-01-15 6:05 PM

How much of the CP/FTP gains carry over throughout the season?  I will finish the program in March and then will start specific training for Ironman Wisconsin.  The program is working great and I see great improvements now.  Should I expect my FTP to drop as the season progresses (since I will be doing mostly aerobic training), or does it stay pretty steady?

Thanks!

Any training adaptations we develop are more or less a use it or lose kinda deal. i.e. if you increase your VO2 max power but then stop doing sets near it for a long period of time, most likely it will drop. Same with CP, if you increase it but then ignore it and focus only in say steady state rides (~75% CP) it will drop.

This makes training challenging if you are racing long distance events; the good news is that if you understand this and follow a periodirized training program, you can focus on improving all this (VO2, 20MP, CP, Tempo) during the general phase, and then, maintain those by doing a workout of those every 10-14 days and the rest you can focus on the specific needs for your goal event.

i.e. if training for IM, you can do VO2, 20MP, CP training often during general phase and little steady/tempo. Then during the specific phase you can do a VO2, 20MP or CP every 10-14 days and the rest more specific doing more tempo and certainly long steady state rides.

Does that make sense?

2012-01-23 8:49 PM
in reply to: #3990751

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
rsmoylan - 2012-01-14 8:31 PM

Holy buckets, as my mom used to say.  Here are my results:

20 min power was 303/ now 305 watts.

5 min power was 334/ now 358 watts. (4.67 w/kg)  I guess the ceiling has been raised.

Jorge,  My CP has dropped about 10 watts.  I understand the why.  But my question is if I can do the workouts at the higher CP value, should I do them?  Or, would I get more benefit from lowering my CP and doing my workouts with the lower value?   

you can test using the higher CP value but listen to your body and based on the sessions adjust accordingly. 

2012-01-23 8:50 PM
in reply to: #3991223

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012

Cavemann - 2012-01-15 10:10 AM Would be awesome if the whole winter cycling program was setup on trainerroad, as opposed to just the 6 week.....

Just to be clear, the program on TR is not the same as this as the winter program is not property of BT. That said, the 6 wk program on TR while a variation, is a great way to improve your 20MP.

programs to address your 5MP, CP and endurance are coming!

2012-01-23 8:55 PM
in reply to: #3992838

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
powerman - 2012-01-16 10:37 AM

My question is what are we working on with the long rides? I'm learning this stuff about VO2 and CP. My running is on hold so now I am going to ride the 4x a week till I can get back to that. I did the long ride yesterday. I'm just week 2 but did 2 hours watching the game. The workout was 70-75-80%... that was pretty easy and I was not tired so I basically did about 85% for 1.5 hours.

My question is what are we working on? What is the range I want to stay in for the long ride? And I am realizing this year it's about the weekly work load not blowing out a killer workout.

what are you training for? usually on long rides since you will longer, you can ride at lower intensities and this will result in different adaptations (i.e. increase muscle fiber fatigue resistance). For those training for IM, perhaps a ride on the 70-75% range will be very race specific. This might seem easy once your improve your CP, still, you need to run 26.2 after that. 

That said, I sometimes have my athletes do some of their long rides at 'faster than race' pace or something like 5hrs @ 80-85%CP to achieve different adaptations. on race simulations, I have them do 70-75%CP but then I have them do a longish intense long run.

You can really play with it in so many ways, the key is to do enough within your 'own' limitations to avoid doing too much or too little. 

Right now, the 'long' rides are a bit on the easier side as the rest of the workouts during the week are rather intense. This is assuming most athletes are also doing swim/run. If you are not, then you can do your long ride longer or more intense.



2012-01-23 8:56 PM
in reply to: #3999615

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
rsmoylan - 2012-01-19 11:45 AM

MRDAVIDALEXANDER - 2012-01-19 12:31 PM Day 40 of HR plan doesn't make sense to me. Can someone clarify the main set? 20' at 2min 95-105%???

20' as 2' @ 95-105% + 10' @ 70-75% 

I think that's a typo.  I think it should read.  Ride for 20min. as 2min @95-105% and 2 min @ 70-75%.  So you are alternating.  2 min hard/2 min easy.  

correct, sorry!

2012-01-23 9:00 PM
in reply to: #4000230

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
cstoulil - 2012-01-19 4:04 PM

Jorge,

This may have been asked before, but I haven't read all 20 some pages yet, but will be when I can.

Anyhow, I' looking at starting the program Mon along with the free HIM plan. I have the HIM plan modified to fir my schedule along with your plan. Would it be ok for me to just drop it in place of what it calls for on the HIM plan, most weeks only have 3 days for bike, most weeks maybe 60,60, 90+ so that I think will work well with your plan, but does add a session which I don't think will be a problem, just extra bike traning.

 

My question was in regards to recovery weeks though, your plan while it does have a recovery week, they are still fairly high in effort, but reduced on the long ride. The problem I was wondering about though is it will not line up with the recovery weeks of the HIM plan. The HIM plan is weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16 for recovery, and yours are 6,10, and 15.

Even if I did wait to start your plan to make 8 from the HIM plan line up with 6 from yours, I t still would be thrown off with the extra week you have at the end, instaed of 14 in your being recovery, it is 15.

So should I sweat it? Or just start at the same time and call it good, even though I'll still be going fairly hard on the bike during my recovery week for the HIM plan, if anything I guess I could just cut your long bike to an hour on those weeks, and extend the long bike on your recovery weeks.

Hope it makes sense with me flip flopping talking about your plan vs the other.

well it depends. I am not familiar with the BT HIM plan but as with anything, what will work for you will be based on how much training you can handle (fitness), how it is affected by life (work, family, etc) and how fast your body recovers. 

So, you can test this on the 1st part of the plan and do the bold portion above. if that works, then you are good, but if you need more recover, make the sessions easier/shorter.

2012-01-23 9:01 PM
in reply to: #3989991

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
Anton84 - 2012-01-14 8:34 AM

Test 2 (Week 7) done!  20 min test was pretty good, 5 min test was pretty tough, my average power dropped a bit in the last minute, so will need to work on pacing.  Also for some reason started coughing pretty hard after 5 min test (may have something to do with an open window and really cold temperatures outside)

Here are the results!

5 min @ 319W (vs  4 min @ 313W test 1)

20 min @ 255 (vs  20 min @ 240W test 1)

CP 234 - 2.98 W/kg (vs 222 - 2.83 w/kg test1)

Feel there is some progress ... 2 tests to go to reach my goal of 3.45 w/kg

Happy training!

awesome!
2012-01-23 9:04 PM
in reply to: #4002262

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
japewang - 2012-01-20 3:59 PM

Question for Jorge and others:

Well, its finally caught up to me.  I'm on week 8 of Don Fink's IronFit plan for IMCDA.  I was replacing the weekday bikes with Jorge's plan (I'm on week 10) and the past two weeks, my power has been falling on the interval rides.  I just don't know that I have the fitness.  Should I, 

A) Continue the plan just knowing full well that my power numbers may not show progress due to the extra load I'm taking on during the IM plan.

B) Scrap Jorge's plan knowing that I at least got 10 weeks worth of gains and fully focus on the IM plan.

Thanks all!

Hi, I am not familiar with Don Fink's plan but if you are struggling to get the workouts done then yes, the workload might be a bit much. Not knowing what are your weaknesses, it might be a good idea to drop one workout and maybe just do one assuming cycling is your limiter? if that is too hard, perhaps sticking to the plan you are following it might be wiser. i hope I could give you better advice, but not knowing the plan it is tough.

2012-01-23 9:05 PM
in reply to: #4003595

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
dtrimmer - 2012-01-21 5:33 PM

Finished my 2nd test today. I felt good for the 5 min test. The 20min test on Tuesday was another story!  However, very happy with my progress to date...

Test 1.  20min  274w  w/kg 3.0          5min  302w  w/kg 3.3

Test 2.  20min  292w  w/kg 3.2          5min  339w  w/kg 3.7

awesome, keep it up!


2012-01-23 9:11 PM
in reply to: #4007173

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
JorgeM - 2012-01-23 7:55 PM
powerman - 2012-01-16 10:37 AM

My question is what are we working on with the long rides? I'm learning this stuff about VO2 and CP. My running is on hold so now I am going to ride the 4x a week till I can get back to that. I did the long ride yesterday. I'm just week 2 but did 2 hours watching the game. The workout was 70-75-80%... that was pretty easy and I was not tired so I basically did about 85% for 1.5 hours.

My question is what are we working on? What is the range I want to stay in for the long ride? And I am realizing this year it's about the weekly work load not blowing out a killer workout.

what are you training for? usually on long rides since you will longer, you can ride at lower intensities and this will result in different adaptations (i.e. increase muscle fiber fatigue resistance). For those training for IM, perhaps a ride on the 70-75% range will be very race specific. This might seem easy once your improve your CP, still, you need to run 26.2 after that. 

That said, I sometimes have my athletes do some of their long rides at 'faster than race' pace or something like 5hrs @ 80-85%CP to achieve different adaptations. on race simulations, I have them do 70-75%CP but then I have them do a longish intense long run.

You can really play with it in so many ways, the key is to do enough within your 'own' limitations to avoid doing too much or too little. 

Right now, the 'long' rides are a bit on the easier side as the rest of the workouts during the week are rather intense. This is assuming most athletes are also doing swim/run. If you are not, then you can do your long ride longer or more intense.

Thanks again. Easy enough. I have pretty much made up my mind to do a full this year, just have not pulled the trigger. And a couple of centuries. Just taking a break from running to fix something should be back at it next week.

I will stick to the program and see how I progress.



Edited by powerman 2012-01-23 9:13 PM
2012-01-24 1:47 PM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

New user
8

Willamette Valley Oregon
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012

Finished test two last week.  I started late and then will ill for three weeks in December.  I repeated week four before moving on.  Anyway...

20 MP

Test 1 - 249 Watts

Test 2 - 250 Watts

5 MP

Test 1 - 264 Watts

Test 2 - 278 Watts

 

My non-improvement on the 20 MP test could be attributed to two reasons. The first is that the training plan has been focusing on increasing my VO2 Max. 

Another possible reason is one a friend of my put forth. I started this training program right after finishing the Furnace Creek 508. I trained very hard for The 508, so it could be that my Critical Power is at a level that only specific training will increase it.

Now on to the feared 6x4s. 


2012-01-24 3:38 PM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Extreme Veteran
541
50025
Colorado
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
I've just finished my first 20 minute test - late to the party, but hurting just the same.

I notice that for the same input values, the spreadsheet for 2011 gives a different number for CP than the spreadsheet for 2012. 2012's number is lower by quite a bit. Any body know why this is the case? The 2011 spreadsheet has locations for 3 tests, with the last one zeroed out. Was that one trying to run the regression through (0,0)?

-Kirk

2012-01-25 5:50 AM
in reply to: #4007162

User image

New user
40
25
Chicago
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
Yep, thanks Jorge!
2012-01-27 7:09 AM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Extreme Veteran
821
500100100100
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012

I can't wait to do my second test!

I am about two gears down at the same cadence!!!!



2012-01-27 10:35 AM
in reply to: #4008742

User image

Extreme Veteran
541
50025
Colorado
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
KirkD - 2012-01-24 2:38 PM

I've just finished my first 20 minute test - late to the party, but hurting just the same.

I notice that for the same input values, the spreadsheet for 2011 gives a different number for CP than the spreadsheet for 2012. 2012's number is lower by quite a bit. Any body know why this is the case? The 2011 spreadsheet has locations for 3 tests, with the last one zeroed out. Was that one trying to run the regression through (0,0)?

-Kirk




So I just finished my 5 minute test - I didn't realize how much harder it would be compared to the 3 minute test. What a difference 2 minutes makes.

Back to my original question: my 20 minute test gave 228 watts average, and my 5 minute test gave 267 watts average. If I plug this into the new v4.0 spreadsheet, I get 215 watts for my CP. If on the other hand I go back to the v3.0 spreadsheet, I get 225 watts for CP. And, yes, I adjusted the interval time on the old spreadsheet from 3 minutes to 5 minutes. The difference is definitely due to the fact that on the previous spreadsheet the regression used is forced to go through (0,0) while the new one is just the slope between the two points. This explains why on the new sheet you will always see an r-squared of 1.0.

This may come across as being WAY too nit-picky, but 10 watts difference in CP translates into from 6 to 12 watts difference in my target training numbers, which seems a lot. I'm not familiar with the origin of the equations, but should the regression be forced through zero? Should I just go with the higher number and therefore work harder? Any ideas?

-Kirk



Edited by KirkD 2012-01-27 10:37 AM
2012-01-27 10:41 AM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Elite
7783
50002000500100100252525
PEI, Canada
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
I just plugged your numbers into the spreadsheet I used from v3.0 last year and got 215 for CP.  GoldenCheetah gives 215 as well.  Maybe your spreadsheet has an error in it's calculation?
2012-01-27 10:44 AM
in reply to: #4014200

User image

Extreme Veteran
541
50025
Colorado
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
axteraa - 2012-01-27 9:41 AM

I just plugged your numbers into the spreadsheet I used from v3.0 last year and got 215 for CP.  GoldenCheetah gives 215 as well.  Maybe your spreadsheet has an error in it's calculation?


Thanks for checking. The only difference with the two calculations is the 3-point regression in the old one in which the line is forced to include the origin. I'm just curious if that is technically the correct thing to do or if it actually doesn't matter.

215. ugh. I have a long way to go.
2012-01-29 9:30 PM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Veteran
249
10010025
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
Finished the week 7 testing yesterday. 20-minute test up 22 watts, 5-minute test (which nearly killed me) up 20 watts. FTP up 22 watts. Just in time for 6x4's. Joy. I really shouldn't have looked ahead to week 8, I may not sleep tonight.
New Thread
Other Resources Challenge Me! » Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012 Rss Feed  
 
 
of 33