Andy makes bike.com



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Sparhawk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:30:30 -0500, "Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sparhawk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:25:10 -0500, "Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >From: "Ken Papai" [email protected]
> >> >>
> >> >> >So how does a cheap, lousy cat. III, without that much extra time on their hands measure
> >> >> >their power without going through a lot of trouble?
> >> >>
> >> >> The way they always have. Cat 3s are not elite racers. The young
ones
> >may
> >> >be on
> >> >> the way, but they are not there yet. Let's face it, the ones who are going to go Cat1/Pro
> >> >> have displayed
it
> >> >earlier
> >> >> and have been guided to a whole new level of testing, regimentation,
> >and
> >> >> training. My take was that this was targeted to Cat1/Pro riders. Andy would
> >have
> >> >to
> >> >> fill us in on this. We are getting into the Masters/Wannabe/Neverwas debate now. It is
> >> >possible to
> >> >> upgrade through sustained effort and picking your races. The people
who
> >> >are
> >> >> going to the top are indicated, and supported fairly young. They are
> >the
> >> >ones
> >> >> who get the support and equipment Andy is talking about. Your average 30 year old cat 3 is
> >> >> SOL. Bill C
> >> >
> >> >Did you do too many shots of tequilla today Bill? I can measure power
> >just
> >> >fine for less than $500. I bought a Polar S710 for $200 from ubid.com
and
> >> >then the power Option for $250 from ebay. You just need to look for
> >deals.
> >> >Power is not for the elite. It's as simple as measuring HR and as Andy
> >says
> >> >is not susceptible to "conditions". If the average 30 year old Cat 3
can
> >not
> >> >afford that maybe they're spending too much time on their bike trying
to
> >be
> >> >a wannabe and not enough time on a career??
> >> >
> >> >Danny Callen
> >>
> >> Measuring power is great but what do you compare it to, where is the data? The data bank?
> >>
> >> There just doesn't seem to be anyway to make an assessment based on power data because there
> >> isn't any.
> >>
> >> How does a Cat 1/2/3 racer know where he is in comparison to others in the same category?
> >>
> >> Or is power data so highly personal that it is worthless?
> >>
> >> Sparhawk
> >>
> >
> >You can do a Conconi test or step test on a trainer; comparisons are
fairly
> >well documented in Joe Friel's "Training Bible". It is more important
that
> >you use the power numbers to train your own strengths and weaknesses and track your progress..
> >
>
> I know my numbers and I record them daily from my Computrainer but I have no idea what your
> numbers are or what mine should be.
>
> Sure I can track my improvement in a number but the number has no meaning unless it is compared
> against a standard.
>
> Joe Friel's book does not establish any power standard.
>
> We may as well use speed, cadence or heart rate to track improvement as power in it's present form
> doesn't mean anything.
>
> The Polar power add-on is a $300 rip off as are all the other power gimmicks.
>
>
> Sparhawk
>
>
> >Danny Callen
> >
>

Joe Friel's book clearly states benchmarks for Conconi and Max Power testing. It's clearly written
in the "Testing" portion of the book. (I would cite the page but I don't have the book with me).
Anyway, Watts/kg is a pretty black and white scenario. You should probably read the wattage forum
to learn more about power training; but since you think it's all a waste; I assume you'll just be
wasting your time..

Danny Callen
 
"Sparhawk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:25:10 -0500, "Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >From: "Ken Papai" [email protected]
> >>
> >> >So how does a cheap, lousy cat. III, without that much extra time on their hands measure their
> >> >power without going through a lot of trouble?
> >>
> >> The way they always have. Cat 3s are not elite racers. The young ones
may
> >be on
> >> the way, but they are not there yet. Let's face it, the ones who are going to go Cat1/Pro have
> >> displayed it
> >earlier
> >> and have been guided to a whole new level of testing, regimentation,
and
> >> training. My take was that this was targeted to Cat1/Pro riders. Andy would
have
> >to
> >> fill us in on this. We are getting into the Masters/Wannabe/Neverwas debate now. It is
> >possible to
> >> upgrade through sustained effort and picking your races. The people who
> >are
> >> going to the top are indicated, and supported fairly young. They are
the
> >ones
> >> who get the support and equipment Andy is talking about. Your average 30 year old cat 3 is SOL.
> >> Bill C
> >
> >Did you do too many shots of tequilla today Bill? I can measure power
just
> >fine for less than $500. I bought a Polar S710 for $200 from ubid.com and then the power Option
> >for $250 from ebay. You just need to look for
deals.
> >Power is not for the elite. It's as simple as measuring HR and as Andy
says
> >is not susceptible to "conditions". If the average 30 year old Cat 3 can
not
> >afford that maybe they're spending too much time on their bike trying to
be
> >a wannabe and not enough time on a career??
> >
> >Danny Callen
>
> Measuring power is great but what do you compare it to, where is the data? The data bank?
>
> There just doesn't seem to be anyway to make an assessment based on power data because there
> isn't any.
>
> How does a Cat 1/2/3 racer know where he is in comparison to others in the same category?
>
> Or is power data so highly personal that it is worthless?

I think your perspective is all wrong: power data IS highly personal, but that makes it valuable,
not worthless. That is, comparison of power data across individuals is almost (but not quite) as
meaningless as comparison of heart rate data across individuals - what matters is figuring out the
best way to train to make MORE power than you could before (and figuring out the best way to race so
as to require less power...but that's a different kettle of fish).

Andy Coggan
 
"Sparhawk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> I know my numbers and I record them daily from my Computrainer but I have no idea what your
> numbers are or what mine should be.

They shouldn't or needn't "be" anything.

> Sure I can track my improvement in a number but the number has no meaning unless it is compared
> against a standard.

Nonsense.

> Joe Friel's book does not establish any power standard.

Friel's Training Bible was written before power meters were widely available - I therefore wouldn't
look there for any answers.

> We may as well use speed, cadence or heart rate to track improvement as power in it's present form
> doesn't mean anything.

Again, nonsense: speed and, to a lesser extent, heart rate are considerably more "noisy" than power
data, making it much more difficult to figure out what sorts of training leads to improvements, and
what doesn't. (Cadence doesn't tell you anything about performance.)

> The Polar power add-on is a $300 rip off as are all the other power gimmicks.

While I might agree with your assessment of the Polar device in particular, I'd say that you are
missing the point otherwise.

Andy Coggan
 
"le gopheur" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Is this a joke thread? If so, I missed the first few posts and the humor at the beginning, so
> ignore my response here...
>
> ...But I have a really dumb question:
>
> If you wanted to compare yourself to others why not just go on a hilly, hard training ride with 10
> (or more) riders around your own ability?
>
> I should think you'd get instant and immediate feedback on how "powerful" you really are. The
> "standard" is pretty damn easy to figure out from a training ride, isn't it?
>
> If you make it to the end in the front group, you're above average. If in the last group, you
> stink. Do yourself a bit of "fuzzy extrapolation" to figure it out if you're somewhere in
> between. If the guy who kicked your ass on the ride finishes around 20th at the local road races,
> you still stink.
>
> Hell, even easier is to just go do a 10-25 mile ITT or a hard road race and compare your
> times/finish position to the winner and loser.
>
> How hard is this? seriously?
>
> Why the hell do you need a power meter or a published "standard" to determine something so
> simplistic as comparing yourself to other riders? A power meter is used to gauge your own
> progress, or lack there of, once you've recorded some base data. Good lord.
>
> Someone tell me if I'm missing the obvious here.

The "obvious" that you're missing is the precision of the measurements. Sure, you can look to see
how you perform against others in a mass start race, or even do a TT and compare times (against
yourself or against others), but you'll only be able to detect major changes in performance/fitness
that way, and so won't know how to adjust your training appropriately to get even better results.

Okay, now I'm reading your next to last sentence, and I see that we're apparently in agreement after
all - my apologies.

Andy Coggan
 
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:37:54 GMT, le gopheur <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:25:52 GMT, Sparhawk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>I know my numbers and I record them daily from my Computrainer but I have no idea what your
>>numbers are or what mine should be.
>>
>>Sure I can track my improvement in a number but the number has no meaning unless it is compared
>>against a standard.
>>
>>Joe Friel's book does not establish any power standard.
>>
>>We may as well use speed, cadence or heart rate to track improvement as power in it's present form
>>doesn't mean anything.
>>
>>The Polar power add-on is a $300 rip off as are all the other power gimmicks.
>>
>>
>>Sparhawk
>
>Is this a joke thread? If so, I missed the first few posts and the humor at the beginning, so
>ignore my response here...
>
>...But I have a really dumb question:
>
>If you wanted to compare yourself to others why not just go on a hilly, hard training ride with 10
>(or more) riders around your own ability?
>
>I should think you'd get instant and immediate feedback on how "powerful" you really are. The
>"standard" is pretty damn easy to figure out from a training ride, isn't it?
>
>If you make it to the end in the front group, you're above average. If in the last group, you
>stink. Do yourself a bit of "fuzzy extrapolation" to figure it out if you're somewhere in
>between. If the guy who kicked your ass on the ride finishes around 20th at the local road races,
>you still stink.
>
>Hell, even easier is to just go do a 10-25 mile ITT or a hard road race and compare your
>times/finish position to the winner and loser.
>
>How hard is this? seriously?
>
>Why the hell do you need a power meter or a published "standard" to determine something so
>simplistic as comparing yourself to other riders? A power meter is used to gauge your own progress,
>or lack there of, once you've recorded some base data. Good lord.
>
>Someone tell me if I'm missing the obvious here.

>
>gopher
 
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:12:55 -0500, "Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Sparhawk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:30:30 -0500, "Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Sparhawk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:25:10 -0500, "Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >From: "Ken Papai" [email protected]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >So how does a cheap, lousy cat. III, without that much extra time on their hands measure
>> >> >> >their power without going through a lot of trouble?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The way they always have. Cat 3s are not elite racers. The young
>ones
>> >may
>> >> >be on
>> >> >> the way, but they are not there yet. Let's face it, the ones who are going to go Cat1/Pro
>> >> >> have displayed
>it
>> >> >earlier
>> >> >> and have been guided to a whole new level of testing, regimentation,
>> >and
>> >> >> training. My take was that this was targeted to Cat1/Pro riders. Andy would
>> >have
>> >> >to
>> >> >> fill us in on this. We are getting into the Masters/Wannabe/Neverwas debate now. It is
>> >> >possible to
>> >> >> upgrade through sustained effort and picking your races. The people
>who
>> >> >are
>> >> >> going to the top are indicated, and supported fairly young. They are
>> >the
>> >> >ones
>> >> >> who get the support and equipment Andy is talking about. Your average 30 year old cat 3 is
>> >> >> SOL. Bill C
>> >> >
>> >> >Did you do too many shots of tequilla today Bill? I can measure power
>> >just
>> >> >fine for less than $500. I bought a Polar S710 for $200 from ubid.com
>and
>> >> >then the power Option for $250 from ebay. You just need to look for
>> >deals.
>> >> >Power is not for the elite. It's as simple as measuring HR and as Andy
>> >says
>> >> >is not susceptible to "conditions". If the average 30 year old Cat 3
>can
>> >not
>> >> >afford that maybe they're spending too much time on their bike trying
>to
>> >be
>> >> >a wannabe and not enough time on a career??
>> >> >
>> >> >Danny Callen
>> >>
>> >> Measuring power is great but what do you compare it to, where is the data? The data bank?
>> >>
>> >> There just doesn't seem to be anyway to make an assessment based on power data because there
>> >> isn't any.
>> >>
>> >> How does a Cat 1/2/3 racer know where he is in comparison to others in the same category?
>> >>
>> >> Or is power data so highly personal that it is worthless?
>> >>
>> >> Sparhawk
>> >>
>> >
>> >You can do a Conconi test or step test on a trainer; comparisons are
>fairly
>> >well documented in Joe Friel's "Training Bible". It is more important
>that
>> >you use the power numbers to train your own strengths and weaknesses and track your progress..
>> >
>>
>> I know my numbers and I record them daily from my Computrainer but I have no idea what your
>> numbers are or what mine should be.
>>
>> Sure I can track my improvement in a number but the number has no meaning unless it is compared
>> against a standard.
>>
>> Joe Friel's book does not establish any power standard.
>>
>> We may as well use speed, cadence or heart rate to track improvement as power in it's present
>> form doesn't mean anything.
>>
>> The Polar power add-on is a $300 rip off as are all the other power gimmicks.
>>
>>
>> Sparhawk
>>
>>
>> >Danny Callen
>> >
>>
>
> Joe Friel's book clearly states benchmarks for Conconi and Max Power testing. It's clearly written
> in the "Testing" portion of the book. (I would cite the page but I don't have the book with me).
> Anyway, Watts/kg is a pretty black and white scenario. You should probably read the wattage forum
> to learn more about power training; but since you think it's all a waste; I assume you'll just be
> wasting your time..

I did subscribe to that forum but found the forum to be a COMPLETE waste of everyone's time there!

It's really amazing that you and others jump onto the power bandwagon without knowing the first
thing at all about measuring and applying power readings.

All you need as an individual for training purposes is a base number to compare your future rides
to, it does not matter if the device that you are using to measure power is acurrate or not as long
as you can get consistent readings.

But for the device to be useful for stastical purposes, it has to be accurate and a database
established.

Only then can one compare your statistics to anothers.

How much power did the top pro cyclists generate on a specific ride over a one hour span?

What is the high, low and average power output for a specific race.

My one hour average power output is...? Your one hour average output over the same ride is ...?

My point is that there is no data available and no data being collected at the present that I know
of for a statistical database.

Until that happens it remains a useless number.

Sparhawk

>
>Danny Callen
 
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:03:52 GMT, "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Sparhawk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> I know my numbers and I record them daily from my Computrainer but I have no idea what your
>> numbers are or what mine should be.
>
>They shouldn't or needn't "be" anything.

That's baloney, a marketing ploy to negate the lack of information available.

>
>> Sure I can track my improvement in a number but the number has no meaning unless it is compared
>> against a standard.
>
>Nonsense.

Why? Because you can't provide any data to back up your theory?

>> Joe Friel's book does not establish any power standard.
>
>Friel's Training Bible was written before power meters were widely available - I therefore wouldn't
>look there for any answers.

I'm not.

>> We may as well use speed, cadence or heart rate to track improvement as power in it's present
>> form doesn't mean anything.
>
>Again, nonsense: speed and, to a lesser extent, heart rate are considerably more "noisy" than power
>data, making it much more difficult to figure out what sorts of training leads to improvements, and
>what doesn't. (Cadence doesn't tell you anything about performance.)

At the present time power data is nonexistant. Any number will do .. A number is a number
is a number.
>
>> The Polar power add-on is a $300 rip off as are all the other power gimmicks.
>
>While I might agree with your assessment of the Polar device in particular, I'd say that you are
>missing the point otherwise.

OK, what is the point?

Sparhawk

>Andy Coggan
 
"Sparhawk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> OK, what is the point?

The point, my hawkish friend, is that by having a reproducible metric of physiological function
(performance), one can both describe and prescribe exercise with greater precision. That gives you
better control and insight compared to some less reproducible measure of intensity (e.g., speed,
heart rate), and in the long run can make training more efficacious. Don't get me wrong, you still
have to actually do the training (or as some people have put it, a power meter doesn't pedal the
bike for you) - however, if even someone like myself (almost 30 years racing experience at up to the
cat. 1 level, Ph.D. in exercise physiology) can benefit from the additional information, then surely
others can as well (if they are smart enough/can figure out what to do with/about the data).

Andy Coggan
 
>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:03:52 GMT, "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>While I might agree with your assessment of the Polar device in particular, I'd say that you are
>>missing the point otherwise.
>
>>Andy Coggan

>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:07:41 GMT, Sparhawk <[email protected]> replied t:
>
>OK, what is the point?
>
>Sparhawk

the point sparhawk, which at least 4 different peeps have *tried* in vain it seems, to tell you is:

YOUR power meter, having taken YOUR power data from YOUR legs, on YOUR training ride up YOUR hills
on YOUR roads with YOUR body fat for the duration of YOUR time with YOUR outside temperature, which
has been *calibrated* to coordinate YOUR data with **absolutely nothing** else in the world.......

....IS SPECIFIC ONLY TO YOU! get it? seriously, how hard is this concept?

how can some "standard " exist for YOUR data given all the variables i mention above? please tell
me. i couldn't possibly explain it to you any simpler than that.....

....but let me try.

any "data" that i may have in MY uncalibrated power meter have from MY flat training ride on MY bike
with MY brake pads rubbing and MY 28c tires underinflated so MY tire pressure is at 75 lbs/in is
**USELESS** in relation to you!

however, i can suggest, if you really NEED some standard data, to stimulate that brain of yours,
you do this:

after you're done with YOUR training ride, get a best & favorite buddy to hop on YOUR bike with
YOUR power meter and redo YOUR exact training ride on YOUR hills and YOUR roads with YOUR tire
pressure, etc, etc

when he is all done, you now have some legit data to compare yourself to!

in short, until a scientist shows up in YOUR town and does tests on YOUR training route with a
reasonable sample of others while controlling as many variables as he can, there will be NO
published standard. why would there?

got it? let's hope so.

it's really not that hard if you'd just read what people have already suggested in this thread, and
try to digest it, instead of putting it in YOUR mouth and spitting it out before you even taste it.

good luck w/ your power meter. gopher.

BTW, Andy Coggan is a pretty damn well respected figure along the lines of this topic in the cycling
community. i'm not sure why you refuse to accept what he says, but so be it. i should think you
would want to listen quite carefully to him.... ...it's rare to get free ***GOOD** advice from an
expert on a subject.

In case you dont know who he is, here's some of his advice/links/palmares, etc. i'm sure you're too
lazy to google yourself.

http://avsquint.bravepages.com/Characters/coggan.htm

http://www.cyclingpeaks.com/powernotes.htm

http://www.midweekclub.com/articles/morefaqs.htm
 
"le gopheur" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> BTW, Andy Coggan is a pretty damn well respected figure along the lines of this topic in the
> cycling community.

(snip)

> In case you dont know who he is, here's some of his advice/links/palmares, etc.

(snip)

And not only that, I've now been quoted by bike.com! ;-)

Andy Coggan
 
> >"Sparhawk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> I did subscribe to that forum but found the forum to be a COMPLETE waste of everyone's time there!
>
> It's really amazing that you and others jump onto the power bandwagon without knowing the first
> thing at all about measuring and applying power readings.
>
<Obvious needles dribble snipped..>> I know full well how to measure and apply the readings. If
you've read the Wattage forum, it likely confused you because you didn't understand. It is
tecnically oriented I agree. I think you are proving that you just don't understand and therefore
everyone else is wrong..Maybe you don't have the experience and intelligence to "get it". I'll let
you continue to make a fool out of yourself by arguing with Dr. Coggan. If you are not older than
twelve I hope one day you grow up to learn respect for those that know more than you.

Danny Callen
 
"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Sparhawk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:37:54 GMT, le gopheur <[email protected]>
>
> > >Someone tell me if I'm missing the obvious here.
> >

>
> Now *there's* an intelligent response - no wonder you don't know what to
do
> with the power data your CT gives you.
>
> Andy Coggan
>
>

Andy, don't waste your time,. this kid is obviously not worth your or even my time.

Danny Callen
 
"le gopheur" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> the point sparhawk, which at least 4 different peeps have *tried* in vain it seems, to
> tell you is:
>
> YOUR power meter, having taken YOUR power data from YOUR legs, on YOUR training ride up YOUR hills
> on YOUR roads with YOUR body fat for the duration of YOUR time with YOUR outside temperature,
> which has been *calibrated* to coordinate YOUR data with **absolutely nothing** else in the
> world.......
>
> ....IS SPECIFIC ONLY TO YOU! get it? seriously, how hard is this concept?
>
> how can some "standard " exist for YOUR data given all the variables i mention above? please tell
> me. i couldn't possibly explain it to you any simpler than that.....
>
> ....but let me try.
>
> any "data" that i may have in MY uncalibrated power meter have from MY flat training ride on MY
> bike with MY brake pads rubbing and MY 28c tires underinflated so MY tire pressure is at 75 lbs/in
> is **USELESS** in relation to you!
>
> however, i can suggest, if you really NEED some standard data, to stimulate that brain of yours,
> you do this:
>
> after you're done with YOUR training ride, get a best & favorite buddy to hop on YOUR bike with
> YOUR power meter and redo YOUR exact training ride on YOUR hills and YOUR roads with YOUR tire
> pressure, etc, etc
>
> when he is all done, you now have some legit data to compare yourself to!
>
> in short, until a scientist shows up in YOUR town and does tests on YOUR training route with a
> reasonable sample of others while controlling as many variables as he can, there will be NO
> published standard. why would there?
>
> got it? let's hope so.
>
> it's really not that hard if you'd just read what people have already suggested in this thread,
> and try to digest it, instead of putting it in YOUR mouth and spitting it out before you even
> taste it.
>
> good luck w/ your power meter. gopher.
>
> BTW, Andy Coggan is a pretty damn well respected figure along the lines of this topic in the
> cycling community. i'm not sure why you refuse to accept what he says, but so be it. i should
> think you would want to listen quite carefully to him.... ...it's rare to get free ***GOOD**
> advice from an expert on a subject.
>
> In case you dont know who he is, here's some of his advice/links/palmares, etc. i'm sure you're
> too lazy to google yourself.
>
>
> http://avsquint.bravepages.com/Characters/coggan.htm
>
> http://www.cyclingpeaks.com/powernotes.htm
>
> http://www.midweekclub.com/articles/morefaqs.htm
>
>
>

Too bad "Post of The Month" doesn't exist anymore, eh guys! Right on!!!!

Danny Callen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads