It's killing me but.......... - Page 327

Quote:

Originally Posted by An old Guy 

Just a comment on training zones.

 

Coggan defines training zones based on average power and training zones based on intensity factor. A mid level L3 based on average power corresponds to a mid level L2 based on intensity factor.

 

That is a big difference.

Defining training levels or zones by IF is equivalent to defining them with Normalized Power versus Average Power. This is a valid metric for the longer duration levels (e.g., L1-L4). I have a custom program that parses a ride by training level and I normally define L1-L4 by NP. This is equivalent to using IF since IF is based on NP. However, I use AP for L5-L7.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubsy 

Any reason your doing such short SST intervals? it takes nearly 10mins to reach a state where your primarily targetting your FTP so given your doing 3 of these I think you'd make far better progress and gains if you just extended you intervals to 20 - 40min even if you have to drop the power down particularly at the start for 10 -15min just to settle into a nice rythem then slowly increase the intesity to a point where you think you can hold it for 20+ min even if you start to feel you've over shot it all is not lost you can still continue the interval just dial it back a bit till you recover or even take a few <30'sec breaks to get you through to the finish.

 

For SST I think 20 min would be the bare minimum I would attempt and would normally do 40 - 90 min in a single interval starting at ~80% and easing my power up to a piont I think I can sustain for the duration I have in mind with a few <30'sec breaks thrown in to stretch the legs, drink etc.

Not saying you should never go hard but if raising FTP is the goal then the bulk of your training should be focussed on longer sustainable SST sessions with some higher end L4 done when you feel up to it.

If you struggle to do SST intervals longer than 12min than I'd hazzard to guess your either too fatigued to train or your FTP is set way too high.

Not trying to criticize, just seeing someone just starting out and looking to maximize their training

No special reason--it was the length of time of the workout in trainer road.  And I was watching a movie. I had planned to stack a few days, but work intervened.

Could I have done a 2x20 at those efforts?  Yes.  I've done them before. 

Sunday update: 2:30 at NP of 204.  Legs/lungs felt tired.  Dropped on the first hill and felt like I was going to hurl, so cut the ride short by 1/3 and went on solo loop just to get bike time.  TSS of 208.

(376 and 4500kj of work?  It will be awhile before I can do that and anything else in the same day (shower, eat without help).  308 and 2500 kj and I was crushed.  Seems I have a long way to go.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrumpole 

No special reason--it was the length of time of the workout in trainer road.  And I was watching a movie. I had planned to stack a few days, but work intervened.

 

Next time pop in a copy of War and Peace (8 hrs).  That will solve that problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo 

Defining training levels or zones by IF is equivalent to defining them with Normalized Power versus Average Power. This is a valid metric for the longer duration levels (e.g., L1-L4). I have a custom program that parses a ride by training level and I normally define L1-L4 by NP. This is equivalent to using IF since IF is based on NP. However, I use AP for L5-L7.

 

I do commend you on having a custom program that does distinguish between longer and shorter rides.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrumpole 

(376 and 4500kj of work?  It will be awhile before I can do that and anything else in the same day (shower, eat without help).  308 and 2500 kj and I was crushed.  Seems I have a long way to go.)

 

It all depends on how you do those miles to expend 4500KJ.

The past weekends route - courtesy of a fine lass who posted her gps data from a prior ride on the same course:

http://ridewithgps.com/trips/259539

Careful planning of feeding and pace and just tick a gear over at the designated power. If you get it right it's not too bad. If you go a little too far north on the power the end becomes a little tricky... Plan it completely wrong with false hopes and expectations then you can expect a world of hurt and a very slow, arduous ride back to the finish. I was in the second boat and decided to back off a little in the last 20 miles because cruising at 1 mph faster and risking cramp in the hamstrings really wasn't worth it for just over doing things a little. All it took was a couple of twinges to come to that desicion.

It'll be interesting to see how the next longer ride goes - same route with an extra 20 or so miles tacked on before a 5+ mile climb to the turn - a climb that I remember grinding up on the Davis Double last year. Another case of watching the power...

The general profile on this one looks a little different - but just because the big hill at the turn kinda 'squishes' the detail on the lower elevation. I'd rather it keep the detail and just have a bit at the end that says "it goes up here"

http://ridewithgps.com/trips/24005

The biggest problem for most, from what I've seen, is the desire to go fairly hard up those short, steep little inclines that you couldn't really classify as hills. In rolling/hilly country you'll come across countless little rollers like that and on a long ride you'll ride over lots of those. Resist the urge... Sure get out of the saddle and keep a gear ticking over but keep an eye on the power meter. It's very easy to spend 30 seconds to a minute at, or just above threshold, before you realize what's going on and on a long ride that's not going to help your cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by An old Guy 

 

I do commend you on having a custom program that does distinguish between longer and shorter rides.

It was a surprisingly complex analytical problem. Sounds simple until you get into it and start dealing with all the possibilities. In hindsight, I would say the biggest single problem was bad or missing data from PT hubs. BTW, I have yet to see any bad or missing data from SRM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by An old Guy 

Just a comment on training zones.

 

Coggan defines training zones based on average power and training zones based on intensity factor. A mid level L3 based on average power corresponds to a mid level L2 based on intensity factor.

 

That is a big difference.

1. They're called levels, not zones (and for a very good reason).

2. Your 2nd statement that I bolded above is false.

Just curious Andy, what is the reason they're called levels and not zones?

Quote:

Originally Posted by acoggan 

1. They're called levels, not zones (and for a very good reason).

 

2. Your 2nd statement that I bolded above is false.

1) Not really. You wrote "To help meet this demand, built directly into the WKO+ software program are a series of power-based training levels, or zones." A Google search will provide the source.

2) If I sit on my trainer and ride at a constant 83% of FTP: I have an average 83% FTP and an IF of 83%. My statement follows from the 2 papers that appear in the search. I will leave the details to the interested reader.

---

It seems you keep stumbling over your own words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by An old Guy 

1) Not really. You wrote "To help meet this demand, built directly into the WKO+ software program are a series of power-based training levels, or zones." A Google search will provide the source.

 

2) If I sit on my trainer and ride at a constant 83% of FTP: I have an average 83% FTP and an IF of 83%. My statement follows from the 2 papers that appear in the search. I will leave the details to the interested reader.

 

There are several different power-based training schemas and some of them have overlapping ranges (e.g., Ric Stern's zones overlap). Andy's schema defines levels and each level is discrete. The primary implication of using AP or IF to categorize an effort is that one is based on AP and other is based on NP. For this reason, it is quite possible to have an effort that falls within a different (higher) level based on NP compared to the classification based on AP (e.g., L3 at AP and L4 at NP). It will never be the other way around (e.g., L4 at AP and L3 at NP). The question becomes which metric best captures the intensity of the effort (AP or NP). I typically use NP for my L1-L4 efforts and AP for the other efforts. This approach never results in a conflict as to classification of an effort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo 

There are several different power-based training schemas and some of them have overlapping ranges. Andy's schema defines levels and each level is discrete.

My post was to in defense of Mr. Coggin resorting to making false claims. It was directed to him and him alone.

---

Actually the terms L1 (Z1 or recovery), L2 (Z2 or endurance) ... are simply markers on a continuum. There are no ranges. The markers tend to blend into each other.

If you want me to critique your methods, I charge more than you would want to pay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by An old Guy 

 

My post was to in defense of Mr. Coggin resorting to making false claims. It was directed to him and him alone.

 

---

 

Actually the terms L1 (Z1 or recovery), L2 (Z2 or endurance) ... are simply markers on a continuum. There are no ranges. The markers tend to blend into each other.

 

If you want me to critique your methods, I charge more than you would want to pay.

No thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampy1970 

 

Why didn't this surprise me?

You appear to be almost as smart as acoggan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampy1970 

 

Why didn't this surprise me?

Try the search without the quotation marks.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by An old Guy 

You appear to be almost as smart as acoggan.

Since you've proven yourself on several occaisons to be as dumb as a box o' rocks, I'll take that as a complement. Given Andy's work - I'll definitely take it as a complement...