Ok I have been through the "Beyond Average Power" chapter in "Training And Racing With A Power Meter" a few times. It seems to me that this "Quadrant Analysis" tool is nothing more than a fancy way of restating "specificity of training" in a very technical manner. I did a quadrant analysis on two ride files. One on a 20 minute threshold test and then a another on very hilly TT. The scatter plots were fairly predictable. The results clearly show that for nearly the same normalized power, the power was produced quite differently. This makes it clear that performing steady state threshold intervals on a trainer is a less than suitable training environment for a hilly TT. I do not mean to be sarcastic but duh, that’s pretty obvious. The specificity of training rule states that the most ideal way to train for an event is to match the demands of that event as closely as possible in training. What am I missing here? Even in the book there is a statement used to support the quadrant analysis tool that seems rather obvious, "Don’t expect to be a successful criterium racer if you spend a majority of your time in quadrant III riding back and forth to the coffee shop"
To be fair this book is one of the best resources I have ever read on training. It brings very technical information to the average Joe in such a way that self coaching becomes a reality. Coggan and Allen are some fairly sharp guys so I must conclude I am missing something and thus over simplifying this concept. So then… what am I missing here?
To be fair this book is one of the best resources I have ever read on training. It brings very technical information to the average Joe in such a way that self coaching becomes a reality. Coggan and Allen are some fairly sharp guys so I must conclude I am missing something and thus over simplifying this concept. So then… what am I missing here?