Share your sprint workouts
- Thread starter postal_bag
- Start date
Quote:acoggan said:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
Andy, it's obvious that using a powermeter has been a very useful tool for you but there are many, many riders with better race performances than you who do not use a powermeter at all. They apparently have a bit more talent
Of this I have no doubt - all you have to do is look at how Robert Black has found his niche to realize how much genetics plays a role.
You snipped the part referring to lots of other guys who go far beyond just their natural talent in one niche. Like guys who do well in more than one event and/or have more than one good ability-without needing to use a PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
I know a few Masters Nat's champions who hardly even use an HRM, much less a PM.
Good for them, but so what?
Using a PM isn't a prerequisite for success. Some have decided it's a distraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
How about quoting your statistics from events (e.g. National Championships) where you faced really good riders, many of whom weren't even using powermeters? I'm not serious, but just because a person is successful in the races in their local area does not mean they're more clever than other good racers around the country.
Well, let's see: I've been on the podium two out of the five times I've gone to master nationals (even though two of those trips were to race the track, which isn't my strength any more than long, hilly road races are yours),
That's untrue. A good TT'er should also be good at pursuiting-we see this crossover frequently. You know this. Very different from a sprinter climbing hills.
..and most of the wins I cited came when I was racing in the Mid-Atlantic region against the likes of Grant Soma, Robert Black, and Greg Smith, who finished 1st, 3rd, and 14th in the 3 km pursuit and 2nd, 4th, and 5th in the points race at master track nationals last year. Good enough competition for ya? ;-)
Not really enough to be bragging about statistics of placings. You didn't beat any of them at the main event-Masters Nat's. Not even close really. That's okay, but you should not be bragging about the %'s from local races if you have so little success at the events that matter most.
I've been top three at Nat's in 4 of 6 events I've done in the last two years. And the two events I didn't get top 3 in I was, well, helping to ensure the win of my buddys, and they did win-and they choose not to use PM's. So what? I don't think this alone is a valid reason for Hamish to decide that my point of view about TSS or something like that is any more valid because of my race results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
So... is she going to be a pursuiter or, <shudder> a sprinter?
Considering her heritage, I'd be shocked if she turned out to be a good sprinter.
15 years from now, "Where did we go wrong?! She's always talking about jumps, and leadouts and 135rpm's..."
-Warren
It seems to me that if this is the most effective way to train and coach, then the trend would be in this direction. It is certainly cheaper than paying $1K+ for a PM and CP, and it's probably easier to find a coach who doesn't really know much about power than it is to find one highly qualified in training with power (and who rides with power himself as Ric does). But, I think the trend is the opposite. Do you have any explanation for that? Are we all just stupid?WarrenG said:
acoggan said:
I won't take the time. Tracks are scattered around. About twenty of them. Riders from some tracks tend to perform (relatively) very well compared to some others. Washington state area, Colorado, SoCal, NorCal, T-town, some in Texas, all are relatively good for track results.
Criterium nat's... 2004 Criterium:40-44, winner, 45-49 2nd place, 50-54 winner, 2005 criterium: 45-49 winner and three of top 5 places, 50-54 winner... all from NorCal. These are the ones I know from memory. It's the weather! Race against these guys every week and then brag about your % to prove a point.
Big fish in small, shallow pond doesn't mean much.
-Warren
acoggan said:
First I'll say that it's not the "best way to prepare for...". It is _part_ of the best way for some riders to prepare for...
This is the problem with trying to do too much training that is very specific for your event. You need to work on each of your limiters within that event (and sometimes the little components of a limiter), in the proportion that each needs, so that the synergy of all the factors will be as optimal as possible.
As a simple example, this is why the 2003 and 2005 men's elite TT champion, and the women's elite 2004 TT champion don't just do TT's for their training. They're both good stage racers too, with a coach who knows how to train the little parts appropriately to make the best whole. Works for me and my winning % is... blah-blah-blah.
-Warren
Of course it's not, and yet that's specifically the question Hamish chose to ask (ie, who's used TSS to get good race results). Where were you then and why don't you challenge Hamish for asking the dumb question instead of Andy for answering it?WarrenG said:
WarrenG said:
And where do you find the most active track racing? California, Pennsylvania, Washington...
WarrenG said:
Masters road nationals were in Spokane in 2001 - of the 30 jerseys given to men that year(discounting tandem TT, which is definitely a speciality event), only 4 went to Californians (including the TT winners in the 75-79 and 80+ age groups).
Master road nationals were in Bakersfield in 2002 - Californians did better in their own hot and dusty backyard, as you'd expect, winning 9 out of 30 jerseys, but amongst those under 50, only Chris Walker managed to snag one for the "Golden Bears".
Master road nationals were in Louisville, KY in 2003 - it's harder to say how well Californian's did when they had to travel to the midwest since USA Cycling doesn't provide the states of the winners for that year, but of the names the only Californians I recognize are Thurlow Rogers and a couple of the geriatric set (which I hope to eventually join).
Master road nationals were in Park City in 2004 (and 2005 as well) - again, without some digging it's hard to say who was/wasn't from California, but again I only recognize a few names.
Like I said, the notion that one region of the country is somehow "tougher" is bogus...
WarrenG said:
I'd love to, but if I raced industrial park criteriums against wheel-sucking trackies every week then my winning percentage wouldn't be nearly as high.
WarrenG said:
So when is the ability to pedal for extended periods at a sub-optimal cadence a "limiter"? The only time that would be true is if you broke your rear derailleur cable and couldn't get a spare bike, such that you were stuck in your small cog all the time.
WarrenG said:
Yes, but my point in bringing up Robert (Eugene) Black's recent success is to illustrate how important talent (genetics) is, regardless of how you choose to train and/or what tools you choose to use.
(For those who don't know him, Mr. Black is a long-time masters/cat. 3 rider who has apparently discovered that he has a talent for pursuiting, winning master nationals in the 45+ age group in both 2004 and 2005, and in the process taking out the previous masters world champion.)
WarrenG said:
Yet another straw-man argument, as no one has ever claimed that it was.
WarrenG said:
Indeed I do, which is why my wife's TTing improved dramatically the year she won elite nationals. But there's a difference between being good at pursuiting and being great at it, especially when you're talking about the 3 km distance. Again, to use my wife as an example: she'd be fortunate to place in the top 10 in the TT at road nationals, but none of the current US roadies have come close to her 3 km time, despite the fact that they've been pursuiting on an indoor 250 m wood track and her personal best was set on an outdoor 333 m concrete one. Or, just compare me to Robert Black: with all due respect to the fellow, he's pretty much pack-fill in Mid-Atlantic masters road races (and again, if he's gotten better results than I remember, I apologize) and I don't think he's ever gone under 55 min in a 40 km TT (I know that I put a couple of minutes into him at the Virginia TT in 2001, despite suffering a stop-and-go penalty myself due to a broken spoke), but he's proven that he can kicks everybody's butt (including your friend Larry Nolan's) over 3 km.
WarrenG said:
I've never raced any of them at the "main event", which for me would road nationals. As for the "events that matter most", I haven't really cared about how I've placed in races since 2001 (which happens to be the year that I took out the Mid-Atlantic BAR title racing against the likes of Soma et al.).
WarrenG said:
I think that you guys are really missing the role of TSS, NP and IF here.
The question you really ought to be asking yourself is: "do I want to improve my training methods?" if the answer is yes, several new questions arise: "are there better ways of training?". "Am I willing to take the time to learn new things". "Will I be passed up if I don't adapt?"
If you're not willing to change what you're doing in order to improve, or you think what you're doing is so perfect that you can't improve upon it- skip TSS and any other new stuff - it won't help.
If on the other hand you don't think you're doing everything perfectly already, you believe that there can be improvement in your coaching and most importantly, if you're willing to take the steps to learn a new technology to help your performance, then TSS is certainly your bag.
If you look at the science that Andy bases TSS on, it's nothing new and nothing groundbreaking - It's all stuff that has been proven to work by a number of other Ph.D.s. The novelty is the adaptation of these methods to using a cycling powermeter as the input - something that really only cyclists have access to. Something that opens the doors to stuff that's still off limits to all other athletes because it's only the Ex-Physios that have access to these gadgets in the lab. The science behind this stuff is sound and the people using it have plenty of data which prove that it works.
If you don't want to use the technology because you're happy with your current training fine, don't use it. Please don't poo-poo the methods though just because you somehow feel undermined because you're not willing to take the time to learn how to use it.
I fancy myself a bit of an amateur chef and judging how quickly everyone cleared their plates on new years, I get the impression that I'm a pretty good one. Plenty of chefs cook completely by the seat of their pants and do a great job. Many of these chefs have had formal training and have years and years of experience. Many of my friends also cook completely by the seat of their pants and sometimes end up with lousy food. Depending on what I'm cooking, I often use a stopwatch and a thermometer because I know that it's going to come out right that way every time, not just sometimes like my friends.
TSS, NP and IF are like a stopwatch and thermometer for cooking. Can you cook without it? Sure. Will you do as good a job without it as with it? Sometimes. If you use the right temperature and know how hot to get the center of that tenderloin though, it will always come out perfect if you use a thermometer - and that's why there's still plenty of top notch professional chefs who use them.
-Andy B.
acoggan said:So when is the ability to pedal for extended periods at a sub-optimal cadence a "limiter"? The only time that would be true is if you broke your rear derailleur cable and couldn't get a spare bike, such that you were stuck in your small cog all the time.
!It's about tension more than cadence. The cadence part is useful on the track mostly, when you're accelerating relatively hard, in the saddle, but the tension in these situations is very high too.
I think the reason so many road riders (those who must do long climbs in races) I know about like this training is that it's easier to simulate the high tension environment with SFR than going out and doing intervals at power above VO2max power levels (and beyond). Save those intervals for later and/or get them during races.
The SFR training was/is popular at Mapei Center so maybe you can ask your buddy there to discuss this with you in a different way than I can. Even if you still don't agree with it you might better understand it from them instead of me.
-Warren
WarrenG said:
Again, the "tension" (force) isn't all that high - in fact, even for somebody like me (who can do SE training at closer to their maximal velocity-specific force than most, due to low maximal neuromuscular power and high muscle fatigue resistance) it isn't any higher than that encountered when climbing stairs.
WarrenG said:
I understand them just fine - better, in fact, than you or your coach seem to, since you apparently labor under the misconception that pedaling for an extended period at, say, 45 rpm requires a high force production.
how about a long, over-geared climb?
But seriously would you recommend ANY structured training that exploited cadence variation? For instance, my cadence is about 95-100 rpm (at TT pace). My NM power/weight is quite low and I have trouble riding down around 75-80 rpm at L4 power. Is there any benefit to riding at ~80% of natural cadence as I am currently trying twice weekly at UL3-LL4 power? Power is about 90% of FT and cadence only 80%, so my average torque/force about 10% above my regular TT baseline.
I have to say I feel I'm handling shortish pitches better than I was -- not having to change gear to get over a pitch certainly helps one keep up the momentum. None of our courses are flat here (not super hilly either) but feature 500-1000m hills 5+% and plenty of 100-200m rollers.
I'm not talking 40/50/60 rpm but in a range that I can use on the road - sort of expanding my comfortable 'cadence band'.
Oh yeah, FT is up ~20W since I started doing these. That's proof eh?
(six weeks of 800+ TSS may have had some impact too)
rmur
But seriously would you recommend ANY structured training that exploited cadence variation? For instance, my cadence is about 95-100 rpm (at TT pace). My NM power/weight is quite low and I have trouble riding down around 75-80 rpm at L4 power. Is there any benefit to riding at ~80% of natural cadence as I am currently trying twice weekly at UL3-LL4 power? Power is about 90% of FT and cadence only 80%, so my average torque/force about 10% above my regular TT baseline.
I have to say I feel I'm handling shortish pitches better than I was -- not having to change gear to get over a pitch certainly helps one keep up the momentum. None of our courses are flat here (not super hilly either) but feature 500-1000m hills 5+% and plenty of 100-200m rollers.
I'm not talking 40/50/60 rpm but in a range that I can use on the road - sort of expanding my comfortable 'cadence band'.
Oh yeah, FT is up ~20W since I started doing these. That's proof eh?
(six weeks of 800+ TSS may have had some impact too
)rmur
beerco said:
Actually, I would say that the work that Banister has done is, or least was, quite groundbreaking. But you're absolutely correct in saying that TSS and the Training Manager are really just applying those ideas (although I will take credit for the novelty of normalized power ).
beerco said:
I think you explained it quite well: the value of something like the Training Manager isn't necessarily that it helps you perform better, but that it helps you get it right much more often.
beerco said:
I don't know if you're adressing me or someone else but your point about the need to improve, well, some things don't really need to be improved, and some do. In the case of using TSS, my coach (based on his experience and feedback from me) is already able to assess my training response and fatigue 2-4 weeks out with uncanny accuracy. We rarely change more than a rep or two within a training session (because of my response or fatigue) that was written out weeks prior, and week to week I'm at the limit of where I should be (wrt fatigue and stress).
I tested the IF, NP, TSS stuff about a year and a half ago and it didn't work as well as what I already have access to, so no need to incorporate it because I can do better with out it.
I see no problem with other people using IF, etc. as long as they understand the limitations (many people don't) and plan accordingly, and as long as they don't preach that everyone would get better cycling performance by using these things.
To go with your chef analogy, do you need a timer to cook eggs or a crepe in the pan? Some people do, but _you_ can tell in other ways, and with usually more accuracy whether the eggs or crepe are as you want them because of your past experience and training.
"Allez cuisine!"
-Warren
acoggan said:Like I said, the notion that one region of the country is somehow "tougher" is bogus...
I'd love to, but if I raced industrial park criteriums against wheel-sucking trackies every week then my winning percentage wouldn't be nearly as high.
Of the 20 or so relatively flat criteriums I did with the 45+ group in 2004 there were only two that I remember where we finished with a field sprint for any of the top 3 places. In 2005 I think there were three field sprints for the win but in one of those we (I) chased down the break with less than a mile to go before the field sprint.
-Warren
acoggan said:
Sorry Andy. I'm not really qualified to say whether Banister's work was groundbreaking or not, what I meant was that Banisters work has been around for quite a while and has been validated by plenty of others.
acoggan said:
Exactly. TSS, NP and IF do not dictate which workouts a coach prescribes when, but a good coach can use a tool like training manager to help prescribe the right workouts at the right time to yield good performance. The recipe is still up to the coach.
acoggan said:
As I said before, the training is done on a hill, for me 2-4% grade, sometimes a bit steeper. Reduced help from momentum. From experience I can tell you that the tension/force are greater than that found on flat terrain even in 53x11, and sometimes more than climbing stairs.
-Warren
WarrenG said:
It doesn't really matter. The average force on the pedal is strictly a function of your power output and your cadence. The peak force on the pedal will be slightly higher when the inertial load is low, but not enough to really matter.
WarrenG said:
I think this just goes to show you how poorly calibrated your "experience" really is. I say that having actually determined the average effective pedal force when pedaling for extended periods at 4-4.5 W/kg and 45 rpm (and very low inertial load) - can you claim to have done the same?
Similar threads
