Pendejo said:
2) There is nothing wrong with using HRMs and power meters (or intervals). I am questioning the usefulness of using these to the point of scheduling your workouts to the minute at certain levels, etc., rather than more intuitively going "hard," or "moderate," or "easy."
I'm someone who does schedule intervals to the minute, but I do vary the power a bit sometimes if I think I can handle more, or should do less. My coach does it this way, and has for many years, with great success. One of the reasons is that he knows exactly how much work I've done, of several certain types, and how I have responded to the amount of work in each area. This applies from week to week, many weeks, and year to year. This accurate work and response allows him to provide future training schedules that are very accurate and most appropriate for my goals.
Another thing I like about the detailed schedule is the time and detailed progression of training stimuli keeps me busy and thinking about what's coming next, within the hour, or in the next days, weeks, or month. For example, this week it's 4x3' of something, next week it's 4x4', then 5x4', or 2 sets of 3 of something, and in two weeks it will be 3 sets of 3, or 3 sets of 2, and I know the reason(s) for each of those changes.
I've been at this a long, long time but with this detailed approach to training I don't get bored at all, and I have great confidence in a clear, detailed approach that has worked really well for me and other riders my coach has worked with.
As Levi Leipheimer (same coach) said in a recent article in VeloNews, this approach allows him/us to just focus on the training and not have to think about whether it's too much, too little, the right training, whether we'll be ready for the training to follow, etc.
http://www.velonews.com/race/dom/articles/9493.0.html
"Leipheimer agreed that connecting with Dr. Testa was one of the smartest moves in his career. "I think the biggest difference is, he gives me a training program and it's really spelled out. I look at it, I visualize what route I'm gonna take, so [when] I go out the door, I know exactly what I'm doing and I can just leave my brain behind....
"Sounds kinda strange, but I don't think at all [when I'm training]. A lot of times I over-think. That's my weak point. So now I just do the training.... Obviously, I understand the training. We agree about it, but it's to the point that I can go out and train so much harder that way. Just doing it. Not thinking, ‘Is this the right thing, or the wrong thing, should I do something else?' Just do it."
Pendejo said:
3) I am perplexed by those of you who are arguing that there is little difference between different training regimens advocated by those in the know. Just go back a week or so in this forum and review the topics "Gyming to improve power," "It's killing me but," "Microintervals better than," "Don't hold your breath," and "Hill vs. Flat training." I also find it interesting that a few of you (who have taken issue with me here) in those other topics have made statements such as "it depends on the individual," or "you have to discover this yourself through experience." Exactly.
I think your point above is not the same as saying something about the detail of one's training plans. Yes, different people need different stimuli, and in different sequences and amounts, but even though my training is different from some other rider my coach works with, the plans are just as detailed. Lots of experience reduces the need for experimenting to discover the best training, but as my coach has said, the first year with a rider is the hardest (because of the experimenting or uncertainty about the best training), but after that, it's easy (to coach the rider).
As for differences among training regimens advocated by those in the know, well, I see some things advocated here that my coach and I would not agree with, so I think it would depend on who it is "in the know" that you're asking, and just how successful (or not) they have been with what they advocate.