That’s exactly the point he’s making and it’s bullshit. Most of the people that focus too much on power are those folks that don’t have a fucking clue how to use a power meter. These are the folks that say, “hey, I went out and mashed the pedals really hard today and made 1500w”.
Power ain’t about some number of watts someone is making at a given moment in training. I could take a competent rider, do some testing with a power meter, calibrate their RPE and have them targeting any energy system they chose in training based on RPE alone. Following that, I could coach the aforementioned rider through an entire season without ever once giving them a prescription for riding at X watts at Y minutes. That said, I’d still never coach a rider that didn’t have a power meter, because there a dozen better reasons to have one, not the least of which is an ability to quantify training stress.
A lot of people also miss the fact that the book is called Training and Racing with a Power Meter. In a race, it’s super helpful to have the ability to pace sub-threshold efforts. It will also help folks identify specifically what shortcoming caused the rider to lose a race. Having data from the moment when the rider gets dropped is a fucking gold mine.
Anyway, just rehashing shit that’s already been well hashed in this thread.
imma have to assert that until someone trains with power
they really cant give a fair evaluation on what it’s all about
it’s just a tool. use it however strikes you as appropriate.
for me
i like it
somedays i feel fast and make small number (most days)
somedays i feel all one legged (like today) and shitty
and make big number
but the numbers allow you to not bullshit yourself
Training can go either way though. Gadgets for training are especially hit or miss. Golf is the typical stereotype that gets pulled out for that example because of the money and finesse involved to do it well. I don’t see any difference in defining how much power my club head puts out compared to its cycling equivalent. It quantifies something to use a tangible example as a teaching tool. Your golf pro/cycling coach can get as good of results without anything but the core equipment of the sport. The only reason anyone seeks out that training gadget or in person training is because they didn’t improve enough by doing it a lot on their own.
So we take our pile of training apparatus and measuring devices and books and chaining all the figures together and learning a new language and other people trying to make sense of all of this. What it ends up as is pretty overwhelming and overly complicated processes with and overt focus on step by step detailed ways to improve. You subtract all the quacks selling this fancy crap along with the complication they introduce, you may just get left with some good training equipment being poorly used.
That sounds a lot like calling everyone and idiot but it’s not. In the right hands it offers very distinct evidence of how you stack up in the varied skills involved in biking. You put someone to the task of doing a sprint from 500 meters out for weeks on end and there is little chance of them picking up on nearly as much as an educated analysis of that first performance would yield in the coming weeks. Very very few people have any idea of what strong points they have until they have and understanding of their power profile.
Taking something that has the potential to be that powerful and letting the individual utilize it has had profound effects. Foremost of my concerns is safety. Replacing the normal rhythms and internal dialogs with technical chatter messes up more than on the road awareness. It also messes with the learning curve that anyone falling into the “having just something you can’t exactly teach” category went through. You can make up for natural talent with hard work. But you can’t really diagnose your own problems that came about from being privy to something far beyond your ability to handle. That is called irresponsibility on the part of those pushing the training plans and using modern multimedia to whip up further stupidity. The world is full of examples of poor combinations that don’t completely destroy themselves including this one.
we all don’t have 30 hours a week to train in the “ride lots” method. i wish i did, but i have to get by on what little time i have while working 60hrs a week and i want my training to be as effective/efficient as possible. therefore, i’m starting to use a coach + power meter at the beginning of next month. my coach knows that i know how to handle a bike, how i ride/race, and how to improve my weaknesses and build my strengths. at some point, you become a machine, just concentrating on a program and ignoring outside interference, but that’s the game we’ve gotten ourselves into if we want to be competitive. i could have stayed a cat4 forever and just raced for the fun of it, but i wanted more. to each their own.
[quote=rando]Riding tons will make anyone better, yes.
Training can go either way though. Gadgets for training are especially hit or miss. Golf is the typical stereotype that gets pulled out for that example because of the money and finesse involved to do it well. I don’t see any difference in defining how much power my club head puts out compared to its cycling equivalent. It quantifies something to use a tangible example as a teaching tool. Your golf pro/cycling coach can get as good of results without anything but the core equipment of the sport. The only reason anyone seeks out that training gadget or in person training is because they didn’t improve enough by doing it a lot on their own.
So we take our pile of training apparatus and measuring devices and books and chaining all the figures together and learning a new language and other people trying to make sense of all of this. What it ends up as is pretty overwhelming and overly complicated processes with and overt focus on step by step detailed ways to improve. You subtract all the quacks selling this fancy crap along with the complication they introduce, you may just get left with some good training equipment being poorly used.
That sounds a lot like calling everyone and idiot but it’s not. In the right hands it offers very distinct evidence of how you stack up in the varied skills involved in biking. You put someone to the task of doing a sprint from 500 meters out for weeks on end and there is little chance of them picking up on nearly as much as an educated analysis of that first performance would yield in the coming weeks. Very very few people have any idea of what strong points they have until they have and understanding of their power profile.
Taking something that has the potential to be that powerful and letting the individual utilize it has had profound effects. Foremost of my concerns is safety. Replacing the normal rhythms and internal dialogs with technical chatter messes up more than on the road awareness. It also messes with the learning curve that anyone falling into the “having just something you can’t exactly teach” category went through. You can make up for natural talent with hard work. But you can’t really diagnose your own problems that came about from being privy to something far beyond your ability to handle. That is called irresponsibility on the part of those pushing the training plans and using modern multimedia to whip up further stupidity. The world is full of examples of poor combinations that don’t completely destroy themselves including this one.[/quote]
Dude, you very clearly aren’t reading and understanding what’s being written in this thread. If you’re not interested in having a dialogue, then go elsewhere.
You’ve got some preconceived notions about training with power and I’m telling you that they’re wrong. You’ve reiterated your preconceived notions a couple of times and they don’t get less wrong. If you want to wax poetic about your opinions on a topic about which you have very little experience, then great, but you’re not doing anyone a service except yourself.
Here, get this:
At <$17 I bet it’s an expense you can bear. Read the damned thing from cover to cover then check back with this thread.
I’ve actually read it, used one, and realize just how long lab based power testing has been available to elite athletes. I felt that the subtlety of what I had to say was being missed but won’t hammer at it anymore. The question you have raised in my eyes is why you neglected to turn me onto this easy reading version instead. I’m kidding.
Do you coach Heath? I’m not trying to be dense about what you are getting at. You are correct that I was seeking answers to my own questions and my own shortcomings. My reentry into biking highlighted some ingrained training from years past not working as good for road as it did in mtb. That and how overdeveloped my anaerobic capacity is which greatly reduces the time outside of it.
I’d be curious as to how you rate cyclings needs in the rather standard sport specific pie chart of physical strength, mental strength, and skill. For instance, rock climbing is dead even among the three and weighting one or two more than another greatly detracts from performance.
Hardly, I’m just overly anal about things that cost $$$$ and have delicate electronics. Handing over the files to a coach is pretty spendy too. Especially if you aren’t racing or sure you want to. Bike tech is moving too fast for me to jump into the market so I was worrying the finer points for lessons I won’t have time to dig into when riding twenty hours a week and then wrenching to keep things running correctly. Knowing is half the battle and all that jazz. I’ll quit annoying everyone and go back to fucking off and making jokes.
i’m considering setting up my PT with a clincher pdx crusade so i can get a look at a file from my next cross race
i think it will help me target my training a little better
speaking of, what are some good cx workouts?
local hero MC stresses lots of threshold and “microbursts”
I’m not sure I buy into the notion of “microbursts”, typically 15s on and 15s off. IIRC Coggan says that you’re inevitably capped by FTP and that the training stimulus might not be sufficient to cause an adaptation. These folks seem to think it influences NM:
I’d think that if you wanted better significantly better NM, you’d hit the weights. Personally, I believe that maxing anaerobic work capacity has more benefit for CX, which you improve by doing 10x1s. If you get a power file from a race, that could help identify any weaknesses you might have.
Your search for understanding is not annoying. Your attempt to give guidance when you should be seeking it is annoying.
Want to train with power? Get the Coggan book, read it, then buy yourself a used powertap for $500-700 or thereabouts. Then spend a year actually learning to train with power, following which, you’ll have more clue about what you do and don’t need to do.
FTP is essentially your ‘base’ that you have to power through for the bulk of the race, given you’re going 45min - 1 hour.
anaerobic capacity is the icing on the cake wherein you whittle away at your competitors little by little each lap on the more difficult features of a course, e.g., steep run up, short/steep hill, a section comprised of repeated hairpin turns that you have to accelerate hard out of, or slog through nasty goo mud/sand/etc.
on that note, i’m of the opinion that rippletoe program is pretty uncharted territory for making gains of that nature in cx, but mainly for pre-season work.
as usual the real chore is balancing all the different elements that effectively go into race fitness, e.g. running, fast reflexes, bike handling, mental adversity in shit weather, aerobic fitness, anaerobic capacity, etc
Agreed. Again, NM is more easily trained with weights. One can increase AWC in existing muscle tissue with the standard methods. I have to believe that the increased muscle mass that comes from weight training has to improve AWC along with force production exclusive of one’s genetically predisposed limits to power production.
I haven’t tested this, but given the program being used on track teams, specifically the British Cycling, it must be effective. Definitely something for the offseason, though.
I consistently see better AP and NP on the microbust sets, and better 5-10 sec power, from the guys I help out after they’ve done a couple of cycles in the gym.
I also see that it helps them stay still in the saddle while churning something big on the flat. that strength reserve helps in maintaining position and not heaving all over the place.
imho squats, cleans, and dead lifts do more for a cyclist’s core than anything else