powertap images...

[tomUK]

Hi Guys -

I just wanted to post a ride I did yesterday and get some feedback. It was a recovery ride and I kept my HR between 120-110 (or there abouts). This is 60-65% of my Maximum. I hope this works.

okay ... I can't figure out how to post an image? Help! also, what smoothing %'age is best?

Thanks...

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by tomUK
Hi Guys -

I just wanted to post a ride I did yesterday and get some feedback. It was a recovery ride and I kept my HR between 120-110 (or there abouts). This is 60-65% of my Maximum. I hope this works.

okay ... I can't figure out how to post an image? Help! also, what smoothing %'age is best?

Thanks...

it's been a while since i posted an image... calling up your power software and press the "print screen" to right of the "F12" key. i then paste the image in powerpoint and save it (on your hard drive) as jpeg or gif image etc. and an easily recognisable name.

then, reply to this thread or wherever and press the browse button to the right of attach file. locate the image on your hard drive and ok it to be uploaded. and voila hopefully it'll appear here.

(make sure the image is small enough to be uploaded)

ric

 

[tomUK]

thank you very much Ric. Now for the image...

 

[ric_stern/RST]

it's not come out too well, i can't readily distinguish which line is what... if you've done it as jpg, maybe try a gif or vice versa, or if anyone else has any ideas...

what is you want us to comment on?

 

[TTer]

Power is the line around 110 to 140W, with the big spike in the middle and 4 other 'spikes'. Put your glasses on Ric! :-D

Looks an easy ride tom? Power is low yes, but so is heart rate, average of 113bpm. If I get on a bike it's already above 115bpm :-D. How did you feel during the ride? Any idea what your sustainable power is? What kind of HR response do you get at 200W?

 

[tomUK]

Originally posted by TTer
Power is the line around 110 to 140W, with the big spike in the middle and 4 other 'spikes'. Put your glasses on Ric! :-D

Looks an easy ride tom? Power is low yes, but so is heart rate, average of 113bpm. If I get on a bike it's already above 115bpm :-D. How did you feel during the ride? Any idea what your sustainable power is? What kind of HR response do you get at 200W?

TTer -

Thank you for your comments . It was a recovery ride. Today I went out and try keeping my heart rate between 65%-70% MHR. Yesterday felt easy and today felt quite easy too. I like the fact that when you head into the wind you can see the wattage stay constant even though the speed dropped significatly. Take a look and let me know.

Thanks.

 

[TTer]

Originally posted by tomUK
Thank you for your comments . It was a recovery ride. Today I went out and try keeping my heart rate between 65%-70% MHR. Yesterday felt easy and today felt quite easy too. I like the fact that when you head into the wind you can see the wattage stay constant even though the speed dropped significatly. Take a look and let me know.

Good ride Tom! You must be quite a strong rider if 65% MHR gets you ~180W. You must have a 25mile TT pace around 300W.

It must also be a lot flatter where you are as I average just over 200W on a ride to get 18mph average. You're also very good at sticking to the training plan and keeping power in the right zone -- again, where I live I cannot avoid sections of 300W for 1-2mins up the short sharp hills.

 

[acoggan]

Originally posted by TTer
You're also very good at sticking to the training plan and keeping power in the right zone

This is a common misconception, but I don't know anybody who recommends that when training with a powermeter that you try to keep your effort within a tight (or even not-so-tight) range 100% of the time. As you've discovered, it is practically impossible to accomplish this goal, and the extent to which you succeed in doing so only makes your training less specific (since except for flat TTs, races are not isopower efforts).

 

[tomUK]

Thank you for your comments guys.

How confusing though! It seems that some people suggest using Power zones to train while others suggest HR zones. On the training ride for the last image I posted my goal was to keep HR between 65-70%. I did not go out trying to keep wattage within a certain zone - this seems extremely difficult to do such.

The Power Tap seems to me like it will be most useful in measuring progress i.e. I hope to see an increase in watts for a given HR zone over the forth coming months.

Another great feature is the Energy expenditure feature. Rather than rely on HR to give you an exertion figure (as in the Polar Software) you can base training schedules on KJ spent and hours on the road.

It would be interesting to hear how the rest of you are using the power tap to train with.

Chris Carmichael seems to suggest doing long intervals once or twice every week, while focusing in keeping your HR between 78-83% max and Cadance high 85 rpm + then comparing your wattage figure over the weeks/months.

Anyone hear seen a dramatic increase in Wattage/performance since purchasing a PT?

Cheers.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by tomUK
Thank you for your comments guys.

How confusing though! It seems that some people suggest using Power zones to train while others suggest HR zones. On the training ride for the last image I posted my goal was to keep HR between 65-70%. I did not go out trying to keep wattage within a certain zone - this seems extremely difficult to do such.

a lot of people suggest training by prescribing power zones. however, you need to be aware (as i'm sure you are) that power will move out of whatever zone under certain conditions.

The Power Tap seems to me like it will be most useful in measuring progress i.e. I hope to see an increase in watts for a given HR zone over the forth coming months.

personally, i think this is pointless. HR varies for many reasons, so you wouldn't know if you're improving or not. in general, all that really matters is that you are producing more power for a given time period or the same power for longer (or both). as such all you therefore need is to measure an increase in power over the time frame (or goal distance, e.g., 10-mile TT) of interest

Another great feature is the Energy expenditure feature. Rather than rely on HR to give you an exertion figure (as in the Polar Software) you can base training schedules on KJ spent and hours on the road.

i don't feel that this is a good way to prescribe training. energy expended (kj) is just time (secs) x power (watts / 1000), and if say your training prescription was: expend 1000 kj, then the training effect would be significantly different for various time frames (e.g., 1000 kj over 2hrs is ~ 139 W, but over 1-hr is 277 W). if you include a time frame with the energy expended figure, then really you're just talking about power...

Chris Carmichael seems to suggest doing long intervals once or twice every week, while focusing in keeping your HR between 78-83% max and Cadance high 85 rpm + then comparing your wattage figure over the weeks/months.

having pointed to some articles in a different thread, it's apparent that CTS now prescribe training by power, rather than by HR and looking at power after the event

ric

 

[tomUK]

Ric -

Thanks for the reply. My questions therefore follow...

personally, i think this is pointless. HR varies for many reasons, so you wouldn't know if you're improving or not. in general, all that really matters is that you are producing more power for a given time period or the same power for longer (or both). as such all you therefore need is to measure an increase in power over the time frame (or goal distance, e.g., 10-mile TT) of interest.

I agree with this to some extent, however, Heart rate MUST surely be of use. If the majority of my workouts are based on keeping within, say for example, zone 2 then if is possible that some days I will be push too hard. If I heed HR then it is less likely I will be over-exerting myself.

i don't feel that this is a good way to prescribe training. energy expended (kj) is just time (secs) x power (watts / 1000), and if say your training prescription was: expend 1000 kj, then the training effect would be significantly different for various time frames (e.g., 1000 kj over 2hrs is ~ 139 W, but over 1-hr is 277 W). if you include a time frame with the energy expended figure, then really you're just talking about power...

Carmicheal seems to disagree...
'With a power meter, however, you can more precisely prepare for that three-hour race with endurance rides that accumulate 1500 kilojoules of work. Depending on the weather, the wind, and perhaps the group of people you are riding with, such a ride could last anywhere from 2.5-4.5 hours. However, as long as you are on the bike long enough to accumulate 1500 kilojoules of work, you’re doing enough to prepare yourself for competition.'
Would you suggest CC is prescribing power zone-based workouts? If so then accumulating 1500KJ of work would take a set amount of time, give or take 10-20mins, not give or take 60 mins!

having pointed to some articles in a different thread, it's apparent that CTS now prescribe training by power, rather than by HR and looking at power after the event

I'm not sure which thread you are refering too?

Tom.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by tomUK
Ric -

Thanks for the reply. My questions therefore follow...



I agree with this to some extent, however, Heart rate MUST surely be of use. If the majority of my workouts are based on keeping within, say for example, zone 2 then if is possible that some days I will be push too hard. If I heed HR then it is less likely I will be over-exerting myself.

or conversely, if HR is depressed (which is normal in training) then you'll be training too hard. for e.g., at my TT power, depending on what training i'm doing or where i am in my training phase my HR can vary by ~ 15 b/min. in practice if i ride two races over a weekend at the same power (give or take a couple of watts) on the second day my HR will be much lower. If you trained by HR and forced yourself to raise your HR to the 'correct' zone you'd be working much too hard.

i suggest training by power (and checking on the road or trainer or whereever) with percieved exertion.

Carmicheal seems to disagree...
'With a power meter, however, you can more precisely prepare for that three-hour race with endurance rides that accumulate 1500 kilojoules of work. Depending on the weather, the wind, and perhaps the group of people you are riding with, such a ride could last anywhere from 2.5-4.5 hours. However, as long as you are on the bike long enough to accumulate 1500 kilojoules of work, you’re doing enough to prepare yourself for competition.'
Would you suggest CC is prescribing power zone-based workouts? If so then accumulating 1500KJ of work would take a set amount of time, give or take 10-20mins, not give or take 60 mins!

i'm not sure why he doesn't say ride at zone whatever for 3 hrs or aim to average 138 W for 3 hrs. 1500 kj over 2.5 to 4.5 hrs is 166 W to 93 W, which is likely to be a huge range for anyone and for a lot of people this is going to range very easy to moderately difficult. at the two end of the ranges the training stimulus is (likely) significantly different and i don't agree with CCs outcome (that either is good enough for racing).

I'm not sure which thread you are refering too?

it may have been with a different "Tom". it basically said that the CC (or at least CTS) now prescribes training by power

ric

 

[tomUK]

Ric -

or conversely, if HR is depressed (which is normal in training) then you'll be training too hard. for e.g., at my TT power, depending on what training i'm doing or where i am in my training phase my HR can vary by ~ 15 b/min. in practice if i ride two races over a weekend at the same power (give or take a couple of watts) on the second day my HR will be much lower. If you trained by HR and forced yourself to raise your HR to the 'correct' zone you'd be working much too hard.

i suggest training by power (and checking on the road or trainer or whereever) with percieved exertion.

On the second day is your percieved exertion the same as on the first day or is it higher (harder)? Also, on the morning of the second day is your resting heart rate higher than on the morning of the first day?

Tom.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by tomUK
Ric -



On the second day is your percieved exertion the same as on the first day or is it higher (harder)? Also, on the morning of the second day is your resting heart rate higher than on the morning of the first day?

Tom.

my percieved exertion is/would be the same ("ouch, this hurts, can i go home please!").

i wouldn't have thought noticeably higher and sometimes lower (probably within a few beats)

ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by ricstern
my percieved exertion is/would be the same ("ouch, this hurts, can i go home please!").

i wouldn't have thought noticeably higher and sometimes lower (probably within a few beats)

ric

actually, to add to that, i find my PE and HR (resting) is likely all very similar on multiple days racing or hard training, and then i just suffer a drop in power (say after 4 days of stage racing, or maybe 6 days of continuous training). in other words, when i've had enough i just can't get my power up, and i'm not overly bothered about the other stuff, i.e., i can either do the power or not.

ric

 

[tomUK]

Originally posted by ricstern
actually, to add to that, i find my PE and HR (resting) is likely all very similar on multiple days racing or hard training, and then i just suffer a drop in power (say after 4 days of stage racing, or maybe 6 days of continuous training). in other words, when i've had enough i just can't get my power up, and i'm not overly bothered about the other stuff, i.e., i can either do the power or not.

ric

It all sounds a bit grey, opposed to black and white. Obviously we are all trying to put in just the right amount of training at the correct intensity in order to become fitter. Although I appreciate that there is no marker, as such, for overtraining it seems as though you tend to base it on PE and wattage. You said that after 4 days of stage racing you suffer a drop in power. Or in other words you can produce that same power but your PE is very, very high. Is that a correct assumption?

Also, have you ever woken with a higher than normal resting heart rate but found on a ride you can produce your target wattage at a lower than normal PE?

Tom

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by tomUK
It all sounds a bit grey, opposed to black and white. Obviously we are all trying to put in just the right amount of training at the correct intensity in order to become fitter. Although I appreciate that there is no marker, as such, for overtraining it seems as though you tend to base it on PE and wattage. You said that after 4 days of stage racing you suffer a drop in power. Or in other words you can produce that same power but your PE is very, very high. Is that a correct assumption?

sorry to brief... when i get the drop in power, it's a drop. in other words i can't reach my desired power (except maybe for a seconds). so, if i'm in a RR, i'm off the back.

Also, have you ever woken with a higher than normal resting heart rate but found on a ride you can produce your target wattage at a lower than normal PE?

Tom

depends how much higher than normal you mean...? for e.g., the last time i had flu, it was about double my normal value, and i could barely walk up or downstairs never mind ride a bike.

if it's just a few beats different then i can ride at normal power.

don't forget if you're trying to correlate a raised resting HR with overtraining (which you can't do), resting HR can also go down with overtraining.

ric

 

[tomUK]

Thanks for the replies Ric.

Forgive me for asking all the questions. This PT, really is a powerful toy (no pun intended). To use a *bad* analagy, I feel like a 17 year old been let lose in a Audi TT (pun intended!) that only just passed his driving test a week ago.

However, my aim, as is everyones being to get to extremely high conditioning avoiding overtraining in the process.

What you seem to be saying is that so long as your wattage remains obtainable yet challenging to some degree (in zones 1-3 for 95% of the total training time) especially when factored in with time spent training then an increase in fitness should be seen. Correct? Probably not - but I tried my best to understand you!

Tom.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by tomUK
Thanks for the replies Ric.

no sweat, i enjoy these replies. it's just i'm very busy at this point in time (and trying answer in my 'break')

Forgive me for asking all the questions. This PT, really is a powerful toy (no pun intended). To use a *bad* analagy, I feel like a 17 year old been let lose in a Audi TT (pun intended!) that only just passed his driving test a week ago.

i like to think of the PT (and other power meters) as a tool, as opposed to a toy...

However, my aim, as is everyones being to get to extremely high conditioning avoiding overtraining in the process.

What you seem to be saying is that so long as your wattage remains obtainable yet challenging to some degree (in zones 1-3 for 95% of the total training time) especially when factored in with time spent training then an increase in fitness should be seen. Correct? Probably not - but I tried my best to understand you!

Tom.

i feel that for a lot of people (e.g., those who work full-time, other commitments, etc, as opposed to full-time athletes) are mainly unlikely to overtrain as it generally isn't possible to do that much training in your remaining time.

the main criteria of overtraining is a *decrease* in power output over a period of time. Thus, if your power is staying the same, you're not overtrained. i don't mean a decrease (as i mentioned above, as that decrease is reversed witha day or twos rest).

so, yes, you're correct, if power is increasing then you're gaining fitness and fine. if it's staying the same then you're maintaining fitness. if you're continually under power then you're possibly overtrained (sometimes now referred to as underperformance syndrome).

ric

 

[tomUK]

i like to think of the PT (and other power meters) as a tool, as opposed to a toy...

A toy, a tool. I like to think of my Black and Decker drill as a tool - I don't get much pleasure out of using it. My PT, however, is something I enjoy using. A toy in my book

i feel that for a lot of people (e.g., those who work full-time, other commitments, etc, as opposed to full-time athletes) are mainly unlikely to overtrain as it generally isn't possible to do that much training in your remaining time.

Maybe so. I guess the majority of us non full-time athletes suffer more so from over reaching which is put right by a few days rest. Overtraining, however, is only 'corrected' by weeks (often months) or decrease intensity.

If power is increasing then you're gaining fitness and fine. if it's staying the same then you're maintaining fitness. if you're continually under power then you're possibly overtrained (sometimes now referred to as underperformance syndrome).

The real answer then seems to be obtained from monthly testing then, I guess? If you see an increase in your MAP month after month building up to your Peak period then fitness is increasing. The bigger the increase (assuming you have been training regularly for the last 2 years or more) the better or more effective your training program. Maybe it's time to lob the Polar S810 in the bin....?

Tom

p.s. Is Lactate Threshold more so a function of power or HR then?!