By power, with power. What's the difference?

I've read about training with power which is good and training by power, which is bad.

I'd like to know why training by power is bad? If watching your PM and slavishly trying to stay in zone is wrong, why do we bother having zones at all?

Surely the point of an interval is to try to stay in the zone which stresses the energy system you are targeting. If I'm doing a L5 interval, isn't the entire point that I stay above FTP by 5 or so per cent but below 120%? If I don't train 'by power', aren't I wasting my time?

I realise the zones aren't rigid barriers between one system and the next, but the zone indicates where you're getting the best bang for your buck.

Training with power and by power surely go hand in hand? Seems to me you can't have one without the other - train by power when out on the road doing the work, train with power when you're at home analysing and planning future workouts?

Obviously a race or group ride is a different kettle of kilojoules, but if you're training solo should you not be watching what the readout says so you are getting the best workout possible?

Otherwise we're taking a backward step, surely?

These statements would suggest to me you already intuitively understand the difference.

__________________
Custom Training Plans -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Power Meter Hire in Australia

I think you have overly narrowed the concept of training with vs by power. I prefer to think of training with power as the condition of using power to enhance training. In contradistinction, training by power is training constrained by power.

Example:
1) Using an imagined FTP to construct training levels, then constructing an interval workout based on those levels, then beating one's self into submission to hit the numbers dictated by the levels (which are descriptive, not prescriptive). Training by power.

2) Constructing a workout, riding it to the best of your ability to complete all of the intervals without a significant power decline, then using that workout's results as the basis for your next workout. Training with power.

You may, in both cases, have been monitoring your CPU to stay "on target" during your intervals, but the context is different in each case.

There are certainly more examples than the above. How about this one: (especially once TSS is more widely available on CPU screens) doing a ride and continuing on just to hit a TSS number?

__________________
Steve Palladino

http://www.kp.org/mydoctor/steve_palladino

http://eteamz.active.com/FightinBoba...=24&id=4591042

and to continue that theme of using the PM to enhance training, training with power also means utilising the tool for a whole range of benefits beyond simply how hard you happen to be riding in an interval or on any given day. Some examples include:

• performance management/modelling
• aerodynamic field testing
• assessing the neuromuscular demands for various types of events (e.g. through quadrant analysis) and designing training that is specific to your targets
• performing testing appropriate to your needs (e.g. understanding power profiling) and augmenting training accordingly
• assessing time trial pacing and investigating strategies for optimal pacing

__________________
Custom Training Plans -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Power Meter Hire in Australia

Graham,
Steve and Alex's posts sum it up nicely, but I think the advantage of 'with power' vs. 'by power' depends a lot on the individual and how literally they approach their daily training.

Sure it makes sense to have a plan when you leave the door each day for systems you want to stress and often goals for specific interval intensity and duration. Glances at the PM can help you stay on track with those goals. But becoming a slave to the numbers can be a trap for folks that take it too literally and don't allow for the tough days when everything feels harder or the great days when we can push ourselves harder than expected.

In the extreme 'by power' or prescriptive training case how do you account for those days when the legs don't quite have it and you can't sustain xxx watts for the target duration? Do you just call it quits and go home (might be the best thing)? Or do you ride a solid RPE effort guided where possible by rough power targets but allowing for those days and get say a solid high Tempo effort where you'd planned for pure L4?

What about the other case where you feel great and the target power is no trouble. Do you hold back in fear of exceeding the upper limit of your target zone? Again that could make sense but do you adjust workouts based on what's actually happening and what fits into your overall weekly plan or do you stick with the exercise prescription come hell or high water because the meter says you shouldn't go harder?

Sure I look at the PM all the time while riding, but it's quick checks to see how I'm doing vs my expectations not strict adherence to the defined power levels. Sure you can use the PM during rides as much or as little as makes sense, but the 'by power' or 'prescriptive' trap is becoming overly hung up on the immediate numbers and losing sight of the big picture training goals or allowing for days where things are better or worse than expected. Stay flexible and adjust as needed and the two approaches really do converge as you pointed out.

Anyway I like Charles Howe's quote on RPE and power:
"Power calibrates PE, PE modulates power"

And pretty much use that in training and racing. I'll set off on say a 20 minute L4 interval, glance at the PM for pacing at the start and then more or less ride on PE till the time's up. The more I ride with the PM the less I actually look at the numbers until I get home. The warning to avoid training 'by' power is generally offered to folks who seem to think in terms of strict power 'zones' reminiscent of HR based training with its implied smoothing and slower response times.

Anyway, I agree they're not black and white distinctions and it's not like I tape over the power line on my PT display. The big difference IMO is philosophical more than practical. Do you try to strictly adhere to predefined power target zones while out on the bike or do you go out planning to target specific physiological systems, do what you can do and use the collected data to evaluate the quality of your work and to help plan your future work?

-Dave

I know I didn't ask the question but it kinda feels relevant to me. Being pretty newish and all to this power training.

You could say I tend or maybe try to train somewhat like point 1 in Steve's post. I have read so many threads and comments on this website who say 'power is power'. There was this monster thread here about an older guy who wanted to raise his threshold power and most of the advice was good, I think, but also a lot of no pain, no gain - let your legs go numb and keep going, etc. Kind of indicating that many people, allegedly I suppose, let mental blocks keep them from pushing harder and to the point where they get fitter, faster. I don't wanna be someone who stays perpetually slow or less fit because i'm not training hard enough or pushing.

So how do you know if you are doing it right? Meaning, how do you know you are honestly going hard enough without, like Steve said, beating yourself over the head?

I look at the power display a whole bunch. Maybe since i'm new or not tuned in to rpe, if I don't look at it while doing intervals, especially inside on the trainer, then I tend to see a drop in power. It happens outside too but I guess you guys possibly are more focused and with experience you learn to do that? Or maybe this is just the way that threshold intervals are and that they require a lot of concentration.

By scheduling performance tests where you really do go "all out" to find out how much you really do have in the tank.

__________________
Custom Training Plans -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Power Meter Hire in Australia