or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Training › It's killing me but..........
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's killing me but.......... - Page 328

post #4906 of 6845
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post


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.


1. A Google search will also reveal that was the first, last, and only time I drew that parallel. The reason (to answer swampy1970's question) is that, for many people, use of the term "zones" implies that one should tightly constrain their power to a narrow range, something that is not only difficult to do, but likely counterproductive over the long run. (Note: this is a point I've made many, many, many times before....as again, even a cursory reading of my writings would reveal.)

 

2) That would be, by definition, a level 3 ride*. Because it was done on a trainer, though, the IF was a bit lower than is typically the case, i.e., 0.83 (not 83%) instead of the more typical 0.85-0.95. 

 

*Also from the article you mentioned:

 

"While the system is based on the average power during a workout or interval effort, consideration must also be given to the distribution of power. For example, average power during mass start races typically falls within level 3, but races are often more stressful than training at level 3, due to the greater variability (and therefore higher peaks) in power. Similarly, due to soft-pedaling/coasting, the same average power achieved during a hilly ride or group training session will not reflect the same stress as the same average power achieved during a completely flat ride or solo workout. In part, the variability in power is taken into account in defining the various levels, especially levels 2 and 3 (training at the higher levels will tend to be much more structured, thus limiting variations in power). Furthermore, there is obviously an inverse relationship between power output and the duration that power can be sustained. Thus, it is axiomatic that power during shorter training sessions or efforts will fall towards the higher end of a given range, whereas power during longer sessions or efforts will fall towards the lower end of a given range. Nonetheless, a workout consisting of, for example, 30 min of cycling at level 1 (as warm-up), 60 min of cycling at level 3, and another 30 min of cycling at level 1 (as warm down) would best be described as a tempo training session, even though the overall average power might fall within level 2."

 

 

post #4907 of 6845

Attempted 2x20 L4.  Despite fan going full blast in face, didn't have it. RPE through the roof.  Hips incredibly tight--could feel adductors on the upstroke.

First 20 at 214, second 20 stopped about 12min through.  Several thoughts, among them:
1. HTFU.  Practice more.

2. If it's warm outside (50 or higher), indoor intervals need to be shorter and the whole session can't be more than an hour. (what do you guys think of this if heat is an issue?)

3. The session was not a waste as it was 55 min with an if of .83.  (Only 60 TSS though.).  

4.  It's seventy today.  I may have to go for a run if I don't get home in time to ride before dark.  Too hot for the trainer tonight. 

post #4908 of 6845

hrumpole,

 

I'd give your quads, hamstrings, external hip rotators and hip flexors a good stretch if you're feeling tight on the bike. I wouldn't stretch much before getting on the bike but on nights that you don't ride I'd do some long gentle stretches.

 

1. HTFU (if you're referring to 'harden' as being the H) is all well and good but sometimes you just need to back off a little and relax and slowly ramp up the effort. If I'm having an off night I'll usually back off the effort 20 to 30 watts, hold it there for a few minutes to relax and drop it in a smaller spocket (bigger gear) and slowly wind it up and concentrate on relaxing and find that "grippy" point where you're in L4 but staying somewhat relaxed is difficult. While you ultimately don't go as hard as you'd planned, I generally find that I'm more productive on a bad night this way. YMMV.

 

2. 50 isn't that warm. Heat is always an issue though. When I was in England I'd train in the garage at the end of our yard when it was freezing out and I'd start the session with a couple of layers on top and thermal leggings on. The tops came off - the leggings stayed on... as did the fan. Tonight I did a split indoor and outdoor session. Got an hour in on the road (it was a nice night 70F when I left - 60F when I got back) and then another 40 minutes on the trainer. Big fan = the win.

 

3. A training session is never a waste. It might not be as productive as planned.

post #4909 of 6845

Swampy-

50 is not that warm. But that's the max temperature -outside- in order for it to be bearable inside.   I could move to the patio (and may try that a few times later this spring if it's dark).  Have not tried that yet, but it seems like it might be reasonable.  Usually, it's in the high 60s indoors even with the window open.  (We have old radiators for heat that I'm reluctant to mess with).

 

This weekend:

Sat: 2:45 @NP 194.  Felt like I was dogging it but it was COLD.  40 degrees, 20 mile wind out of the north.  An effort.  Took an hour to be able to pedal from the hips instead of just slamming down.  (Still tight).  

Descents sucked.

 

Sun: 1:05 on tri bike.  No power (too lazy to switch the wheel over), and just wanted to get out for fun as it was 65 and sunny. HR in tempo/threshold.   Felt good.  Noticed that the rotated position gives the illusion of a much smoother pedal stroke and better delivery of power.  Some (mild) upper back soreness.  

post #4910 of 6845

Glorious  weather.  1:44 at NP of 205.  Tried intervals (2x15, 2x5) but too many lights/ too much traffic for the longer ones.  Still, 2 good climbs (1.2 miles each) plus rollers.  

post #4911 of 6845

Great weekend weather--out both saturday and Sunday.  Sat: 1:12 @ NP 205; a couple of intervals (2x15) but too many folks on the road to really hammer.  More fun than anything else.

 

Sun: 3hrs, 205--30 min peak NP @ 238; 60 min NP 222--without really hammering, and with a st paddys day hangover.  These are both PRs.  

post #4912 of 6845
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrumpole View Post

Great weekend weather--out both saturday and Sunday.  Sat: 1:12 @ NP 205; a couple of intervals (2x15) but too many folks on the road to really hammer.  More fun than anything else.

 

Sun: 3hrs, 205--30 min peak NP @ 238; 60 min NP 222--without really hammering, and with a st paddys day hangover.  These are both PRs.  


It sounds as though you have bumped up your power-duration curve across the spectrum. I think if I were you, I would begin to spend as much time as possible at 225W.

post #4913 of 6845

I hear and obey--

Yesterday: 90 min outside

2x15 @222, 220, pus 3 min at AP 260.  Second 15 could have been a 20.

Although the averages were right, the second was much better paced I think.  I have to learn to hold back for the first 7-10 and then let it rip on the last 7-ten.  The graphs show a lot more variability than on the trainer, where I felt like I could just find the zone and drill it.

 

Unfortunately, weather looks to be crap this weekend.  

 

post #4914 of 6845

Total ride time: 1 hr 5 minutes.

felt hot and humid--not ready for that yet.

1x15 @ 220.  Second 15 did not feel good (felt like I was going to hurl) so went for 30 min @ tempo/sst (NP 201).  

post #4915 of 6845

1 hr 21 min @ NP 224.

2x15 (220, 222), plus 5@234 (leg opener).  Plus a few good climbs.  

IF .90

tough ride, but improvement definitely showing.

 

 

post #4916 of 6845
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrumpole View Post

1 hr 21 min @ NP 224.

2x15 (220, 222), plus 5@234 (leg opener).  Plus a few good climbs.  

IF .90

tough ride, but improvement definitely showing.

 

 


I think that's right on the button. And, you don't need to do more than this.  I'll bet that if you do an FTP ride in about a month you'll find that you have raised your FTP by at least 10 watts, perhaps as much as 25 watts.

 

post #4917 of 6845

5@235, then 2x15 (225, 215).  (Second interval interrupted by one-lane bridge traffic light--had to take bike path and back way off)  NP of ride=209.

 

 

post #4918 of 6845

2 rides this weekend (No intervals on the weekend): 

2:40 min @ NP 190.  This was actually a good thing, as it was done with an eye-bleeder of a hangover, and but for the fact that I was going to meet a friend at 730am to do  it, would have stayed in bed.  Initial bouts of nausea aside, this was really encouraging as earlier this winter there was no way to do this route without having it be pretty challenging.  The bonus was that this same buddy (who is in much better shape generally) picked up the Coggan/Allen book during the winter holidays and asked me if I had lost my mind.  At the end of the ride, he admitted that he mistakenly thought that the "computer stuff was bullshit."  

 

1:44 @ NP 209.  (Tri bike).  New PR for that particular route, which included stoplights, 2 good size (1 mile and half-mile hills), slowdowns for traffic etc.  Plus it was fun to pick up a train in the park.

 

post #4919 of 6845
Quote:
Originally Posted by acoggan View Post


1. A Google search will also reveal that was the first, last, and only time I drew that parallel. The reason (to answer swampy1970's question) is that, for many people, use of the term "zones" implies that one should tightly constrain their power to a narrow range, something that is not only difficult to do, but likely counterproductive over the long run. (Note: this is a point I've made many, many, many times before....as again, even a cursory reading of my writings would reveal.)

 

...

 

0.83 (not 83%)

 

...

 

While the system is based on the average power during a workout or interval effort, consideration must also be given to the distribution of power.


Most people understand that level and zone are as interchangable as "." and "%". If you want to insist that they are not, if appears you only need to edit one paper in one location.

 

You continually make unproven (and refuted) claims about power and training.

post #4920 of 6845

acoggan ----

 

While you are making the edit suggested above, you can remove the stuff about TSS being best understood as glycogen depletion (or whatever).

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling Training
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Training › It's killing me but..........