What software for power meter?
- Thread starter scottz123
- Start date
For example: you could do a 2 hour L2 workout and accumulate a TSS of 70-80 day in, day out with no sign of overtraining. I doubt you could do the same if you were accumulating the same TSS via high end L4 or L5. Then there's other factors such as heat, accumulated fatigue etc etc.
I know what the math is and what the training is like. It depends on your current level of fitness and the training and racing you've been doing. If you have a nice road racing season behind you, a few VO2 efforts won't seem like a deal breaker and neither will 2 hours of L2. Conversely, if you've been pounding out intervals on the trainer indoors during winter and neglected all levels prior to L5 then a couple o' three hours at top end L2 will bring its own world of hurt. Been there and done that back at the end of the 80s. What you suck at tends to hurt the most.
While those two sessions have different goals, the similar TSS that's obtained matches fairly well with the resultant fatigue - as long as you pretty much nail your FTP during racing/testing. Either a few hours of L2/L3 or a number of L5 intervals done in a session with some L2 will leave moderately sore legs the day after. If it doesn't then you're not doing something right.
I'll just say in general that using TSS as a guide has worked very nicely for how I train. By observing my typical weekly structure and trends within the PMC I have learned what I can do day to day by somewhat controlling IF and TSS in order to train more consistently. I even glance at IF and TSS during my long weekend rides because I know about what typically happens at certain TSS totals and how that will impact training the next day. Typical is the key word because my body does not always recover as if it operated like a math equation, but generally the trend is near the same provided I stay on top of my post training recovery habits. It doesn't matter if it is a frisky group ride that racks up 300 TSS from a series of burned matches and coasting in between or if it is 300 TSS from a long solo ride the result the next day is near the same.
My opinion of these metrics are not based on what I have read about them pro or con, but rather how I have applied certain training structures and observed the trend of these metrics in the PMC over period of many months and now a few years.
For most of us willing to have a civil discussion we can make up our own minds how to use these metrics or not use them, but being disruptive and slanderous at times is pretty juvenile and for most of us we know who is the troll. I don't find AOG's comments to be humorous or enlightening or productive in a civil discussion.
My opinion of these metrics are not based on what I have read about them pro or con, but rather how I have applied certain training structures and observed the trend of these metrics in the PMC over period of many months and now a few years.
For most of us willing to have a civil discussion we can make up our own minds how to use these metrics or not use them, but being disruptive and slanderous at times is pretty juvenile and for most of us we know who is the troll. I don't find AOG's comments to be humorous or enlightening or productive in a civil discussion.
My reading comprehension is just fine:
So while suggesting everyone stay away from software that uses these concepts, you use software that uses these concepts. Like I said, you're a hypocrite.
As for there being no science behind the concepts, that's simply false and misleading. Equating the use of such things as religion is ludicrous.
I guess we will have to disagree about your reading ability.
I suggest you ask acoggan (who claims to be Andy Coggan) about the science of NP, TSS and what not. I believe that acoggan's words about those ideas were "it is not science, it is a hooby." I will take his word over yours simply because you are a nobody.
---
Now if you want anyone to take NP, TSS and what not as science, you need to provide a testable definition of what those concepts measure. Andy Coggan gives several definitions that are contradictory and are either not testable or obviously easy to disprove. acoggan claimed the definition of measuring glycogen depletion on TrainingPeaks.com was not the actual definition. And he refused to give the correct definition. Glycogen depletion is easy to disprove which is why acoggan disavowed it.
If you want to offer a definition of what is being measured in sufficient detail to allow testing, I will give you a test that will prove NP, TSS and what not is invalid.
Remember acoggan produced a list of 12 people who have proved these concepts are invalid.
I appreciate your support.
If you have read the responses to your post, you will see people do seriously believe that. But that is what causes religion.
I don't take much notice of what many of the so called "power training guru's" preach as I find too much of it goes against traditional theories which have been studied, tested and proven over decades. I'm not going to get into arguments or explanations as to why I feel this way, other than to say I am a bit "old school" and old school methods have worked nicely for me in several different endurance sports. Use what you believe works for you.
Speaking of religion: look at how much momentum the whole "sweetspot" Tempo, threshold training approach has gained! A classic example of "if a little works then more must be better"! But that's another story!
Does AOG have two accounts now? The whole "sweet spot" thing isn't new. If you'd have half an eye on methods used by guys like Peter Keen back from the early 90's with Boardman, you'd find that quality had replaced quantity. Sure there were 6 hour rides on a mountain bike while his team mates rode their road bikes during winter - but during the season, long intervals at 425 watts on the Kingcycle trainer on the TT bike were key. Bang for your buck and all that. Specificity... No wonder he broke the hour record a few times and popped out a 16 minute 10 mile TT on a shitty course. Keen was kind enough to share that info on a few BCF coaching sessions that I attended back in the day. Keen's L2 and L3 (similar to Andy Coggans L3 and L4) was the key. Maximize the work you can do to raise your threshold - pretty basic stuff really. Massively effective, so much so you really don't need a power meter to see the difference in results. Prior to that guys like Hinault had mentioned that riding for 3 to 4 hours at a hard pace was much more effective than riding all day in a small gear. DeVlaminck preceded Hinault and used to ride 3 hours hard, stop for a long lunch and the nails another few hours in a 100 inch gear. For guys of his calibre - 52x14 at some good revs for 3 hours = sweet spot. You may come to realise that some of us are not entirely spring chickens and might have been around the sport for a good few decades...Conan said:
Thanks for the insult! I said do what works for you!
Re my reference to SST etc: I am referring to the countless posts on this and the google wattage group whereas riders pick up on the concept and ride day after day, month after month doing SST, SST and more SST and wonder why they get stale, sick and often make no progress!
Please direct me to the studies which show the SST/threshold approach superior to a more traditional approach?
.....and on the flip side of this I have seen multitudes of positive comments regarding SST.
Why is it necessary for you, AOG or anyone else that does not agree with these metrics (TSS, ATL, CTL, TSB) and with a training principle like SST to interrupt a civil discussion among those who do use these metrics? Why not just ignore the discussion and move on to something you do agree?
For those of us that do use these things and find that it has helped us progress why not follow your own quote and let us discuss and do what works for us?
I am certainly not going to criticize your method of being "old school" and training "by feel" as you stated. There is nothing wrong with that approach at all and I am willing to abide in your quote of "do what works for you." I am the only guy among my local cycling friends that uses a PM and, yes I get some good ole smack talk that I follow some sort of "voodoo power meter training." I am no better or no worse than any of them, but I have caught up with these guys in performance and the joking has subsided a bit and have heard more "whatever you are doing it sure is working well for you" from those veteran cycling friends.
However, once some of us have had good results using these metrics and training principles like SST (SST is not the only training principle I follow) compared to the days when we trained by "feel" as you described I doubt we are going to abandon the methods and the metrics if they are working for us. Why can we (those who do use these metrics) not discuss these things amongst ourselves without someone coming here and making slanderous remarks against Dr. Coggan or anyone else?
And please direct me to the studies which show that traditional "old school" long slow miles in winter etc. is superior? Especially for those with less than 15hrs/week to train?
Obviously if you're riding 30 hours a week, then long slow distance is going to be pretty much all you can manage for most of it. But for working people with families (i.e., not full-time pros) why is the old school approach better, apart from that it "works for you"?
... And which one of countless "traditional" approaches are you talking about. I started racing in the mid 80s and have seen countless variations on pretty much every theme.Conan said:
When you're putting in 20 hours a week after a solid racing season, even the SST rides end up being slightly milder versions of a 50 mile TT - except maybe for 60 or 70 miles. One thing I noticed during my final real season of racing back in 95/96 was that having done a winter fun of 85 to 95 rpm in a fairly large gear you're so much better able to handle the demands of racing than you would have if you'd been doing the equivalent of treading water in 42x16 for many many hours... ... But there's always time if you're putting in lots of hours for a recovery day in 42x16 where to go chat with the lads and grab a cup o' tea and some food. Just don't count it as training.smaryka said:
Similar threads
