Power levels question:

flapsupcleanup

I was just staring at the graphs in CP and noticed that I have spent more time in AC than in TE, TH, or VM. This is over the last 3 weeks (since I got my PM). Now, about half my riding has been with groups, where there is little choice as to how hard I go. On the other days, I vary between easy rides, interval work, and climbing work. Also, due to having a life I generally can ride only 4 days a week so there is plenty of recovery time. But I'm just making up my training plan as I go along. Should I purposely spend more time in those other zones?

RapDaddyo

FWIW, I'll tell you how I use that chart of time by training level. I have a weekly goal of cumulative time in L4-L6, with a target distribution of time between those levels. I don't really even consider the percentage distribution of time by level, so in effect I just ignore the time spent in L1-L3. Currently, I try to get 5 hours total in L4-L6, with a preferred distribution of 50%/30%/20%. I don't enjoy going out and doing pure intervals, so I get most of my minutes in L4-L6 by pushing the pace on climbs and upwind on my solo rides, plus going to the front and pushing the pace frequently in my weekend group rides. If I began to see a higher percentage of time in L6 than L4 or L5, I would probably take a hard look at my FT setting and consider increasing it.

flapsupcleanup

Thanks, RD. Good thoughts as always. You may be onto something there with the suggestion of increasting the FT number. The one I plugged in there now was based on my estimate of what I could put out for an hour. Then, a couple of weeks ago I went out with the express purpose of riding at that power level for an hour to see if my estimate was good. I did that, and was pretty tired at the end, but certainly was not exhausted. I also know that a very small increase in power for an hour (~10W) makes a huge difference in fatigue. Maybe I could have managed another 10 or but I doubt I could have done another 20W. However my original guess resulted in a max IF of 1.04 in a real pressure cooker group ride which seemed reasonable to me. Bumping the FT up 10W brought that IF down to .99 which didnt seem right. So based on all that, I thought the original FT guess was ok.

But when I look at the power levels the way you do, that is ignoring L1-3 I found that in 3 weeks, I have spent 35% in L4, 21% in L5 and 44% in L6. There seems to be an inconsistency somewhere. Or maybe I'm just different.

I was going to attach a thumbnail of the graph, but I cant figure out how. How did you do that? I can get the graph into the clipboard, or into Paint, but cant make it a thumbnail.

RapDaddyo

Trade secret. Just kidding. I use a cool little $40 product called SnagIt http://www.techsmith.com/products/snagit/default.asp. I capture the screen and save it as a JPG, downsize it to 700 x whatever (proportional to original image) so it'll be accepted as an attachment here. Another option is to print to pdf if you have the full-blown Acrobat (but most people just have Acrobat Reader). I'd go with SnagIt, because it's the most powerful tool I know of to capture screen images and use them in other programs.

RapDaddyo

If this pattern is the result of intervals, I'd say you're doing a bunch of short duration L6 intervals. If the pattern is the result of group rides, I'd say you have a bunch of long, steep climbs. It's pretty hard to get this much L6 time unless you do a lot of short intervals.

acoggan

As I've mentioned before, I don't think "time in level" means all that much when looking at powermeter data, because it doesn't tell you how long each foray into a given power level actually lasted. This is why the chart you're looking at isn't one of the default charts in CyclingPeaks.

RapDaddyo

Yes, you're right and I realize that and have always realized that. I just use the chart to summarize the time I've spent in the course of a week in what I consider the important training levels L4-L6. In my actual training rides, I use an informal 90%MP rule. I have a pretty good idea of the duration of each push and I also have a pretty good idea of my max power for that duration. I just crank it up to ~90% of my MP for each push. Because my standard high-intensity training ride encompasses a wide range of push durations from ~2 mins to ~25 mins, I get in a pretty good mix of L4-L6 intervals without doing repeats (which I find boring). This doesn't apply as well to group rides where I can't control my power/duration combo as much. So, I separately track my M-F time by level versus my weekend time. I guess it comes down to managing versus summarizing my power/duration mix. I only use the chart to summarize, not manage.

flapsupcleanup

Ahh....Andy, the light comes on. Much of my riding is in pretty fast groups, and a lot of the time I end up near the back (I know, I know) where you get whipsawed all the time. Very hard for a few seconds then coast, repeat, repeat. This large amout of time in L6 is mostly from a zillion mini intervals. I dont know how beneficial that is.

RapDaddyo

Yeah, that's the problem with group rides. I know that I mentally at least discount all time spent "sitting in" regardless of the pace. The only time I consider real training is climbs and when I go to the front for an extended pull. This issue is never discussed, but I think an argument can be made for riding with a group in which one can go to the front often. I've been riding with a group for the last several months with whom I can go to the front whenever I want and for as long as I want, especially uphill and upwind. There are a couple of groups out here that ride at a considerably faster average pace and I would be sitting in or hanging on much of the time, at least initially. While I'm sure these rides would be closer to race-pace and my NP would be significantly higher (e.g., +30w), the nature of the L5 and L6 time would be as you describe, short bursts. I'm debating in my mind which of the two group rides would be more beneficial from a pure training perspective. Of course, I could probably construct a M-F workout plan that took into account either group ride scenario. I would just look to the weekend rides for different contributions to my weekly goals.

Rideastrong

This is the reason i no longer partcipate in group rides. I found it actually hindered my physical training. Group rides helped with my bike handling, confidence in riding in groups, and meeting new freinds, but other than that i found no benefit to group rides.

asgelle

I don't follow the logic in this. If I ride at the back of a group where my average is at or slightly above threshold just sitting in for 20-30 minutes, shouldn't that be at least as effective as doing a set of long threshold intervals solo or at the front of the group (which for all practical purposes is the same as riding solo)? Wouldn't there be the added benefit of being more specific to the speed/inertia of actual races?

frenchyge

I think you'd have a hard time sitting in with a group where you were riding near threshold power at the back of the group. If they're that much stronger (that they are riding in the wind while you are at threshold sitting in) than you are, then 1 little hill and it's sayonara. If you can hang with a group over a small hill or two, then you're probably way below threshold on the flats.

asgelle

I love it when people tell me how my rides went without being there. Just so you know what I'm talking about, I'm specifically referring to Hwy 85, Corrales Rd., and Coors north of the overpass. I think you'll agree there are no bumps, much less hills on these roads. Also given the evidence of riders at the front rotating through very quickly and riders at the back getting dropped one-by-one after a few minutes, I'd say the evidence is there that the pace is puting people near or above threshold.

But what about my original question: why should this type of training be so inferior to solo riding that it "doesn't count"?

frenchyge

I don't recall telling you how *your* ride went, I recall trying to explain the logic in Rapdaddyo's statements per your question. He specifically mentioned uphill sections, so you can forget about wheel-suckers being towed along at their threshold power on his group rides for the reasons I tried to explain above.


You're not talking about the same kind of group ride that he is, so his statement wouldn't apply to your ride experience, now would it?