My Example Cycling Peaks Workouts

tuney said:

All

I've decided to put some of my training rides on the web so you can see what i've been up to.

I'm writing a training diary for my team.

There isnt much content there as yet as its a very new site.
You can download the files from the following page(at the bottom):

eliteriders.ccDefault.aspxOpen ↗

Please use the download link to save the file.

No sarcastic comments yet please... its a work in progress :eek:

Oh and some of the details are incorrect, e.g. Weight,Threshold and Max HR. Im just a bit lazy updaing them!

Are you lazy updating them in your own CPS? It is critical to have accurate threshold values if you plan to use TSS.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Nice looking site.

Steve

Steve McGregor said:

Are you lazy updating them in your own CPS? It is critical to have accurate threshold values if you plan to use TSS.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Nice looking site.

Steve

Thanks Steve, Very good point.

Well I wouldnt say I'm totally lazy, my threshold(320) is based upon a MAP test I did about a month back (495w kingcycle / 435w powertap last min average) so I need to wait for my next one to reset this, or do a 20min test soon. To be honest I'm pretty certain its well over 330.

My Weight is about 77/78Kg at the moment.. yes I am a bloater (>16% bf)!

My Max HR is 196 from the max test, but as I don't use it I didn't update it, to be consistant, Ive just updated my details.

Thanks for the push in the right direction!
Chris

tuney said:

Thanks Steve, Very good point.

Well I wouldnt say I'm totally lazy, my threshold(320) is based upon a MAP test I did about a month back (495w kingcycle / 435w powertap last min average) so I need to wait for my next one to reset this, or do a 20min test soon. To be honest I'm pretty certain its well over 330.

My Weight is about 77/78Kg at the moment.. yes I am a bloater (>16% bf)!

My Max HR is 196 from the max test, but as I don't use it I didn't update it, to be consistant, Ive just updated my details.

Thanks for the push in the right direction!
Chris

No problem. It just seems to me, if you're going to use CPS, the TSS tool is invaluable (if you know what to do with it), and so you need to keep that updated because FT is integral to the whole system (IF/TSS). OTOH, if you're just monitoring power and using CPS to record things for you, then it's not as big an issue.

Take care
Steve

tuney said:

my threshold(320) is based upon a MAP test I did about a month back

If you're basing your functional threshold power in CyclingPeaks on the results of an incremental exercise ('MAP'😉 test, then I wouldn't worry too much about trying to keep it very up-to-date. I say this because there's already some imprecision introduced as a result of assuming functional threshold power occurs at some fixed percentage of MAP, and any 'slop' in estimating functional threshold power is squared when calculating TSS. (The same limitations apply when using a constant factor to derive functional threshold power from the average power from a short, i.e., 20-30 min, TT. IOW, to get maximum benefit from TSS - e.g., to use it to plan your training, to predict when you will peak - you really need to have a good estimate of your functional threshold power at all times.)

acoggan said:

If you're basing your functional threshold power in CyclingPeaks on the results of an incremental exercise ('MAP'😉 test, then I wouldn't worry too much about trying to keep it very up-to-date. I say this because there's already some imprecision introduced as a result of assuming functional threshold power occurs at some fixed percentage of MAP, and any 'slop' in estimating functional threshold power is squared when calculating TSS. (The same limitations apply when using a constant factor to derive functional threshold power from the average power from a short, i.e., 20-30 min, TT. IOW, to get maximum benefit from TSS - e.g., to use it to plan your training, to predict when you will peak - you really need to have a good estimate of your functional threshold power at all times.)

Not to be argumentative, but... what the heck, do you really feel the same limitations would apply for FT based on MAP vs FT based on 30 min TT? I understand that the entire premise of TSS is based around FT, and that above FT, metabolic responses are exponentially magnified, and hence, overestimation of FT will artificially suppress TSS scores in a disproportionate fashion relative to the error of the estimate,... (deep breath).. but 30 min TT will track proportionally to 60 min TT, and therefore, with the proper adjustment factor, should be more accurate than MAP based estimation. I would expect intra-individual, inter-day variation to be more significant than error induced by correcting for a 30 min TT. But, hey, you are the man with the plan...

Steve

acoggan said:

to get maximum benefit from TSS - e.g., to use it to plan your training, to predict when you will peak - you really need to have a good estimate of your functional threshold power at all times.)

Forgive me for hijacking this thread, but when will the rest of us get some info on how to use TSS to do such things as predict a peak?

Steve McGregor said:

you are the man with the plan...

That may be, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I always get things right! 😉

Translation: you've convinced me that 30 min power and functional threshold power will generally tend to parallel each other closely enough that the use of the former instead of the latter when calculating TSS shouldn't cause any systematic errors. OTOH, I'd still be a bit wary of estimating functional threshold power as a fixed percentage of MAP and then calculating TSS based on that value. The danger here is that as you become more metabolically fit, your functional threshold power will tend to move closer to your MAP, so use of a fixed percentage over time will tend to result in a progressive overestimation of TSS (with the error being proportional to the square of the error in estimating functional threshold power). This may be critical when attempting to model performance/predict peaks using TSS as the input variable.

beerco said:

when will the rest of us get some info on how to use TSS to do such things as predict a peak?

Unfortunately, apparently/probably not any time soon (due to factors beyond my control, I'm afraid).

acoggan said:

That may be, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I always get things right! 😉

Maybe not, but I'll take your batting average over most.

acoggan said:

Translation: you've convinced me that 30 min power and functional threshold power will generally tend to parallel each other closely enough that the use of the former instead of the latter when calculating TSS shouldn't cause any systematic errors.

Geez, that was easy. How about this,.. pedalling circles increases efficiency😉

acoggan said:

OTOH, I'd still be a bit wary of estimating functional threshold power as a fixed percentage of MAP and then calculating TSS based on that value. The danger here is that as you become more metabolically fit, your functional threshold power will tend to move closer to your MAP, so use of a fixed percentage over time will tend to result in a progressive overestimation of TSS (with the error being proportional to the square of the error in estimating functional threshold power). This may be critical when attempting to model performance/predict peaks using TSS as the input variable.

Agreed regarding estimation of FT based on MAP.

Steve

beerco said:

Forgive me for hijacking this thread, but when will the rest of us get some info on how to use TSS to do such things as predict a peak?

Wait a minute... wasn't it you, Beerco, who stated the hub was a better place to measure power than the crank for modeling performance? When I read that I thought, "that man has some serious Kung Fu". I actually posted a reply asking you to put that statement in context, but it must have gotten kicked back and I forgot about it. Here is your statement from the "polar power unit vs. other" thread

beerco said:

Firstly I'll echo Ric, and Steve et. al.

Secondly I'll agree that you're correct, but only because most people who race at any kind of serious level aren't smart enough to realize that hub weight has little bearing on wheel performance (aero basically trumps all).

As Ric said. Two wheelsets are still cheaper than an SRM. Although I think that the crank is a better place to measure power for training (Hub's better for modeling performance), with SRMs being what they are today, I'd still rather have two PT wheels rather than a single SRM.

Care to elaborate? I think I know where you're coming from, but since we're on the topic, thought I'd bring it up.

Steve

Steve McGregor said:

Wait a minute... wasn't it you, Beerco, who stated the hub was a better place to measure power than the crank for modeling performance?

Care to elaborate? I think I know where you're coming from, but since we're on the topic, thought I'd bring it up.

Yes it was me. I was simply not clear in my explanation.

For modeling physiological perfomance - e.g. using TSS to predict peaks - measuring at the cranks is better because this is the furthest "up stream" measurement of training stress we've got. Instrumented pedals would be even better. When you measure at the hub, the drivetrain can somewhat distort the picture. It could also be different bike to bike, gear to gear etc.

However, when modeling physical performance or how the bike+rider system will perform (e.g. calculating CdA from a power file), then what's important is how much power makes it to the rear wheel after all of the losses due to drive train blah blah blah.

To sumarize - modeling the person - measure closer to the person. Modeling the bike, measure closer to the road.

Does this clarify what I meant?

-Andy B.

beerco said:

Yes it was me. I was simply not clear in my explanation.

For modeling physiological perfomance - e.g. using TSS to predict peaks - measuring at the cranks is better because this is the furthest "up stream" measurement of training stress we've got. Instrumented pedals would be even better. When you measure at the hub, the drivetrain can somewhat distort the picture. It could also be different bike to bike, gear to gear etc.

However, when modeling physical performance or how the bike+rider system will perform (e.g. calculating CdA from a power file), then what's important is how much power makes it to the rear wheel after all of the losses due to drive train blah blah blah.

To sumarize - modeling the person - measure closer to the person. Modeling the bike, measure closer to the road.

Does this clarify what I meant?

-Andy B.

Spoken like a true engineer😉

That's where I assumed you were coming from. To be honest though, as long as you are being consistent in your measurement and assessment (e.g. always measuring at the crank, or always measuring at the hub), you will be fine from a modeling perspective, and since both SRM pro and PT are comparably accurate and reliable, there should be little difference. The key to TSS is precision and accurate assessment of your FT. Whether that FT is determined at the hub or at the crank, TSS can't tell the difference. It will be 300 at the cranks or 291 at the hub, and as long as you set your FT at 291, and continue to measure and assess at the hub, you are hunky dory (of course we want to make sure we are accurately measuring power that is being compared to FT to determine TSS also). OTOH, you would run into a similar problem as the one Andy C. described regarding FT determination based on MAP if you determined FT at the crank and used 300, then went out and trained every day on a PT. You would underestimate your TSS with potentially drastic consequences.

Steve

Steve McGregor said:

Spoken like a true engineer😉

and since both SRM pro and PT are comparably accurate and reliable, there should be little difference.
Steve

Thank you, and I agree. That's why with things being what they are today, I'd still rather have two PTs than a single SRM.