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.Originally Posted by acoggan .
1. They're called levels, not zones (and for a very good reason).
2. Your 2nd statement that I bolded above is false.
There are several different power-based training schemas and some of them have overlapping ranges (e.g., Ric Stern's zones overlap). Andy's schema defines levels and each level is discrete. The primary implication of using AP or IF to categorize an effort is that one is based on AP and other is based on NP. For this reason, it is quite possible to have an effort that falls within a different (higher) level based on NP compared to the classification based on AP (e.g., L3 at AP and L4 at NP). It will never be the other way around (e.g., L4 at AP and L3 at NP). The question becomes which metric best captures the intensity of the effort (AP or NP). I typically use NP for my L1-L4 efforts and AP for the other efforts. This approach never results in a conflict as to classification of an effort.Originally Posted by An old Guy .
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.
My post was to in defense of Mr. Coggin resorting to making false claims. It was directed to him and him alone.Originally Posted by RapDaddyo .
There are several different power-based training schemas and some of them have overlapping ranges. Andy's schema defines levels and each level is discrete.
No thank you.Originally Posted by An old Guy .
My post was to in defense of Mr. Coggin resorting to making false claims. It was directed to him and him alone.
---
Actually the terms L1 (Z1 or recovery), L2 (Z2 or endurance) ... are simply markers on a continuum. There are no ranges. The markers tend to blend into each other.
If you want me to critique your methods, I charge more than you would want to pay.
Try the search without the quotation marks.....
Since you've proven yourself on several occaisons to be as dumb as a box o' rocks, I'll take that as a complement. Given Andy's work - I'll definitely take it as a complement...Originally Posted by An old Guy .
You appear to be almost as smart as acoggan.
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.)Originally Posted by An old Guy .
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.
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.Originally Posted by hrumpole .
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.
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.Originally Posted by hrumpole .
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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.