Increase power or duration?

RapDaddyo said:

I'm not worried about the motivation part, although that would be nice. It's just keeping track of what power I should be at with the power changing every 12 seconds (or whatever the step-up interval is). When I did my first MAP test, I had my son call out the power numbers every 12 seconds. I'd rather not have to look at a chart and a stopwatch. I'd rather just ride and have a power target. So, I need to figure out how to get my power targets.

A quick check of our website would reveal this http://www.cyclecoach.com/downloadPages/?download=MAP_test&ext=.htm

test in front of your computer and you have the numbers directly to hand

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

A quick check of our website would reveal this cyclecoach.comdownloadPagesOpen ↗

test in front of your computer and you have the numbers directly to hand

ric

That's cool.😎 I think I'll still make a digital audio file because I have a very small digital audio recorder (or I can play it back on my PC). I sort of like the idea of some appropriate music in the background -- maybe something cool and smooth to begin and ending with a drum-banging classic rock hit like "Already Gone" by The Eagles. I think I'll put that one at ~350w, to give me something to look forward to. I'll send you a copy when it's done.😄

P.S., I'm sort of leaning toward John Wayne's voice for calling out the power numbers. Something like, "Alright, Pilgrim. Let's see 350. No cheating or I'll have to rearrange your face!"

frenchyge said:

Ok, I gotcha. If you're more comfortable with Ric's MAP protocol, then you can always just use his zones. Sounds like there's still a little guesswork in your power levels, so it'd be interesting to see how your 1 hr test compares to your currently estimated FT power.

I did my 1 hr test on the trainer today. I started at just under 72% of my MAP, thinking that I was playing it "safe". Well it turns out I was slightly optimistic. I did manage to hold this effort for ~26 min, but at that point I was dying for some relief. I reduced the power by ~10% (sigh!) and held that for about 10 minutes. This seemed to get me back on track, so I began to ramp up the power by 5 watts, every 3 min, until I finished the hour, strongly, at 5 watts above my starting power level.

In the end, my average power was ~4% lower than my target level. It's amazing, the effect of over estimating by a mere 10 watts. I felt that if I had started the test at this level, I could have completed the hour with no need to reduce the power at any point. I may even have been able to increase it by a small amount. My average heart rate for the hour was 89.5% of what I believe is my maximum (as per my recent MAP test).

I will re-test some time next week, being sure not to go out too hard; maybe at 3% less. Trial and error, I guess.

BTW, my average power was within 2% of my previously assumed FT, prior to my most recent MAP test. 🙂

postal_bag said:

It's amazing, the effect of over estimating by a mere 10 watts. I felt that if I had started the test at this level, I could have completed the hour with no need to reduce the power at any point. I may even have been able to increase it by a small amount. My average heart rate for the hour was 89.5% of what I believe is my maximum (as per my recent MAP test).

Actually, I'm not surprised at all. I find that I go from what feels like a "high cruise" power to an unsustainable (for 1 hr) power within the course of ~25w. This insight is what has caused me to put so much time and energy into power management. Even with a PM, it is very difficult to precisely manage power. Although I am still testing and experimenting, I am leaning strongly toward using a highly variable cadence for precise power management (e.g., a 90rpm-110rpm range). At a cadence near 100, each rpm is ~3w of power, which is sufficiently precise. Without getting into power management (pacing) strategies, I think precise power management is a performance differentiator in some events (certainly for ITTs).

postal_bag said:

BTW, my average power was within 2% of my previously assumed FT, prior to my most recent MAP test. 🙂

Nice! Good post. I may take some of those tips the next time I try a trainer TT.

postal_bag said:

I did my 1 hr test on the trainer today. I started at just under 72% of my MAP, thinking that I was playing it "safe". Well it turns out I was slightly optimistic. I did manage to hold this effort for ~26 min, but at that point I was dying for some relief. I reduced the power by ~10% (sigh!) and held that for about 10 minutes. This seemed to get me back on track, so I began to ramp up the power by 5 watts, every 3 min, until I finished the hour, strongly, at 5 watts above my starting power level.

In the end, my average power was ~4% lower than my target level. It's amazing, the effect of over estimating by a mere 10 watts. I felt that if I had started the test at this level, I could have completed the hour with no need to reduce the power at any point. I may even have been able to increase it by a small amount. My average heart rate for the hour was 89.5% of what I believe is my maximum (as per my recent MAP test).

I will re-test some time next week, being sure not to go out too hard; maybe at 3% less. Trial and error, I guess.

BTW, my average power was within 2% of my previously assumed FT, prior to my most recent MAP test. 🙂

don't forget that many people can't generate the same power indoors on a trainer as they can outdoors. some people produce significantly less indoors.

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

When i drew up my schema for training with power, this was the data point that i had the least amount of data for (and 12 hour data was also somewhat limited). The data i had 'only' covered the world pursuit champion (quite a few data points from him), a female pursuiter at top five world level, a couple of first cats, and some second cats.

all the data points fitted into that 88 - 91%* range for 'all-out' single bouts of exercise of around 4 to 5 mins or so. some of the data was from actual pursuit heats, but there's several hours between heats.

*i think my data point was actually slightly less, but i'm generally not too good at such very short efforts, so i may have discounted that and tried a better attempt later.

I guess it maybe possible to exceed this recommendation (88 - 91%), and trying to recall the article at cyclingnews, i'm pretty sure that i did make that observation (that i wasn't overly certain about this data point). i think i left it at the recommendation based on the limited data i had, which included world champion and record holder.
ric

Interesting. The Cycling NZ testing protocol includes a V02max test and a 4km performance test using the Kingcycle. Assuming MAP correlates well with Power at V02 I have had two riders do the 4km test so far. One at 106% of power at V02 and one at 110% of power at V02. The 4km test is done 15min after the V02 test.

Okay it's only two riders, but before I get around to testing a decent sample size am I making some mistake in the testing or my assumptions.

Hamish Ferguson

fergie said:

Interesting. The Cycling NZ testing protocol includes a V02max test and a 4km performance test using the Kingcycle. Assuming MAP correlates well with Power at V02 I have had two riders do the 4km test so far. One at 106% of power at V02 and one at 110% of power at V02. The 4km test is done 15min after the V02 test.

Okay it's only two riders, but before I get around to testing a decent sample size am I making some mistake in the testing or my assumptions.

Hamish Ferguson

But power at VO2max is significantly less than MAP, even though the two tend to be highly correlated. It's therefore at least theoretically possible for someone to perform a 4 km pursuit at 106-110% of the power at VO2max, and still average <100% of MAP. I don't think that would be very likely, but it is possible...

Yes, when I did the V02 test I went for about 9 mins past my maxV02. Others went 3-6 mins further after the V02 plateau.

If you don't buy into ramped tests I take it you test critical power at over various durations. There is a 5sec column in your chart. How do you test for this?

For those of us without power meters how can we relate this to HR to prescribe training?

Hamish Ferguson