![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#46 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 322
|
Quote:
Yes, yes, yes. You've made your little point, ok? If you find people talking in a quantitative and analytical way about cycling so very frustrating, might I suggest you take it to some other venue, where your amazing old-timey insights about the importance of smoking cigarettes to open up the lungs before climbs won't be lost on your audience? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,586
|
Quote:
Non-sequitor: the only connection between the training levels and the Performance Manager is that both are influenced by the value of functional threshold power. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
I've been at this stuff for over 15 years and I have found that using a power meter and paying attention to training at a proper intensity is one of those details that is important and I feel that it is hard to replicate the same results going by PE/HR/whatever alone. You can improve without it but the results with it are objectively better, especially when you are not new to the sport (thus considered "well trained") and are trying to squeeze the last little bit out of your legs. You seem to like to slag off things that you don't understand. To mock attention to these sorts of details, such as you repeatedly do, shows quite a bit of ignorance, IMO. Last edited by Steve_B : 17-04.-2008 at 01:46 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#49 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 89
|
Quote:
1st of all, I would like to make clear that I don´t believe that there are just 2 training zones. I just made a comment about intense and endurance training and maybe some think that I just believe in 2 zones. No, I won´t just get into that obvious argument about what is endurance training or endurance sport and what is an intense sport or intense training. Concerning the question above, and with 6 zones model (L1-L6) those riders were doing more training at L4-L5 than what they did at L2. That is maybe one day a week L2 and about 3-4 L4-L5, even with 2-3 recovery days. 3-4L4-L5 days/week is hard already for top pros...and it could be even harder to cyclists who work full time. Cheers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#51 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,601
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#52 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 442
|
Quote:
LOL .... I'm glad that someone spotted the twisted attempt at humor. Maybe it was an attempt at twisted humor or just humor that's not as twisted as it might be. If you run analysis software on a PII processor (the first batch that has the math co-processor with the floating point error) does that change the FTP to something higher than it should be. Ficticiously Tailored to Pain? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#53 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 113
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|