Share your sprint workouts

[fergie]

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.

But is normalised power relevant to actual racing? Does the person with the highest normalised power always win or is it the rider who has the endurance to go the distance and the speed to either jump the field, climb faster when needed or win the sprint.

If normalised power is trying to relate a training ride to highest maximum pace then how will it take into account training rides where the rider has several goals?

What qualitative factor is that? IF is the ratio of normalized power to functional threshold power, both of which are quantitative measurements.

What? .75-.85, sounds nice and clear cut but is not quantitative.

<0.75 level 1 recovery rides
0.75-0.85 level 2 endurance training sessions
0.85-0.95 level 3 tempo rides, aerobic and anaerobic interval workouts
(work and rest periods combined), longer (>2.5 h) road races
0.95-1.05 level 4 intervals, shorter (<2.5 h) road races, criteriums,
circuit races, 40k TT (by definition)
1.05-1.15 shorter (e.g., 15 km) TTs, track points race
1.15 prologue TT, track pursuit, track miss-and-out

I tried to run this sort of thing past Will Hopkins (another very well published Exercise Physiologist) years ago and his response was "********, there's no physiological basis for this".

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.

Ah hah the penny drops. You're training for endurance cycling performance. I train riders to win bike races. Each to their own.

Now you will have a tough time convincing me that functional threshold is the most important factor in winning bike races!

So if we uphold the specificity of training principle (train as you intend to race) then you can see why I have a few reservations about TSS.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

 

[YMCA]

Ah hah the penny drops. You're training for endurance cycling performance. I train riders to win bike races. Each to their own.


Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

Exactly what we are talking about on another forum. In "general", some countries train scientifically for performance (and usually make lots of strong time trialists) while other countries train riders in tactics/techniques (learning them to win). All the science is fun to play around with while developing fitness, but the BEST coaches are the ones that stress the most important part of competition, sniffing out the line.

Being highly fit is very important, but two-hand-salutes are what drive many of us to train.

If I had a choice of two coaches, one with massive EP theories and the other was some pro from 1960 who knew how to win, but had no idea of anything "science", I'd always take the old fool. Experience and tactics make bike racers. I'm not racing against the clock, I'm racing to beat 100 other saliva dripping dogs.

 

[acoggan]

But is normalised power relevant to actual racing? Does the person with the highest normalised power always win or is it the rider who has the endurance to go the distance and the speed to either jump the field, climb faster when needed or win the sprint.

Is the ability to repeatedly produce a power output in excess of your maximal steady state power relevant to actual racing? I'd say so, and I assume you would as well. So, if we agree on that point then we agree that normalized power accurately reflects the demands of racing, at least better than average power. Does that mean that the person who generates the highest normalized power will always win the race? Of course not...but no one has ever claimed that to be true, just as no one has ever claimed that the person who generates the highest average power will always win the race.

If normalised power is trying to relate a training ride to highest maximum pace then how will it take into account training rides where the rider has several goals?

A straw man argument: no one has said that you should just consider the normalized power, and nothing else.

What? .75-.85, sounds nice and clear cut but is not quantitative.

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Main Entry: quan·ti·ta·tive
Pronunciation: 'kwän-t&-"tA-tiv
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin quantitativus, from Latin quantitat-, quantitas quantity
1 : of, relating to, or expressible in terms of quantity
2 : of, relating to, or involving the measurement of quantity or amount

<0.75 level 1 recovery rides
0.75-0.85 level 2 endurance training sessions
0.85-0.95 level 3 tempo rides, aerobic and anaerobic interval workouts
(work and rest periods combined), longer (>2.5 h) road races
0.95-1.05 level 4 intervals, shorter (<2.5 h) road races, criteriums,
circuit races, 40k TT (by definition)
1.05-1.15 shorter (e.g., 15 km) TTs, track points race
1.15 prologue TT, track pursuit, track miss-and-out

I tried to run this sort of thing past Will Hopkins (another very well published Exercise Physiologist) years ago and his response was "********, there's no physiological basis for this".

Either Will misunderstood your question, you're misquoting him, or he deserves to have his doctorate rescinded, as it is quite well established that exercise intensities can be readily divided into varying domains, with one clear demarcation occuring at critical/maximal (lactate) steady state/functional threshold power (another being, of course, power at VO2max).

ah hah the penny drops. You're training for endurance cycling performance.

Endurance cycling performance = anything except match sprint, kilo or 500 m, keirin, team sprint, and BMX.

I train riders to win bike races. Each to their own.

As if that isn't the goal of those who use the analytical tools I've developed.

Here's a statistic for you, Fergie: since I started using a powermeter on my bike 5 y ago I've won 13 out of 58 (22%) mass start races that I've entered, and podiumed 31 out of 58 times (53%). In road races (which are my best event), I'm 8 out of 12 (75%). Can you or any of the riders you coach claim the same?

Now you will have a tough time convincing me that functional threshold is the most important factor in winning bike races!

Now you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth, as you're the one who just touted those AIS studies, one of which concludes exactly that.

So if we uphold the specificity of training principle (train as you intend to race) then you can see why I have a few reservations about TSS.

Which just goes to show that you simply don't understand TSS. There's absolutely no reason that you can't "train as you intend to race" and still benefit from using this tool.

 

[acoggan]

Everyone in NZ does the big gear efforts uphill. Very effective, Andy, are you still doing those ones I suggested. What were your conclusions?

I only wanted to do a couple of workouts to collect some data to illustrate a point. I never intended to waste my time by actually training that way.

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!!!

Equating a coach to a chef is a reasonable analogy...but where would even the best chef be without modern tools?

 

[yzfrr11]

I only wanted to do a couple of workouts to collect some data to illustrate a point. I never intended to waste my time by actually training that way.

I've incorporated a bit of high gear riding in my training recently, though I haven't drawn any conclusions yet. Andy, why do you think it is a waste?

 

[acoggan]

I've incorporated a bit of high gear riding in my training recently, though I haven't drawn any conclusions yet. Andy, why do you think it is a waste?

Briefly, because:

1) strength is generally not an important component of cycling performance;

2) so-called "strength endurance" training doesn't result in high enough forces to result in an increase in strength or in muscular hypertrophy;

3) while such training may or may not enhance recruitment of type II (fast twitch) muscle fibers, it is unclear why this would be necessary/beneficial, since such fibers are readily recruited and trained by training at a normal cadence; and

4) the specificity principle states that (as Fergie put it) you should train as you race (and not very many people pedal at a high intensity for an extended period at <60 rpm...although if for some reason you do, this type of training might be appropriate).

To the above I might add that such training can lead to injury, which means that it is potentially worse than simply being uneffective. Some argue that this type of training is useful because it allows you to identify flaws/weaknesses in your biomechanics and/or musculoskeletal system, which can then be corrected. However, if pedaling at a normal cadence doesn't reveal such flaws (e.g., knee pain), then you can also very well argue that strength endurance training is simply a dangerous solution to a non-problem.

 

[yzfrr11]

I've incorporated a bit of high gear riding in my training recently, though I haven't drawn any conclusions yet. Andy, why do you think it is a waste?

I suppose that I should add why I think it might be useful:

I have been doing a 30 minute tempo ride in upper power zone 2 weekly at about 60rpm. The torque is similar to zone 4 but it seems easier to recover from compared to a z4 workout. Does this make any sense?

 

[frenchyge]

I've been waiting for your conclusions myself. Have you updated the Quadrant Analysis article with the new data?

3) while such training may or may not enhance recruitment of type II (fast twitch) muscle fibers, it is unclear why this would be necessary/beneficial, since such fibers are readily recruited and trained by training at a normal cadence; and

This one seemed to be the closest to beneficial from my understanding. My thought was that SE training might allow training the type II fibers during *sub-threshold* and 'sweet spot' rides, which could entail a higher volume. Any thoughts on the potential benefits of that?

Maybe we need to jump to a new thread if there's enough to discuss on this topic.

 

[acoggan]

I suppose that I should add why I think it might be useful:

I have been doing a 30 minute tempo ride in upper power zone 2 weekly at about 60rpm. The torque is similar to zone 4 but it seems easier to recover from compared to a z4 workout. Does this make any sense?

It makes sense that the workout would be easier to recover from, since the power is lower. As for the torque (surrogate for pedal force), I think that's a bit of red herring...it might be comparable to a level 4 workout, but that doesn't really mean anything since the cadence (and hence power) is different.

 

[acoggan]

I've been waiting for your conclusions myself. Have you updated the Quadrant Analysis article with the new data?

I'm working on a blog entry, but haven't had time to generate a pretty graph to illustrate the points I intend to cover.

This one seemed to be the closest to beneficial from my understanding. My thought was that SE training might allow training the type II fibers during *sub-threshold* and 'sweet spot' rides, which could entail a higher volume. Any thoughts on the potential benefits of that?

If you're working hard, you're already training them to the point that they express only type IIa instead of type IIx (IIb) myosin, and have just as many mitochondria as your type I fibers. I therefore don't see how pedaling extra slowly can provide any additional benefit (esp. since it isn't clear that you'll use your type IIa fibers any more than you already do).

 

[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 and a better understanding of the training that's most appropriate for themselves. If people need or want a tool, great, but success with it doesn't mean everyone else would be better off using the same tool.

I know a few Masters Nat's champions who hardly even use an HRM, much less a PM. They are very aware of how their body feels and responds to training. They see data as a distraction from their focus on what their body is actually doing. They can apparently measure their body's performance pretty well without a PM. I'm using a PM and HRM and I also feel this way sometimes.

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.

You're a good toolmaker but some guys have used other tools with good success too. I sell stuff. Not every one wants or needs it. That's okay.

So... is she going to be a pursuiter or, <shudder> a sprinter?

-Warren

 

[WarrenG]

Regarding low cadence, big gear training on hills...

If you're working hard, you're already training them to the point that they express only type IIa instead of type IIx (IIb) myosin, and have just as many mitochondria as your type I fibers. I therefore don't see how pedaling extra slowly can provide any additional benefit (esp. since it isn't clear that you'll use your type IIa fibers any more than you already do).

According to my coach, and some other pro coaches who've used this training with great success, a key reason is that the muscles are in relatively high tension for a relatively long period of time. One of the benefits is that it teaches the muscles to perform during other times when muscles are under high tension (albeit, not for as long) and the movement of blood is somewhat constricted, like during in the saddle accelerations that are well above LTPower, long sprints, some climbs, etc. My own performance has improved in these areas and I asked to do even more of this training this year.

In past years I'd do this block of intervals (some coaches call them "Slow Frequency Response" SFR -is better in Italian) after a warmup. As I mentioned yesterday we are now doing the SFR after a block of 4-9 uphill sprints that are 20" long. It's been found that pre-fatiguing the fibers has made the SFR training a bit more stressful. I definitely agree. In the past we'd follow the SFR block with some high cadence spinning to finish the session but now we are finishing with some 10" sprints at high (90-130rpm's) cadence-even better I think. If you're not a sprinter like me, YMMV, but a lot of road pros are using this too. Boonen for one.

-Warren

 

[BlueJersey]

We all know that if you don't have the fitness, in this case a high sustainable NP, you can't animate the race at all. Let alone winning.

But is normalised power relevant to actual racing? Does the person with the highest normalised power always win or is it the rider who has the endurance to go the distance and the speed to either jump the field, climb faster when needed or win the sprint.

If normalised power is trying to relate a training ride to highest maximum pace then how will it take into account training rides where the rider has several goals?



What? .75-.85, sounds nice and clear cut but is not quantitative.

<0.75 level 1 recovery rides
0.75-0.85 level 2 endurance training sessions
0.85-0.95 level 3 tempo rides, aerobic and anaerobic interval workouts
(work and rest periods combined), longer (>2.5 h) road races
0.95-1.05 level 4 intervals, shorter (<2.5 h) road races, criteriums,
circuit races, 40k TT (by definition)
1.05-1.15 shorter (e.g., 15 km) TTs, track points race
1.15 prologue TT, track pursuit, track miss-and-out

I tried to run this sort of thing past Will Hopkins (another very well published Exercise Physiologist) years ago and his response was "********, there's no physiological basis for this".



Ah hah the penny drops. You're training for endurance cycling performance. I train riders to win bike races. Each to their own.

Now you will have a tough time convincing me that functional threshold is the most important factor in winning bike races!

So if we uphold the specificity of training principle (train as you intend to race) then you can see why I have a few reservations about TSS.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

 

[acoggan]

According to my coach, and some other pro coaches who've used this training with great success, a key reason is that the muscles are in relatively high tension for a relatively long period of time. One of the benefits is that it teaches the muscles to perform during other times when muscles are under high tension (albeit, not for as long) and the movement of blood is somewhat constricted, like during in the saddle accelerations that are well above LTPower, long sprints, some climbs, etc.

What your coach and other coaches seem to fail to realize is that the forces being generated actually aren't all that high - in fact, they are no greater than what you encounter when climbing stairs. IOW, you (they) are arguing that the best way to prepare for "...in the saddle accelerations that are well above LTPower, long sprints, some climbs, etc." is to hike to the top of the Empire State building. Me, I think the best way to train to meet such demands is to actually ride a bike the way you will when racing.

 

[RapDaddyo]

You're a good toolmaker but some guys have used other tools with good success too.

What are those tools that compete with NP, IF and TSS?

 

[acoggan]

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.

I know a few Masters Nat's champions who hardly even use an HRM, much less a PM.

Good for them, but so what?

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), 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? ;-)

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.

 

[acoggan]

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.

BTW, let me go on record as saying that I don't buy the claim that there are significant regional differences in the quality of riders in the United States. I base that statement not only on having personally lived and raced all over the country, but also on the observation that, when you take into account travel issues (which tend to skew things in favor of locals) or the effects of extreme environments (which tend to skew things in favor of those who reside at altitude or where it's very hot/humid), riders from a particular region of the country never dominate at, e.g., master nationals. Indeed, when you consider how mobile US citizens tend to be (especially those of higher socioeconomic status, who tend to be more often found racing bicycles), there's no reason to expect significant regional differences in people's abilities (the depth of a field is another story...but races with very few riders can be just as hard, if not harder, than races with many).

 

[WarrenG]

What are those tools that compete with NP, IF and TSS?

Learning to feel accurately. Years of experience. Accurate training logs. One of the things that seems to work really well for me (and my coach) is very precise prescriptions for the training sessions, e.g. 3x10' at a certain intensity, 5 x 30" sprints in x gear on a hill, rpm's from y to z, certain amount of rest between each rep and block, etc. The prescription will never be something like, "2-hour tempo ride, 3 sprints in a 53x16.".

This reduces the questions about what was actually done in training and it's easier/more accurate to asses the responses to it. I also have a lot of experience and it seems like my (verbal) feedback is accurate enough for him to prescribe appropriately. I'm sure this approach isn't appropriate for everyone-other methods and tools would work better.

-Warren

 

[WarrenG]

BTW, let me go on record as saying that I don't buy the claim that there are significant regional differences in the quality of riders in the United States. I base that statement not only on having personally lived and raced all over the country, but also on the observation that, when you take into account travel issues (which tend to skew things in favor of locals) or the effects of extreme environments (which tend to skew things in favor of those who reside at altitude or where it's very hot/humid), riders from a particular region of the country never dominate at, e.g., master nationals. Indeed, when you consider how mobile US citizens tend to be (especially those of higher socioeconomic status, who tend to be more often found racing bicycles), there's no reason to expect significant regional differences in people's abilities (the depth of a field is another story...but races with very few riders can be just as hard, if not harder, than races with many).

Have you raced extensively in NorCal? Lots of (male) Nat's Champions here, especially track and criterium. In the average 45+ criterium here we have 4-78 guys who've won at Nat's during the last 2 years.

I've done about 300 criteriums in New England and the northeast and in the masters and categories below 2 there is a very noticeable difference from there to here.

Look at the results for Master Nat's and you get some ideas about where the top riders tend to come from. Definitely regional differences there.

-Warren

 

[acoggan]

Learning to feel accurately. Years of experience. Accurate training logs. One of the things that seems to work really well for me (and my coach) is very precise prescriptions for the training sessions, e.g. 3x10' at a certain intensity, 5 x 30" sprints in x gear on a hill, rpm's from y to z, certain amount of rest between each rep and block, etc. The prescription will never be something like, "2-hour tempo ride, 3 sprints in a 53x16.".

This reduces the questions about what was actually done in training and it's easier/more accurate to asses the responses to it.

Or you could put a powermeter on your bike, measure what you actually did pedal-stroke by pedal-stroke, then quantify the workout using precise analytical tools instead of relying on somebody's recollection/perception. The beauty of this approach is 1) it's simplicity (it's amazingly freeing to be able to go out and ride your bike up hill and down dale, and not have to be staring at your heart rate monitor all the time, and 2) it's completely objective. That's not to say that subjective measurements, e.g., perceived effort, aren't useful...they can be, but only in relation to what was actually done. For example, it really tells you nothing useful if I say "today's workout was hard!!!" unless you know precisely what that workout was.