Share your sprint workouts
- Thread starter postal_bag
- Start date
frenchyge said:
Hmmm so problems I see are that everyone is different.
A ride with same TSS scores will be different between riders and will be different for the same rider from day to day for a million and one reasons.
Problem with NP in that it's cool for training but bike racing isn't like that. Even TTs and Pursuits as the weather, course, track and many other factors affect the ride. Road racing isn't decided by the rider with the highest NP it's by the rider who can get to the NP the fastest or is better able to use their max power.
Problem with IF is you are applying a qualitative factor and claiming it's a quantitative system. May as well go back to using RPE.
Problem with basing IF on threshold is what is threshold? 60min pace. Good for those people who can pace themselves. Many road racers can't pace themselves. Why 60min? Why not 58mins. Again you are basing a quantitative system on someone picking a mark in the sand.
That's enough for now I have to summoned to plan someone's training so better scoot. Argue amongst yourselves and get back to me!
Hamish Ferguson
Pedantic Cycling Coach
I totally agree.beerco said:
To me, macrostructure planning involves knowing in advance, what every single week will be made of, in term of training stress. IOW, I can tell an athlete that in week number 34, durations will be X, intensity Y, and stress factor Z.
But that is just a habit I guess. I am used to start by the stress factor, drawing curves. Then, from those stress factor numbers, splitting them in duration, intensity, energitic files and so on.
Fergie likes to work an other way, fine. I don't see it as being a big deal, as long as he is able to plan a comprehensive and detailed macrostructure.
No, what I said was that I was *not* going to try to convince you of anything. I use it and feel it's better than what I was using before. If a better system comes along then I would consider switching. Care to recommend that I take a look at any?fergie said:
fergie said:
Which is why you have to take such individual difference into account when quantifying training using TSS, just as you would when using any other metric. Then again, since TSS is based on what you actually did pedal-stroke by pedal stroke and takes into account your current fitness, variation between individuals is less than when using, say, miles or hours.
fergie said:
But not different enough that knowing TSS isn't still useful.
fergie said:
You could substitute plain ol' "power" into what you've written above, but you'd still be missing the point: the purpose of training is to enhance the physical attributes (fitness, skills) necessary for success in competition, which in cycling means maximizing one's power output (and minimizing one's aerodynamic drag and mass) across various durations. Analytical tools such as normalized power, or even a powermeter itself, are just aids to achieving this goal.
fergie said:
What qualitative factor is that? IF is the ratio of normalized power to functional threshold power, both of which are quantitative measurements.
fergie said:
And again you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Functional threshold power can be quantified numerous ways, all of which lead to comparable values. IOW, it doesn't matter whether you pick 58 min or 60 min, or rely on critical power testing, or base it on actual blood lactate measurements to determine maximal lactate steady state, the fact remains it is the single most important physiological determinant of endurance cycling performance. It therefore makes perfect sense to base a system around functional threshold power, as I have done.
fergie said:
Oh yes, the standard response on the internet when someone feels that they are losing a debate: "I'm an important person who has got more important things to do!"
fergie said:
Frank was obviously constrained by the fact that the details of how TSS is being applied in this context are still under wraps. The real value of that article is that it points to some of the relevant scientific literature - if you want a complete laundry list of studies that have used mathematical modeling techniques to quantify improvements in performance due to training, I'll be happy to send you one (I think it's up to about 30 papers by now).
fergie said:
No.
BTW, you might be interested to know that I'm not the only one who's been trying to make training more quantitative by applying what's been been learned via modeling studies as published in the scientific literature. I've correspondencd some with an individual at the Mapei training center in Italy who is doing basically the same thing. You therefore might want to hop on board the bus before it leaves the station, because otherwise you're likely to get left behind along with other "old school" coaches.
fergie said:
To reply in a less sarcastic manner...
Why do you think it's all hype? As Frank states in his article, a picture is worth a thousand words. Although the formulas used to calculate it are still confidential, the graph shows how TSS can be used to quantify the training load over a long periods of time.
In 2004 I didn't use this technology to aid in my training but late last year I got an opportunity to plug in my data for that season. It was uncanny the accuracy with which the system predicted my form. There were three occasions which stood out in my mind from that season, particularly a TT which I performed far worse than I expected and two races where I performed particularly well. In all cases, the system's predictions matched my performance.
In the two cases where I performed well, I've come to realize that it was pretty much by coincidence that my form was good those days in spite of following the traditional (read seat of the pants) training/tapering methods.
On the bad day, I used the same well published "tapering" techniques but didn't take into account the several weeks before that had a significant effect on my performance that day.
If I had this information at the time, I could have adjusted my training well in advance to leave my chronic fitness as high as it could be while still leaving me fresh enough to maximize my performance that day.
While TSS does not take into account the exact content of the training, it does give you a big picture view of how your fitness and fatigue are progressing. It still takes a coach or knowledge of what needs to be done when to create a bike racer. TSS gives you a quantitative tool to know when you've been doing too much or when you can do more to build your athlete while there's still time to do something about it.
What quantitative methods do you use to adjust your athlete's training weeks in advance of their target events to achieve those goals?
acoggan said:
Now Andy, that's where your wrong, we had a good meal, a good chat then I had to get home to write three training programmes. I'm only past the general warm up and into a few light stretches on this one. But like all things it's going to come out over time because my riders are more important than arguments on the Net.
Sound fair?
Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach
I think something else is going on here in the wrapup of this thread. What's going on is the response and reaction to innovation. Every field has its innovators, those who aren't content with the current state of knowledge and/or technology. They set out to find new and innovative solutions, to improve the state of the art. These people take risks, because there are inevitably going to be those who find fault with their innovations. Finding fault with something (anything) is the easiest thing to do in the world. If one thinks about it for about 30 seconds, one can find fault with absolutely anything. Others celebrate and applaud the innovation and the innovators. If they see room for improvement, they make specific suggestions for improvement (or just do it themselves). But, at a minimum they applaud the work of the innovators.
In that spirit, I want to absolutely and unequivocally applaud Andy's (and Ric's and biker-Linz's) work. Power is a huge innovation for cycling, but much remains to be done with the power data. Andy and others are pushing the envelope and I only regret that they have to waste any of their valuable time responding to those who view their role in life is to find fault. Keep at it, Andy, et al, all who are pushing the envelope. I can't wait for your next innovations.
In that spirit, I want to absolutely and unequivocally applaud Andy's (and Ric's and biker-Linz's) work. Power is a huge innovation for cycling, but much remains to be done with the power data. Andy and others are pushing the envelope and I only regret that they have to waste any of their valuable time responding to those who view their role in life is to find fault. Keep at it, Andy, et al, all who are pushing the envelope. I can't wait for your next innovations.
If ONLY!RapDaddyo said:
Of course, all - and I mean ALL - training regimens have limitations and faults. We all know there is really no such thing as a perfect training regimen as most of them optimize a particular facet of training while neglecting others.
Wouldnt it be great if you could pick and choose various peices of a training routine from a cafeteria plan? That would be awesome!
Uhm, I'll have a little bit of threshold with a side of VO2 and a dash of sprint training for desert please. Oh yes, and I'd like some endurance to go!
No book, but I'm working furiously on re-defining the information available to those cyclists who happen to have power meters. We only manage one thing when we ride, whether it is a training ride or a race -- power. And, we have but one true scarce resouce on a ride -- sustainable power. Nonetheless, we have pitiful information available to us to manage our power on a ride, real-time. What will coaches do with this? I'm not sure, but they will have the ability to define and analyze training rides with incredible precision. If they are really sadistic, they will be able to script a training ride worthy of design by the devil himself. I may not be an exercise physiologist, but I know a thing or two about computers. Stay tuned.whoawhoa said:
acoggan said:
Ah, what do those Mapei guys know anyway?!
acoggan said:
Old school, old ideas... some good, some not as good as the newer. Gotta be vigilant. The best coaches also know the value of n=1 studies.
I guy I know who used to be at Mapei was chatting with another guy who used to be at Mapei, now helping a Belgian star, passed along a nice little tweak for my "strength"/sprint training (on the bike of course) that helped that Belgian's sprint last year. Uphill sprints, then SFR (big gear, low cadence on climbs), then some quick little sprints to finish the 90 minutes of efforts. Great combination for some sprinters.
"Just win baby!"
-Warren
acoggan said:
Ah, what do those Mapei guys know anyway?!
acoggan said:
Old school, old ideas... some good, some not as good as the newer. Gotta be vigilant. The best coaches also know the value of n=1 studies.
I guy I know who used to be at Mapei was chatting with another guy who used to be at Mapei, now helping a Belgian star, passed along a nice little tweak for my "strength"/sprint training (on the bike of course) that helped that Belgian's sprint last year. Uphill sprints, then SFR (big gear, low cadence on climbs), then some quick little sprints to finish the 90 minutes of efforts. Great combination for some sprinters.
"Just win baby!"
-Warren
WarrenG said:
Crikey Warren, you and your uphill sprints. Some of us are too fat for uphill sprints.
Everyone in NZ does the big gear efforts uphill. Very effective, Andy, are you still doing those ones I suggested. What were your conclusions?
Not so much into the N=1 studies but having a stable of riders certainly helps. The more the better, you really get to feed off their motivation. It's like a chef working on several different meals at the same time. I equate TSS to cooking an egg with a stopwatch. Heat (or Power) X time and you hope you get the egg cooked right. Coaching is creating a banquet of the finest dishes, letting them simmer (base) for a while then when you are just about to unleash your masterpiece you add a bit of spice (intervals). Too much heat or too much spice and the meal is ruined. Get all the ingredients right and viola a master banquet!!!
Tuck in boys
Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach
Similar threads
