Training vs. Competition Motivation MPs for Power-Based Training Levels

[RapDaddyo]

As I have begun to intensify and refine my training program (having fired Bozo), I have been looking more carefully at the methodology of setting power-based training levels or zones. All methodologies have one thing in common. The training levels or zones are derived from a max power (MP) effort. The durations vary from schema to schema and the testing methodologies vary from schema to schema. For example, a continuous, sustained intensity for a given duration vs. a ramp-up to a maximum sustained intensity. But, there is an implicit assumption that this MP is indeed an MP. I have so far found only one explicit acknowledgement of the cyclist's motivation during the MP test -- Andy Coggan states that a 20 min MP test under training motivation will approximate (within perhaps 5%) a 40K MP under competition motivation.

For those of you who train with power, do you apply an adjustment factor to your MPs obtained under training ride motivation when you define your training levels or zones? If so, what adjustment factor do you use? If not, why not? What is your personal experience in the relationship between your MP under training ride vs. competition conditions?

Is anybody aware of any research on this topic? IOW, competitive cyclists who average X watts in a 40K TT vs. Y watts in a lab test. I'm guessing that there is a pretty wide variance in this relationship since it's driven by psychological more than physiological factors.

Finally, shouldn't all power-based training schema address this issue explicitly?

 

[frenchyge]

I don't. I'm assuming, RD, that you would expect the testing MP to be below the theoretical 'true' MP, and so a positive correction factor (>100%) should be applied to the testing MP before setting the zones? I have a couple thoughts which may be more of a justification than a rationale, but here they are:
1) The zones are ranges built around a specific target value at the center. As such, they should contain the amount of variation which could be attributed to the expected day-to-day variation in motivation, focus, etc.
2) Training is *supposed* to generate continual improvement, so there is an expectation that a series of personal bests will result from following the program. That's not to say that one should sand-bag their initial testing, but creating zones based on a competition level conditions and then trying to duplicate them under training conditions will lead to negative motivation during the training period.
3) Similar to #2, competition is *supposed* to yield better performance than training.
4) It's certainly difficult to quantify the difference, and varies by individual and by situation. For my recent timed TT, I set a target that was somewhat higher than what I could achieve during training, and it turned out to probably be a little too high.
5) A. Coggan does mention in his paper that if an NP of >1.05FT is achieved during a ~1-hr race, then the testing should be re-done and evaluated to see if MP has changed, so there is at least an explicity stated consideration that training MP should be kept as close as possible to the 'true' MP.
6) Test early and often. Get those incremental improvements in the bank so you can focus on the next step.

 

[RapDaddyo]

I don't. I'm assuming, RD, that you would expect the testing MP to be below the theoretical 'true' MP, and so a positive correction factor (>100%) should be applied to the testing MP before setting the zones?

Yes. In my own personal case, I estimate the adjustment factor is ~5%, at least in the case of the 40K MP. But, it could be as high as 10%.

1) The zones are ranges built around a specific target value at the center. As such, they should contain the amount of variation which could be attributed to the expected day-to-day variation in motivation, focus, etc.

The levels or zones are also set for a range of durations and I train at the top end of the level for the short end of the duration range and vice versa.

2) Training is *supposed* to generate continual improvement, so there is an expectation that a series of personal bests will result from following the program. That's not to say that one should sand-bag their initial testing, but creating zones based on a competition level conditions and then trying to duplicate them under training conditions will lead to negative motivation during the training period.

Actually, I think the levels or zones already apply a discount rate to the MP numbers. For example, in AC's schema, his L4 intervals are defined at 91%-105% of FT. Since FT represents a 1 hr MP and the L4 intervals are designed for durations of 10-30 mins, there is already a discounting from MP due the shorter durations. IOW, if your 1 hr MP is X watts, your 10-30 min MP is going to be >X watts.

3) Similar to #2, competition is *supposed* to yield better performance than training.

Precisely, which is why the question is important. If the schema has been developed on the assumption that the underlying benchmark was obtained under competition motivation, then using a training motivation data point will result in training levels that are too low for the desired adaptations. If the schema has been developed on the assumption that the underlying benchmark was obtained under training motivation, then using a competition motivation data point will result in training levels that are too high and it would be difficult and discouraging to attempt to complete interval sets.

4) It's certainly difficult to quantify the difference, and varies by individual and by situation. For my recent timed TT, I set a target that was somewhat higher than what I could achieve during training, and it turned out to probably be a little too high.

But, was this the result of applying an adjustment factor to a training motivation benchmark or was this the result of a dearth of MP TT testing data in the first place? IOW, did you have a recent max power TT training ride of comparable duration to your race?

5) A. Coggan does mention in his paper that if an NP of >1.05FT is achieved during a ~1-hr race, then the testing should be re-done and evaluated to see if MP has changed, so there is at least an explicity stated consideration that training MP should be kept as close as possible to the 'true' MP.

Based on my growing number of training rides, intervals, TT testing and the like, I agree with the 5% adjustment factor to go from training motivation to competition motivation. If I did a 1 hr. competition and got an NP = 1.10FT, I would conclude that my FT was too low and I would reset my levels accordingly.

6) Test early and often. Get those incremental improvements in the bank so you can focus on the next step.

Well, as we enter the winter months, competition data is going to be lacking. I plan to do some serious training for the next several months with no races to gauge my competition motivation MP. So, it will be relatively important to be able to use training motivation MPs to set and re-set my levels over the course of several months. Hopefully, I will make progress during these months, but the last thing I want to do is to have the levels be biased downward because of my benchmark data. At the moment, I intend to do one of two things: (1) use my 20MP as a proxy for my 40K MP; or (2) apply a 1.05 factor to my 40K MP.

 

[acoggan]

Andy Coggan states that a 20 min MP test under training motivation will approximate (within perhaps 5%) a 40K MP under competition motivation.

You seem to have misunderstood my comments: my empirical observation is that when people do long (e.g., 20 min) intervals in training, the power at which they can routinely perform them (as in, day in and day out) is approximately the same as the power that they'd maintain during a 40 km TT. IOW, the opportunity to break things into managable "chunks" and the overall shorter duration in most cases seem to compensate for the lower motivation when training vs. racing. What I don't recommend is performing a 20 (or 30) min test and then applying some fixed adjustment factor, because 1) some people will be able to really "nail it" in training, and others won't, and 2) even during a 30 min effort, anaerobic capacity (at least as the concept is expressed in the critical power paradigm) can make a significant, but variable, contribution.

 

[RapDaddyo]

You seem to have misunderstood my comments: my empirical observation is that when people do long (e.g., 20 min) intervals in training, the power at which they can routinely perform them (as in, day in and day out) is approximately the same as the power that they'd maintain during a 40 km TT. IOW, the opportunity to break things into managable "chunks" and the overall shorter duration in most cases seem to compensate for the lower motivation when training vs. racing. What I don't recommend is performing a 20 (or 30) min test and then applying some fixed adjustment factor, because 1) some people will be able to really "nail it" in training, and others won't, and 2) even during a 30 min effort, anaerobic capacity (at least as the concept is expressed in the critical power paradigm) can make a significant, but variable, contribution.

I stand corrected. I re-read your paper and you do make it clear that the 20-min interval power proxy for 40K MP is at a power that one can routinely produce in training, as in 20-min repeats. Personally, I find the 20-min benchmark (whether it's an MP or a routine interval power) appealing for practical week-to-week application because it's something that I will be doing routinely anyway.

 

[acoggan]

Personally, I find the 20-min benchmark (whether it's an MP or a routine interval power) appealing for practical week-to-week application because it's something that I will be doing routinely anyway.

I do as well...hence my saying that when you use a powermeter, 'testing is training and training is testing'. From the sounds of it, you've already figured this out, and consequently already have a very good handle on how much power you can generate for how long.

BTW, re. your 90% comment in another thread: I also find that that represents a reasonable target when doing intervals vs. a single all-out effort. In fact, several years ago my entire winter maintenance program consisted of just one '90/90/90' workout - that is:

5 min w/u
20 min at 90% of my in-season 20 min best
5 min recovery
5 min at 90% of my in-season 5 min best
2.5 min recovery
5 min at 90% of my in-season 5 min best
2.5 min recovery
30 s at 90% of my in-season 30 s best
2 min recovery
30 s at 90% of my in-season 30 s best
2 min recovery
30 s at 90% of my in-season 30 s best
2 min recovery
30 s at 90% of my in-season 30 s best
2 min recovery
5 min w/d

Do that three times per week, lift on another three days (for health and variety), use the seventh day to spend time with your spouse, watch what you eat so that you don't put on a lot of weight, and come spring you won't have any problem getting really fit again (at least I didn't!).

 

[RapDaddyo]

BTW, re. your 90% comment in another thread: I also find that that represents a reasonable target when doing intervals vs. a single all-out effort.

You have no idea how much it makes my day when I say something that you agree with. I am a spirited thinker and sometimes wander into uncharted waters. In this area I am clearly a neophyte, but I am willing to throw my ideas out there anyway. When you or Ric or Lindsay come back and confirm that I might be on the right track, it makes my day.

 

[RapDaddyo]

In fact, several years ago my entire winter maintenance program consisted of just one '90/90/90' workout - that is:

5 min w/u
20 min at 90% of my in-season 20 min best
5 min recovery
5 min at 90% of my in-season 5 min best
2.5 min recovery
5 min at 90% of my in-season 5 min best
2.5 min recovery
30 s at 90% of my in-season 30 s best
2 min recovery
30 s at 90% of my in-season 30 s best
2 min recovery
30 s at 90% of my in-season 30 s best
2 min recovery
30 s at 90% of my in-season 30 s best
2 min recovery
5 min w/d

Which benchmarks happen to be easily derived with the CP software. No coincidence I'm sure.

 

[frenchyge]

Do that three times per week, lift on another three days (for health and variety), use the seventh day to spend time with your spouse...

Hmmm... 6 days of exercise and 1 with spouse. That wouldn't make for a healthy lifestyle for me at all.

 

[RapDaddyo]

Hmmm... 6 days of exercise and 1 with spouse. That wouldn't make for a healthy lifestyle for me at all.

Hmmm... So, you view exercise and time with the spouse as mutually exclusive days?

 

[frenchyge]

Well, no, but that's not cycling specific exercise.

 

[RapDaddyo]

Well, no, but that's not cycling specific exercise.

Oh, I've got it. Is that in the category of weight lifting? That is, it's great to do but don't expect it to improve your cycling?

 

[frenchyge]

It may constitute weight lifting for some people, but my wife's only ~95 lbs...