# 310 Watts for 20 minutes, 4.5 watts per kilogram, non-typical plan to get there.



## 2fst4u (Dec 2, 2006)

To me 4.5 watts per kilogram for 20 min is a challenging goal, but according to this chart it would equate to cat 1 level fitness I hope it would make me faster on the trail.









The funny thing is that I've already been riding (surviving) my last two seasons as a Cat 1 mountain biker with my 20 minute power around 260W, 3.7 watts per kilogram. I did do Cat 1 nationals this year (Finished at the bottom of the barrel)

I'm thinking of a non-typical strategy this year for getting to my goal of 4.5 watts per kilogram for 20 min. 315ish watts for me.

The plan would be performing intervals throughout the winter and spring at 315 watts, starting at 2-3 minutes once every 7-10 days then adding 2 or so minutes each month until late spring/early summer until I make the 20 minutes at 315W (4.5 wpk) (I haven't fully explored a full interval breakdown but just throwing out numbers)

This would be an alternative to the typical plan of basing all your training zones on your current Functional Threshold Power and basing it, instead on the power you want to reach. Your just simply starting with intervals at small amounts of time at your 20 min power goal. Of course I would do base training and race prep/"build" periods with typical threshold intervals and such.

Overall it would be high intensity for a short duration yet the duration would increase and the intensity would decrease because you are adapting to the intervals as you go.

Any thoughts on this strategy. You could call it "working your 20 minute watt goal by performing intervals at that wattage"


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

How long can you hold 315 watts for currently?

Unless you've been doing something horribly horribly wrong with your training the past few years increasing your 20 minute power by 55 watts in just 6 months sounds like a big ask to me.

It's always good to set an ambitious goal though. See how close you get.


----------



## 2fst4u (Dec 2, 2006)

Not sure how long I can hold 315W, not very. I'm somewhat new to my power meter, so maybe I'm not a good judge of how much a persons FTP can improve in a 6 month period. One thing is for sure, the guys leading the Cat 1 pack are very fast and if I ever hope to podium I need to be able to get those numbers or something close. I guess I'm getting a bit frustrated... this was my second season as Cat 1 and nowhere close to the top 3-4 guys, and not a whole bunch of improvement. (My job killed my training this summer) I realize the improvement curve slows once you are more experienced but I hope to improve at a better rate in 2014.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

I'd be inclined to do a 315 watt test (see how long you can hold it) and also a 20 minute FTP test quite soon, so that you have some baseline figures to start from.

Your form and power output is likely to vary naturally with peaks and troughs during the year. If you can hold 260 watts for 20 minutes at your peak fitness in the summer then during the winter off season you'll probably find that your current best 20 minute power is lower, possibly by a lot, than 260 watts at the moment.

If you've been riding and training continuously for several years it's harder to pull out major improvements year on year, especially when you're comparing peak to peak power outputs. These were my 20 minute test results from 2011 through to August 2012 for comparison.










https://forums.mtbr.com/xc-racing-training/2x20s-880364-post10765917.html#post10765917

Getting big improvements in power output is easily do-able, if you're starting from a very low fitness level to begin with. My best 20 minute power now (mid November 2013) is at least 34 watts higher than it was three months ago in mid September 2013. That's because I hadn't ridden a bike for a year previously (due to my broken leg) so there were plenty of easy gains to be made.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

2fst4u said:


> Not sure how long I can hold 315W, not very. I'm somewhat new to my power meter, so maybe I'm not a good judge of how much a persons FTP can improve in a 6 month period. One thing is for sure, the guys leading the Cat 1 pack are very fast and if I ever hope to podium I need to be able to get those numbers or something close. I guess I'm getting a bit frustrated... this was my second season as Cat 1 and nowhere close to the top 3-4 guys, and not a whole bunch of improvement. (My job killed my training this summer) I realize the improvement curve slows once you are more experienced but I hope to improve at a better rate in 2014.


The chart you posted refers to road categories... which don't really align with MTB categories.

The average Cat 1 MTB racer (if they race road) is usually a Cat 4 or maybe 3 on the road. Most Pro MTB racers I know are Cat 3 or Cat 2 on the road. A Cat 1 road racer has a big engine, and if they are relatively light and can handle a bike make for a very formidable MTB racer.

LMN (who should know) says that there are guys doing well in World Cup XCO races who put out a little less than 5.0 w/kg at FTP (60 minute power), for reference.

How many years have you been racing and training? It takes a few years of consistent riding and training (without long interruptions) to reach your potential; I'm still improving 7 years in.


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

tommyrod74 said:


> The chart you posted refers to road categories... which don't really align with MTB categories.
> 
> The average Cat 1 MTB racer (if they race road) is usually a Cat 4 or maybe 3 on the road. Most Pro MTB racers I know are Cat 3 or Cat 2 on the road. A Cat 1 road racer has a big engine, and if they are relatively light and can handle a bike make for a very formidable MTB racer.
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

peabody said:


> tommyrod74 said:
> 
> 
> > The chart you posted refers to road categories... which don't really align with MTB categories.
> ...


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> > From a pure fitness standpoint, trod is sorta correct. I ride with some Cat 1 roadies who now race Cat 2 mtbs and get humbled out there because they are too timid in the turns and descents and anything technical anywhere up or down...
> ...


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

peabody said:


> rydbyk said:
> 
> 
> > yeah my point...the local pro road guys I know all race local pro mtb
> ...


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

peabody said:


> tommyrod74 said:
> 
> 
> > The chart you posted refers to road categories... which don't really align with MTB categories.
> ...


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

rydbyk said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> > From a pure fitness standpoint, trod is sorta correct. I ride with some Cat 1 roadies who now race Cat 2 mtbs and get humbled out there because they are too timid in the turns and descents and anything technical anywhere up or down...
> ...


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

peabody said:


> rydbyk said:
> 
> 
> > yeah my point...the local pro road guys I know all race local pro mtb
> ...


----------



## Devincicx (Nov 20, 2011)

I agree with peabody, that was a pretty absurd statement regarding MTB vs roadies. You sure can do those comparison if looking at the average MTB rider you know but in general, there is not much difference between both. The main difference probably resides in MTbers generally taking themselves less seriously then roadies. I raced road, and now race MTB, and trust me, there are a bunch of average fitness dudes riding the elite pack on the road. Same goes for MTB racing.

There is a meta analysis comparing measures in pro XC racers and pro roadies and both are basically equivalent, with the pro MTBers sometimes having as high or higher w/kg ratio then TdF climbers.

Racing a bike is so much more then w/kg and fitness.

To the OP: im not sure your strategy is optimal, starting with short duration intervals and progressing to longer durations may prove to be too little stimulus to induce adaptations. I'd work more around some high intensity efforts and steadier efforts at higher and lwoer power output, respectively.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Devincicx said:


> I agree with peabody, that was a pretty absurd statement regarding MTB vs roadies. You sure can do those comparison if looking at the average MTB rider you know but in general, there is not much difference between both. The main difference probably resides in MTbers generally taking themselves less seriously then roadies. I raced road, and now race MTB, and trust me, there are a bunch of average fitness dudes riding the elite pack on the road. Same goes for MTB racing.
> 
> There is a meta analysis comparing measures in pro XC racers and pro roadies and both are basically equivalent, with the pro MTBers sometimes having as high or higher w/kg ratio then TdF climbers.
> 
> ...


Again, you're talking about top-level pros in each sport, and the engines are certainly comparable.

The OP was talking about local Cat 1 Mtb racing. There is a HUGE variance in Cat 1 power output, which makes sense as all you have to do to get to Cat 1 is podium 5 times in Cat 2 and apply for an upgrade. Cat 2 requires NO points to upgrade from Cat 3.

You can therefore become a Cat 1 MTB racer by podiuming 5 Podunk races with only 1-2 other decent riders.

Becoming a Cat 1 road racer is much harder. Much deeper fields, and many more points required. On top of that, most Cat 2 races are combined with pro and Cat 1 fields except at very large races, so to get upgrade points you have to Place against Cat 1 and pro racers. Not only that, there is less incentive to move up... because you already race pros and Cat 1s, why bother?

The Cat 2 road upgrade (from 3) also means all of a sudden you are doing pro distances in open road races. 75-100 mile road races = much more training volume (average 12-18 hrs/week) for most Cat 2 roadies I know (unless they only race crits).

How many Cat 2 MTB guys you know are training 12-18 hrs/week? Most Cat 1s I know don't do that much. Because they don't have to.

Again, post what categories you race and your experiences. I race pro XC and Cat 1 CX. Only Cat 3 on road, though I'll likely move up this year.

While several of the local Cat 1 Mtb guys are good (Cat 3) road racers, many others are Cat 4 / 5 packfill. There's a very wide range of engines in Cat 1 Mtb, and the average isn't anywhere near the average Cat 1 road level.

I'd also point out that anyone you know in the pro/elite road field with "average" fitness is likely a gifted sprinter or a supremely talented crit racer who can make up for a lack of w/kg by racing very intelligently. There is no one of "average fitness" finishing with the leaders in a climb-heavy open road race, that should be obvious.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

First of all 55 watts is a big ask. Honestly, 50 watts is generally difference between peak form and completely out shape. Not saying it isn't possible but over a single year, not likely. Now combine and increase in power with a loss of weight and you are starting to get some where.

As for the Categories: Cat 1 on the road and Cat 1 on the mountain bike don't really align. Cat 1 on road is the highest category you can race in, in mountain biking there is the Elite Category after Cat 1.

Cat 1 on MTB is lot closer to Cat 3 on road. Both generally represent very dedicated racers, who prioritize working, school or family over racing. When you get into Cat 1-2, or Elite MTB you get a lot of racers for whom racing is their main priority.

For OP, I am fairly competitive in Cat 1 on the MTB, not winning but it seems no matter where I race (and I have raced in a lot of places) I am 3-8th. When I am on top form my CP20 is around 4.0. Generally I have stronger technical skills then guys I race with, but that is often offset by poor nutrition well racing, and not always getting the most out of my fitness (i.e. mentally weak). If you can get around 4.0 and have sufficient technical skills you should be competitive.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Thanks, LMN. 

I'd add that I'm usually around 4.8-4.9 w/kg. First season in the new category I usually finished lower podium (3rd-5th) in pro/elite, better in mass-start marathon and endurance races (won several this year). I usually finish a couple of minutes ahead of the fastest Cat 1 at any given XC race.


----------



## 2fst4u (Dec 2, 2006)

LMN said:


> First of all 55 watts is a big ask. Honestly, 50 watts is generally difference between peak form and completely out shape. Not saying it isn't possible but over a single year, not likely. Now combine and increase in power with a loss of weight and you are starting to get some where.
> 
> As for the Categories: Cat 1 on the road and Cat 1 on the mountain bike don't really align. Cat 1 on road is the highest category you can race in, in mountain biking there is the Elite Category after Cat 1.
> 
> ...


Good point... I didn't think through regarding the chart being based on road riders. Your comparison of Cat 3 road and Cat 1 MT bike seems very accurate for me as I train with roadies (on the road and off) and they burn me on the road and I burn them on the trail.

4.0 sounds a bit more realistic and a little more doable than 4.6... Thanks for the input.


----------



## jcm01 (Oct 23, 2011)

2fast - good luck dude. Always good to have goals!

Regarding the chart, it is indeed based of road categories - which as Tommy and LMN indicated, don't align. It's just a fact.


----------



## scottz123 (Jun 16, 2012)

2fst4u said:


> Any thoughts on this strategy. You could call it "working your 20 minute watt goal by performing intervals at that wattage"


I have never heard of that strategy.

Basically you would be doing VO2 max intervals. 120% is usually the high end of range to do 3-5m intervals with equal amount of rest in between efforts.

If you are looking for any other ideas maybe these from Hunter Allen can help

Hunter Allen Peaks Coaching Group: How to Rebuild Your Power Foundation

Doing just 2,3&4 helped me last off season
Peaks Coaching: Take Your Performance to the Next Level


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

How did quotes that I didn't make end up as my quotes?? Haha. Never seen that before.

Good luck 2fast!


----------



## Poncharelli (Jan 13, 2005)

I'll confirm what everyone else said. CP20 around 4 is just about right for doing well in Expert/Cat 1.

Each summer I'm about 3.8-3.9 based on CP20. In our local Expert class (non-sanctioned in Utah) I'm out of the top 10, usually about 12th - 19th out of 25-30 or so. When I did well in Nationals Cat 2 last year, I believe I was probably pushing 4 W/kg for CP20, mainly because of some good weight loss (160 on the dot). 

Coincidentally, I hold a Cat 3 license on the road, but I have some strengths that are well suited there. My CP5 is about 340-350W and I hit a 5s PR of 1180W this past season at 46 yrs old (crossfit?). But my CP1 ain't the greatest at around 500W (not by road racing standards) and I don't recover as fast after hard efforts compared to younger guys. 

Now I race Masters 1-2-3 exclusively on the road and I'm definitely at the very tail end of that group. I think I've only broken the top half twice. A dude I know won the state Masters road race and he said he hit 600W for a minute to win the short uphill finish and he only weighs like 135. That's insane.


----------



## serious (Jan 25, 2005)

Something just does not add up here. Below are my average power numbers straight out of the PowerAgent tool I use with the CycleOps 300 Pro. Everything was achieved indoors at 147 lbs and I am 51 years old.

My FTP (CP60) puts me at 3.65 W/Kg and the CP20 puts me at 4 W/Kg. But I cannot come close to hanging with Experts in short races. Even in Sport class I struggle to hit top 5. I only do well in long, endurance races (as in 5-8 hours).

So I have no idea how you guys manage to do well with 4 W/Kg at 20 minutes. Here in Ontario I am sure you need 4 W/Kg for 60 minutes (FTP) to do well in Expert category.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

serious said:


> Something just does not add up here. Below are my average power numbers straight out of the PowerAgent tool I use with the CycleOps 300 Pro. Everything was achieved indoors at 147 lbs and I am 51 years old.
> 
> My FTP (CP60) puts me at 3.65 W/Kg and the CP20 puts me at 4 W/Kg. But I cannot come close to hanging with Experts in short races. Even in Sport class I struggle to hit top 5. I only do well in long, endurance races (as in 5-8 hours).
> 
> So I have no idea how you guys manage to do well with 4 W/Kg at 20 minutes. Here in Ontario I am sure you need 4 W/Kg for 60 minutes (FTP) to do well in Expert category.


The short answer is it's not just about FTP, unless you are simply doing a time trial.

Most XC races start with a sustained effort well above FTP (up to 10+ minutes), and you'll have repeated efforts above FTP when climbing or putting in/following attacks.

Good anaerobic power and repeatability are also necessary as a result.

Good FTP without good anaerobic ability = better at longer, steadier races.

Another short answer is that FTP (and other metrics) don't race for you, and taken alone don't tell the whole story.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

serious said:


> Something just does not add up here. Below are my average power numbers straight out of the PowerAgent tool I use with the CycleOps 300 Pro. Everything was achieved indoors at 147 lbs and I am 51 years old.
> 
> My FTP (CP60) puts me at 3.65 W/Kg and the CP20 puts me at 4 W/Kg. But I cannot come close to hanging with Experts in short races. Even in Sport class I struggle to hit top 5. I only do well in long, endurance races (as in 5-8 hours).
> 
> So I have no idea how you guys manage to do well with 4 W/Kg at 20 minutes. Here in Ontario I am sure you need 4 W/Kg for 60 minutes (FTP) to do well in Expert category.


If you think back to the short races where you were getting dropped consider where you were losing contact. Was it on short accelerations and repeated sprints?

That would be my guess as your 30 second and 1 minute best power outputs aren't that high. That profile looks a lot like mine used to over the last few years when I'd consistently get blown away by everybody on short power climbs and sprinting as I just couldn't deliver enough of an explosive burst to keep up. After doing even more damage to my left leg crashing last year it's worse again in 2013...


----------



## scottz123 (Jun 16, 2012)

serious said:


> Something just does not add up here. Below are my average power numbers straight out of the PowerAgent tool I use with the CycleOps 300 Pro. Everything was achieved indoors at 147 lbs and I am 51 years old.
> 
> My FTP (CP60) puts me at 3.65 W/Kg and the CP20 puts me at 4 W/Kg. But I cannot come close to hanging with Experts in short races. Even in Sport class I struggle to hit top 5. I only do well in long, endurance races (as in 5-8 hours).
> 
> So I have no idea how you guys manage to do well with 4 W/Kg at 20 minutes. Here in Ontario I am sure you need 4 W/Kg for 60 minutes (FTP) to do well in Expert category.


I have a teammate who podium's in age group expert in midwest and he is a 5.0 W/Kg, so I see your point.

His 1m power is 85% more than his 60m power, while yours is 70%. I know he does at one point in season 1m all out with 4m recovery repeats to get his 1m power up.

As far as working with what you have and being better at short races, ,maybe at right time of season this will help. Mountain Bike Power | FasCat Coaching :: Cycling Coach for all Cyclists

I know this chart above is 'road oriented' but maybe go thru this "power profiling" article and see where you are at. TrainingPeaks | Power Profiling


----------



## serious (Jan 25, 2005)

Yeah, I guess you guys are right on. I am terrible at big efforts delivered again and again. In some hard starts I get completely hammered and it take me a full 30 minutes to recover. By then I am way back and the next hour is a struggle to catch up. And I do warm up carefully, which does help. 

I know with age the ability to accelerate and sprint decreases but for me it is particularly troublesome. The good news is that my steady efforts are still decent.


----------



## chiva (Oct 13, 2010)

The chart in Coggan's book is misleading. I'll tell you why. About two years ago I was in the best shape of my life. I was at about 4.5 w/kg at my race where i hit my peak. Well, I was podium for the TT first stage in a stage race but only about 10th on the hilly circuit race and road race stages. This was Cat 4 road racing. There are some mighty fast dudes out there. Racing is humbling! My power out put was ok but I needed to be about 8 lbs lighter. That would have boosted my w/kg just enough to hang and give me a chance instead of getting dropped. Now with two little kids I've got no chance I love those kids though!


----------



## bootsie_cat (Nov 3, 2004)

OP- what you propose for training does not work (starting at the wattage you want to hold and then keep adding more time until you can hold it for that long).
If it did work- there would be many more fast bike racers and many more strong guys in the gym. What you propose assumes there is no ceiling.
Though your system will not work, there are many methodologies that do work. You can likely make yourself stronger than ever with a solid winter program.
It does not need to be huge time- just the right time.
Keep researching or hire a coach that specializes in training riders who are time crunched.
VO2 max work is over-rated. I know a guy who has won his age group at masters mtb nationals for about the last 5 years. He hardly does any work in the VO2 max area.
But the level he can hold at or just below threshold is incredible. He works at it too- tons of tempo both flat and climbing. Also, he is a great bike handler and very steady when racing. He literally makes times on every inch of the course.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

This discussion has been fascinating to me, as I too have set a target 20 minute power/weight for the start of next season. The rest of this post is a lot about my situation and my approach, but I think it's applicable to the goals the OP posted....

How I've identified threshold power as a weakness

Over the past years, my CP20 w/kg has varied little; and it changes very little throughout a season. Every 20 minute test I've done over the past 5 years has netted 4.2-4.4 w/kg. My race results have improved steadily though...from just off the podium in Cat1 to fairly consistent pro podiums in state level races (Utah). The more V02 efforts in a race, the more successful I am, but if those efforts exceed 6-7 minutes, without at least 2-3 minutes recovery, I struggle. I also suffer if the race is continuously over/under threshold (think cyclocross-which opened my eyes to this). I also struggle as race length approaches 3 hours.

I spent a small amount of time with a coach and he was surprised at my 20 minute test result given my race results...his conclusion was that I was "efficient" on the bike, only expending energy where it is most beneficial. I think he was partially true, but I think the more significant reason is that my threshold power is a relatively low percentage of my V02 max power (5 min power about 5.4 w/kg), and that I can tap into that V02 power if there is ample recovery before the next effort. This all puts my threshold power at about 83% of V02 max...and I've heard that trained athletes will achieve threshold between 75% and 95% of V02 max. So I've targeted to raise my threshold to 88% of a V02 max effort.

So my goal for next year is to boost threshold from 4.2 up to 4.5. How will I do this? This is basically answering the OP's question...or at least the approach that I plan to take.

My plan to boost threshold power prior to next race season

1) Lose a few pounds...not much, I'm at 157-down from 160 and it was very easy (just ate normal portions for a week). I want to get to 150-153. Most of this will be upper body muscle, and I'm okay with this. I will not spend as much time at the gym this winter, as it does not address my major weakness. I will also cut about 2 lb off the race bike...

2) Higher volume with more aerobic time and less gym time....Replace gym time before work with aerobic base miles/activities. Air pollution and snow may force me to hit the slopes for some alpine touring or XC skiing, but again, it's aerobic, rather than the anaerobic efforts I've been putting in at the gym for the last 4 years. Plus, it will be at a higher altitude than here in town (7500' vs 4500'). I've normally been pretty low on volume, my biggest month ever was 42 hrs. I average about 25 hrs/mo. I'm targeting 50 hours a month Dec, Jan, Feb. With a light week at the end of each month.

3) Structured approach through base training....December all low intensity base, January introduce some threshold, February introduce some over/under threshold work. Hit the short intervals hard in March as the races ramp up.

So if I can achieve my target weight (152lb from 157lb), and achieve my target 20 minute power (350 w from 325 w- about 88% of V02 max efforts), I should have boosted my 20 min power/weight from 4.4 up to just over 5.0. Which should make it competitive against just about everyone I normally line up against.

Threats to this plan are potential long work hours, lack of discipline to get sleep (typing this at 12:21 AM), weather, and illness-especially if losing weight.

I'm curious what the coaches in here think of this plan...I've already integrated some input from Poncharelli and Scottz123 (thanks for the input).


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

I have been under the impression that most coaches look for a 10-15% FTP gain in one season as the realistic goal for those willing to work really hard.

.02


----------



## Devincicx (Nov 20, 2011)

Brentos

I think you are complicating things too much for yourself.

Setting accurate goals in absolute or relative numbers is not a great idea, as it can take over your training and push yourself physically and mentally to bad things. There are, in my opinion, way too many numbers in there.

Im not sure what you mean by all low intensity, threshold, etc, but I think you are simplifying things too much and being too linear with your approach. Isolating training intensities is not the best idea and you should still mix things up while having an alternated intensity focus throughout your off season. 

I see where you are going with droping the weight lifting, but have you thought about the benefits of keeping the lfiting going? Even though they are not much bike related...

My advice is: don't over-simplify but don't fall into the number trap. Do not isolate training focus and for god's sake, do not follow silly comments such as: ''that dude I know wins a lot and barely does VO2max, THEREFORE VO2max training is over-rated''.


----------



## serious (Jan 25, 2005)

Devincicx said:


> ... and for god's sake, do not follow silly comments such as: ''that dude I know wins a lot and barely does VO2max, THEREFORE VO2max training is over-rated''.


I agree with that part. Nothing like anecdotal evidence to make a point. 

But I think Brentos has a decent plan to improve himself. It is very ambitious and will push his VO2Max around 61, which is pretty impressive. Mine is around 50 based on the formula ((10.8*CP20_Watts)/Weight_Kg)+7.

Like with all plans, they only work when feedback is available. Not just numbers, but how you feel, how you sleep, how fresh you are before hard workouts and how motivated you are to push yourself during all those long, lonely hours in the basement.


----------



## scottz123 (Jun 16, 2012)

I think a lot depands on terrain you are racing. 

Multiple Short steep climbs require bursty aenorobic power/endurance for example. 

There is one course unique to my area that has a fairly steep 3 min climb that i wrestle up in a 32/32 for the most part. To prepare for this length of effort, i would think 3m x 6 VO2 max efforts @ 120% is the way to go.


----------



## bootsie_cat (Nov 3, 2004)

Your plan is aggressive but likely achievable.
But I would suggest baby steps.
1.) Is that weight loss realistic? What is your bodyfat at current race weight. Many make the mistake of improving one year because they lose bodyfat, then try to do more and end up riding slower because they lose muscle, recovery, etc.
2 lb off bike? What is current bike? How are handling skills? Going to a lighter bike may or may not be the answer. I think a lightweight full sus makes sense except on easy courses and/or courses with really long and smooth climbs.
2.) Volume- you say biggest month ever was 42 hours- I would not go beyond maybe 46-47 hours. unless you are doing many other things to aid recovery. Training is not how much you can do- it is how much you can assimilate and recover from.
Especially if you are moving to a higher altitude. That is an additional load on your body and will requite more recovery. Heck, less volume may even be appropriate?
3.) I would seek to increase 20 minute power- not make it seem like you have to get to 350 to be successful. You say that VO2 max is already a strong point for you- I would not spend to much time trying to increase that. If you push threashold power up, power at VO2 max should be better than ever.
Think tempo- climbs but also flats. Too many mtb riders focus only on climbing- tempo on flats gives you huge staying power.
It seems like you know what your threats are too achieving this goal. Do everything you can to minimize these threats. Make sure the plan that you outline is doable- a super aggressive program that is not doable will leave you tired, flat and unmotivated.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

serious said:


> But I think Brentos has a decent plan to improve himself. It is very ambitious and will push his VO2Max around 61, which is pretty impressive. Mine is around 50 based on the formula ((10.8*CP20_Watts)/Weight_Kg)+7.


How accurate is that formula supposed to be? The last time I had any actual lab testing done was back in the late 1990s (pre injury). If you work back to get the 20 minute power figure from my known bodyweight and known VO2 Max at that time I'm not convinced the resulting power figure is reliable.

I don't think I'd rely on it starting from 20 minute power and bodyweight to give your true VO2 Max.



scottz123 said:


> Doing just 2,3&4 helped me last off season
> Peaks Coaching: Take Your Performance to the Next Level


I like the way he's saying do a 5 or 6 hour ride every week or so, but also do lots of extra intervals and concentrate on quality over quantity. It's making me feel tired just thinking about it.

By rest days he seems to be saying endurance miles, rather than complete days off?


----------



## bootsie_cat (Nov 3, 2004)

*VO2 max*

VO2 max is icing on the cake. You should wring as much as you can out of threshold and sub-threshold before you worry about VO2 max intervals.



serious said:


> I agree with that part. Nothing like anecdotal evidence to make a point.
> 
> But I think Brentos has a decent plan to improve himself. It is very ambitious and will push his VO2Max around 61, which is pretty impressive. Mine is around 50 based on the formula ((10.8*CP20_Watts)/Weight_Kg)+7.
> 
> Like with all plans, they only work when feedback is available. Not just numbers, but how you feel, how you sleep, how fresh you are before hard workouts and how motivated you are to push yourself during all those long, lonely hours in the basement.


----------



## Devincicx (Nov 20, 2011)

bootsie_cat said:


> VO2 max is icing on the cake. You should wring as much as you can out of threshold and sub-threshold before you worry about VO2 max intervals.


How? Why? Since when VO2max is the icing on the cake? It can serve many other purposes, adaptation-wise.


----------



## bootsie_cat (Nov 3, 2004)

How? By doing work at threshold or below- lots of it.
Why? Because it will raise your threshold power, not burn you out, and put you in a whole different league as a racer.
Way more bang for the buck training this way. VO2 max work takes way more recovery (if you are doing it all properly). A good VO2 max workout can cost you half a weeks training in terms of recovery needed.


----------



## Devincicx (Nov 20, 2011)

As far as I know, the blind threshold approach consisting of days in days out threshold workout is supported by very few, if any, evidence. On the other hand, VO2max work, or other high intensity training, has been shown to be a potent stimulus for skeletal muscle adaptations.

Im not saying sustained threshold work won't ''work'' (I use it myself). But im saying one should not discard VO2max work, year round or not, based on what people say on training forums. 

As for recovery implications, both threshold or VO2max efforts do have recovery implications. One is not worst then the other and it depends on the total work volume you are doing. There is a dose/response relation between time spent at these intensities and acute physiological consequences: glycogen depletion, post workout infalmmation, neuromuscular fatigue, hormonal stress, etc.

There is quite a huge difference between 60min at, say, 85-95% of FTP and 15min at 110% of FTP.


----------



## scottz123 (Jun 16, 2012)

WR304 said:


> I like the way he's saying do a 5 or 6 hour ride every week or so, but also do lots of extra intervals and concentrate on quality over quantity. It's making me feel tired just thinking about it.
> 
> By rest days he seems to be saying endurance miles, rather than complete days off?


"I believe it means off", this article was put out in November, I thinking as an off-season FTP base builder. Quality over quantity for example stuck on trainer?

"After two intense days, give yourself a rest before coming back to training, except every other week give yourself two days of easy training after two hard days instead of resting so you can keep your battery charged" Hunter Allen in this winter training article Hunter Allen Peaks Coaching Group


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I appreciate it. I will keep the focus on the numbers to a minimum...doing a baseline test in a couple of weeks, then no more than one test a month after that.

I will be going to a hardtail (19.9) from a FS (22.25)...I've raced hardtails before and done well on them, it just feels a bit more out of control, and gets tiring after 2 hours. I do have a 24 lb 5.5" travel bike for the really rough courses without a ton of climbing.



WR304 said:


> How accurate is that formula supposed to be? The last time I had any actual lab testing done was back in the late 1990s (pre injury). If you work back to get the 20 minute power figure from my known bodyweight and known VO2 Max at that time I'm not convinced the resulting power figure is reliable.
> 
> I don't think I'd rely on it starting from 20 minute power and bodyweight to give your true VO2 Max.


I agree that that equation probably isn't too reliable. At my current 20 min w/kg, it calculates to 55.5. Lab testing a few years ago showed my measured V02 max to be 72.9....

IF I go on the assumption that the equation fits the average of the population, it is more evidence that my threshold power is modest for what one would expect for measured V02max.

So this takes me back the discussion...what's the best way to boost threshold???


----------



## serious (Jan 25, 2005)

WR304: *I don't think I'd rely on it starting from 20 minute power and bodyweight to give your true VO2 Max.*

I got it from this Hunter Allan blog. It is an approximation, but I bet it reflects my modest Vo2Max very accurately.


----------



## bootsie_cat (Nov 3, 2004)

There is truth to what you say. But given that it seems that riders should not take prescriptive training advice from online forums.
There are way too many variables.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

brentos said:


> This discussion has been fascinating to me, as I too have set a target 20 minute power/weight for the start of next season. The rest of this post is a lot about my situation and my approach, but I think it's applicable to the goals the OP posted....
> 
> A LONG BUT GOOD POST
> 
> I'm curious what the coaches in here think of this plan...I've already integrated some input from Poncharelli and Scottz123 (thanks for the input).


I like what you have written up.

1. I think the volume increase will be beneficial for you. But I am worried that you are being a bit ambitious. I think you can probably handle the volume physically but it take a while to learn to juggle your other life commitments to handle repeated 50hr months. I have a lot of flexibility and all the support to train as much as I want. I can and do achieve 50hr months but not consistently, 40hrs is a lot more achievable. Given that this would be a significant increase over what you have done is the past I suspect it will be sufficient to achieve.

2. Weight loss is always a challenge. I can get light but don't stay there very long. Beer and ice cream are far too good for me to stay at race weight for length of time.

3. XC skiing and Alpine touring is a great way to spend your winters. A friend did 70 days of touring this winter and probably 50 days of XC skiing. Didn't really start to ride regularly to late April. Beginning of July he won a stage and placed top 5 overall at BCBR.


----------



## carlostruco (May 22, 2009)

Being a new PM user myself, I wish I had a bag of popcorn right now!!!

I did an FTP test 3 weeks ago and a Power Profile today...I haven't looked at the numbers from today, but my FTP was 295W at 177lbs...3.69w/Kg...and this is from only working out at the gym for 4 weeks, only riding for fun on weekends since my last race on Sept. 22...I hope my upside is good...


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

LMN said:


> 2. Weight loss is always a challenge. I can get light but don't stay there very long. Beer and ice cream are far too good for me to stay at race weight for length of time.


What's worked for me so far this year was buying a set of Withings WS-30 wifi scales, for tracking long term weight changes, and also recording my diet each day using the www.myfitnesspal.com app.

Withings WS-30 wifi scale:
https://www.withings.com/en/wirelessscale

My Fitness Pal:
https://www.myfitnesspal.com

Those two things used together every day basically act as an incentive to keep in control of body weight.

As at 20 November 2013 I'm still a little heavier than I'd normally be (149lbs), but at least it's only 3lb overweight, rather than the 27lbs overweight (including external fixator frame on leg) that I was in March 2013.

I've found it far harder losing weight than it is maintaining a healthy weight year round to begin with. It's better to not get into that state by letting yourself go if possible.

If you're wondering how the numbers below tie in - the big drop June 2013 was where the frame was removed and I was able to step up the exercise. My first cycling on a turbo trainer was 06 August 2013, my first ride outdoors was 14 September 2013. At the moment I'm eating 3,500 to 4,000 calories per day and trying to ride 6 or 7 days per week.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

This is a good thread, subscribed. I tend to have the ability to put out quite a few watts but I've also got to haul a 81-83kg beanpole body uphill. My offseason goal is to achieve 4-4.15 watts/kg which means a CP20 of about 340 watts. My current FTP appears to be about 3.65 watts/kg but declined after a peak at the end of August. I've already switched to my shop's road team to prepare for the 2014 NUE so that at least I won't have to be dodging trees in the tight twisty trails and can focus on my strengths in climbing next year.


----------



## Tyrone Shoelaces (Nov 6, 2006)

This is great freaking thread. Thanks to everyone for all of the useful information.

I have my own question based on a 20 minute test I performed last night that I'm hoping can add to the body of information here (and help me out of course too!).

So I did a 20 minute test to see where I'm at right now, get an estimation of FTP, and see my zones for training for the coming year, etc. It was raining outside, so I did this on my trainer in my garage. Power is measured by Quarq cranks.

My protocol was: Easy spin for 10 minutes, then 10 minutes at an M.E. (muscular endurance) level which for me I'm guessing is around 280 watts. Then 20 minutes all out....cool down.

I uploaded my data to both Training Peaks and Strava. (and this is kind the basis of my questions). Training Peaks spit me out a "normalized power" number of 324 watts for the 20 minute period. I was a little dissappointed in this number, because I was trying to sustain around 330 watts, and thought I was doing a better job of that. But then I also uploaded the same data to Strava, highlighted the 20 minute test, and Strava spits out a number of 333 average (not normalized) watts for the same exact period. 

So I guess my question(s) are: What is the difference between normalized power and average power (I didn't think they'd be that different on a trainer), and which number should I use going forward?

FWIW, 38 years old, 170 pounds at the moment, and don't really care for long walks on the beach. Generally podium in Pro SS & geared Cat 1 races, and have been winning most races in my cyclocross series this year in the Single Speed A's.


----------



## serious (Jan 25, 2005)

Normalized power and average power should be exactly the same in a test *if you make an attempt to hold the same power*. I saw this many times in my CycleOps spin bike.

Although there are different formulas for normalized power, the idea is to predict your average power in a ride where you have large variations and especially zero power from coasting. Normalized power is always equal or higher than average power. My normalized power can be 10-20 Watts higher than the average (on the spin bike), reflecting my slow 20-30 minute warmup that a normalized power formula will attempt to "play down".

And I would trust your powermeter over Strava any day.


----------



## Tyrone Shoelaces (Nov 6, 2006)

serious said:


> And I would trust your powermeter over Strava any day.


oh yeah totally of course,....but this ^^ is sorta the thing. This isn't a Strava estimation of power, it's the exact same power file being uploaded to both Training Peaks and Strava Premium. And I'm just looking at the same exact 20 minute interval and not the whole workout with warm-up and cool down included.

I'm still not sure if I should use the 343 normalized power to set my zones or the 333 average power number. I was indeed trying to hold the same number for the 20 minute test (~330) but there were dips every few minutes where I'd shift my position in the saddle, or stand for just a few seconds just to get comfortable. It sounds like you are saying the normalized should be used eh?


----------



## Devincicx (Nov 20, 2011)

using normalized power to set up your training intensities is fooling yourself. Disregard the higher power (normalized) and use the average power.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Tyrone Shoelaces said:


> oh yeah totally of course,....but this ^^ is sorta the thing. This isn't a Strava estimation of power, it's the exact same power file being uploaded to both Training Peaks and Strava Premium. And I'm just looking at the same exact 20 minute interval and not the whole workout with warm-up and cool down included.
> 
> I'm still not sure if I should use the 343 normalized power to set my zones or the 333 average power number. I was indeed trying to hold the same number for the 20 minute test (~330) but there were dips every few minutes where I'd shift my position in the saddle, or stand for just a few seconds just to get comfortable. It sounds like you are saying the normalized should be used eh?


20 minutes is too short a timeframe for normalized power to be an accurate reflection of your aerobic ability (unless normalized power happens to = average power, which, as stated above, means you held a very steady effort).

20 minutes, in other words, is a short enough to have a very large anaerobic component - especially as a singlespeeder 

Always use average power for power testing.

Normalized power is more useful for examining relative effort over longer rides/races.

Edited to add: If Normaized power is noticeably higher than average power during what's supposed to be a steady effort test, than you are doing the test wrong


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

Tyrone Shoelaces said:


> I uploaded my data to both Training Peaks and Strava. (and this is kind the basis of my questions). Training Peaks spit me out a "normalized power" number of 324 watts for the 20 minute period. I was a little dissappointed in this number, because I was trying to sustain around 330 watts, and thought I was doing a better job of that. But then I also uploaded the same data to Strava, highlighted the 20 minute test, and Strava spits out a number of 333 average (not normalized) watts for the same exact period.


This is a data interpretation issue between the two different websites. If you're using the Training Peaks website (free or paid version) then it will give you both an average power and also a normalized power figure for your best 20 minutes. On a turbo trainer these should be close to identical (within a couple of watts). I'd use the Training Peaks figure in preference to Strava.

If you're using the free version of the Training Peaks website make the ride Public (on the Calendar screen left click on the workout and then tick the Public box at the bottom left) before applying the change. Once you've done that click the small "Share By Link" icon and paste the URL into a new tab of your web browser. In the shared link you can view the details for individual laps and best power using the free version of the Training Peaks website.










On the shared Training Peaks graph in your new browser tab either select the lap (if you were doing a set workout) or alternatively select the best 20 minute power from the list. This will now change the displayed summary so that both average and normalized power for your best 20 minute power are displayed together. In the picture below of my outdoor FTP test from 15 October 2013 you can see how my average power was 218 watts and my normalized power was 219 watts, indicating it was a good effort throughout.










The new desktop version WKO 4 is supposed to be released 10 December 2013. For power file analysis I'd consider buying that once it's available.


----------



## Tyrone Shoelaces (Nov 6, 2006)

Devincicx said:


> using normalized power to set up your training intensities is fooling yourself. Disregard the higher power (normalized) and use the average power.


That is why I am confused....the higher number in my case is the average number, and the normalized number came out lower. As I mentioned, Normalized 324 watts. Average = 333 watts. I am guessing I should go with the lower, normalized one. (


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

I'd add to all the (great) advice above that there's no real disadvantage to slightly lowballing your FTP estimate - the worst that will happen is that the interval workouts you plan (based on the slightly low FTP) will be slightly easier than intended, and you'll just bump up the wattage accordingly (which you'd have done anyway once they became too easy).

Overestimate FTP by any significant amount and your derived interval workouts will be too difficult, and you will fail to complete them properly.


----------



## Tyrone Shoelaces (Nov 6, 2006)

tommyrod74 said:


> 20 minutes is too short a timeframe for normalized power to be an accurate reflection of your aerobic ability (unless normalized power happens to = average power, which, as stated above, means you held a very steady effort).
> 
> 20 minutes, in other words, is a short enough to have a very large anaerobic component - especially as a singlespeeder
> 
> ...


OK thanks for the response man. I think this makes sense. Thank you


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Tyrone Shoelaces said:


> That is why I am confused....the higher number in my case is the average number, and the normalized number came out lower. As I mentioned, Normalized 324 watts. Average = 333 watts. I am guessing I should go with the lower, normalized one. (


If the same program is calculating both, then NP should be higher. Strange.


----------



## TapewormWW (Oct 22, 2013)

tommyrod74 said:


> ...20 minutes, in other words, is a short enough to have a very large anaerobic component - especially as a singlespeeder


Nitpicking. A one-off maximal effort over a period of 1-2 minutes will be pretty much all aerobic. Longer than that and the continual contributions from anaerobic source will be negligible. Hence, 20mins and more and its aerobic all the way baby.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

Tyrone Shoelaces said:


> I was indeed trying to hold the same number for the 20 minute test (~330) but there were dips every few minutes where I'd shift my position in the saddle, or stand for just a few seconds just to get comfortable. It sounds like you are saying the normalized should be used eh?


For a 20 minute test on the turbo you really want to be doing as close to a constant effort as possible, trying to minimise the amounts of shifting around and changes of pace. If it's too uncomfortable consider doing like I do and have a big well padded saddle on the turbo trainer bike for a bit more sitbone cushioning whilst riding indoors.

Have a look at some of the indoor turbo training graphs and suggestions in this thread.:

http://forums.mtbr.com/xc-racing-training/training-whole-next-season-trainer-873535.html

Remind yourself that it's fun repeatedly also. That should help you ride better and reduce perceived exertion too.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/keep-repeating-this-workout-feels-good/

Talking Yourself out of Exhaustion: The... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

TapewormWW said:


> Nitpicking. A one-off maximal effort over a period of 1-2 minutes will be pretty much all aerobic. Longer than that and the continual contributions from anaerobic source will be negligible. Hence, 20mins and more and its aerobic all the way baby.


Call it nitpicking if you want. I know I can do a 20 minute test with a high VI (variabililty index) that gives me a NP at least 30 watts higher than AP.

If a 20 minute effort is all aerobic, then why do so many reputable coaches recommend the 5 minutes all-out effort before a 20 minute test?


----------



## Tyrone Shoelaces (Nov 6, 2006)

WR304 said:


> This is a data interpretation issue between the two different websites. If you're using the Training Peaks website (free or paid version) then it will give you both an average power and also a normalized power figure for your best 20 minutes. On a turbo trainer these should be close to identical (within a couple of watts). I'd use the Training Peaks figure in preference to Strava.


OK I think I am all squared away now. I do indeed have the paid version of Training Peaks. I am relatively new to Training Peaks so am still getting used to where to find all of its data, and when I scroll down a little below the normalized power number, I do see an average power. SO when I do this, all in Training Peaks, normalized power is 324, and average power is 323. Nearly identical. I guess there is a bit of a difference between the two different websites even when using the same power file.

Thanks everyone for your help....again, very educational.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

tommyrod74 said:


> Call it nitpicking if you want. I know I can do a 20 minute test with a high VI (variability index) that gives me a NP at least 30 watts higher than AP.


Is that test result riding offroad?

If I tried to do a constant effort 20 minute FTP time trial test on the road, and it resulted in a Normalized Power 30 watts higher than the Average Power, I'd be really quite disappointed. A big difference between NP and AP like that means it wasn't a constant effort for 20 minutes, as there must have been a mixture of freewheeling and hard sprints, rather than the solid time trial effort I'd intended to do.

After a result like that I'd try and find a different more suitable route for doing future tests. Somewhere where I could concentrate on pedalling hard for 20 minutes with fewer interruptions.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

WR304 said:


> Is that test result riding offroad?
> 
> If I tried to do a constant effort 20 minute FTP time trial test on the road, and it resulted in a Normalized Power 30 watts higher than the Average Power, I'd be really quite disappointed. A big difference between NP and AP like that means it wasn't a constant effort for 20 minutes, as there must have been a mixture of freewheeling and hard sprints, rather than the solid time trial effort I'd intended to do.
> 
> After a result like that I'd try and find a different more suitable route for doing future tests. Somewhere where I could concentrate on pedalling hard for 20 minutes with fewer interruptions.


That was the point of my example - that by doing hard suprathreshold efforts interspersed with coasting or softpedaling efforts, I can create a result where my NP is considerably higher than the average power, and that (if I'm anaerobically gifted relative to my aerobic capacity) the NP will be higher than the best AP I can achieve for 20 minutes.

Yes, this would be a (intentional) example of a bad test - and an extreme example to illustrate why you don't use NP to calculate FTP.

It would be hard to accidentally do this unless one were intentionally targeting a high NP, because one believed that NP could be used to accurately estimate FTP.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Tyrone Shoelaces said:


> OK I think I am all squared away now. I do indeed have the paid version of Training Peaks. I am relatively new to Training Peaks so am still getting used to where to find all of its data, and when I scroll down a little below the normalized power number, I do see an average power. SO when I do this, all in Training Peaks, normalized power is 324, and average power is 323. Nearly identical. I guess there is a bit of a difference between the two different websites even when using the same power file.
> 
> Thanks everyone for your help....again, very educational.


One program could by using 5 second average, one could be using 3 second average, for example, leading to the reported discrepancy.


----------



## jcm01 (Oct 23, 2011)

The short answer is you use average power to set your zones. Why the power figure on Strava is different is not so easy. I once went back and forth with them on the same subject and they really couldn't give me an answer that made much sense. I would go with the TP data.

Edit: opps, didn't refresh my browser. Looks like this was already answered


----------



## Devincicx (Nov 20, 2011)

Tyrone Shoelaces said:


> oh yeah totally of course,....but this ^^ is sorta the thing. This isn't a Strava estimation of power, it's the exact same power file being uploaded to both Training Peaks and Strava Premium. And I'm just looking at the same exact 20 minute interval and not the whole workout with warm-up and cool down included.
> 
> I'm still not sure if I should use the 343 normalized power to set my zones or the 333 average power number. I was indeed trying to hold the same number for the 20 minute test (~330) but there were dips every few minutes where I'd shift my position in the saddle, or stand for just a few seconds just to get comfortable. It sounds like you are saying the normalized should be used eh?


your typo confused me, since you wrote 343W normalized.

TW beat me to it. A 20 minute effort is mostly (read VERY MUCH) aerobic. The 5 minutes blow out prior to the 20 minute test is a way to pre-fatigue yourself. Whatever is the idea behind the 5 minute effort (which is probably linked to anaerobic component to effort), I highly doubt people are nailing it the way it should be to reduce anaerobic contribution to the subsequent 20 minutes efforts.

People are over-thinking it too much. Just do the 20 minutes test, stick to this protocol, and ride your damn bike.


----------



## serious (Jan 25, 2005)

Speaking of normalized power, the number gets to be very useful for outdoor rides such as hilly road rides where you coast a lot or mountain bike rides or even group rides (for obvious reasons). For such rides the average might look embarrassingly low because very low power output (and even zero power, if configured) will be part of the average.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

serious said:


> Speaking of normalized power, the number gets to be very useful for outdoor rides such as hilly road rides where you coast a lot or mountain bike rides or even group rides (for obvious reasons). For such rides the average might look embarrassingly low because very low power output (and even zero power, if configured) will be part of the average.


Further, the longer the ride duration, the better NP represents what AP would be if you were able to pedal steadily (which makes sense, as the longer the duration, the proportionally smaller the contribution of anaerobic ability).


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Devincicx said:


> your typo confused me, since you wrote 343W normalized.
> 
> TW beat me to it. A 20 minute effort is mostly (read VERY MUCH) aerobic. The 5 minutes blow out prior to the 20 minute test is a way to pre-fatigue yourself. Whatever is the idea behind the 5 minute effort (which is probably linked to anaerobic component to effort), I highly doubt people are nailing it the way it should be to reduce anaerobic contribution to the subsequent 20 minutes efforts.
> 
> People are over-thinking it too much. Just do the 20 minutes test, stick to this protocol, and ride your damn bike.


Well, yeah, but it's still fun to discuss this stuff. You don't have to read if you're not interested 

Point taken though - it really is that simple, especially if you realize that if you over- or underestimate FTP, all that happened is your intervals based on that number are a little too hard or easy, so you just adjust up or down as needed.


----------



## TapewormWW (Oct 22, 2013)

Here's some reading about anaerobic contributions.

http://cmierphotoandfitness.net/files/Aerobic_vs_anaerobic_power.pdf


----------



## Tyrone Shoelaces (Nov 6, 2006)

Devincicx said:


> your typo confused me, since you wrote 343W normalized.
> 
> .


Crap. Sorry about that... Didnt realize i had the typo in there


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

scottz123 said:


> "I believe it means off", this article was put out in November, I thinking as an off-season FTP base builder. Quality over quantity for example stuck on trainer?
> 
> "After two intense days, give yourself a rest before coming back to training, except every other week give yourself two days of easy training after two hard days instead of resting so you can keep your battery charged" Hunter Allen in this winter training article Hunter Allen Peaks Coaching Group


Days off are one of my least favourite things. On Sunday I was flagging and low on energy after just 1h30 of a 3 hour ride so I decided to have some days completely off from cycling to try and recharge (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday). Fast forward to today and I head out for a gentle ride, taking it easy on the hills and my legs were so sore. It was a case of trying to pedal lightly and still feeling as though all the muscles were tearing.

It took 1h45 of riding to settle down and find some kind of rhythm. After that it was ok but that soreness from time off did remind me why I normally try and keep riding most days, even if just for a quick spin on the turbo trainer in the evening.

On the way home today I rode back along the cycletrack. Some of it is quite rough with a series of whoops that you can pump through. I tried to pump it partially out of the saddle but my left hip couldn't take the weight and started getting major shooting pains. It wound up as a lame disjointed half seated freewheel instead.

It's a bit of a problem as my riding needs to be better for any sort of offroad but I can't even do the minimum still. I know what to do but making my leg actually do it is proving difficult.

On the plus side I managed to do a hill stop and hill start today, which was something.


----------



## 2fst4u (Dec 2, 2006)

Good discussion guys, thanks for the input. On a different note, regarding recovery, I've realized that for whatever reason I'm a below average "recoverer". I have to be really careful on how I use intensity and increasing volume. I'm 41 and my 52 year old buddy in whom puts together our group rides recovers much quicker than me and is always energetic and eager on rides where I may be dragging. I know other guys, regardless of age, that seem to bounce back from a race or intensity really well. This is mainly genetic but any suggestions on how to improve recovery (assuming sleep and nutrition is going well) Does anyone else seem to fight with the balance of recovery/training load?


----------



## CulBaire (Jan 18, 2004)

2fst4u said:


> This is mainly genetic but any suggestions on how to improve recovery (assuming sleep and nutrition is going well) Does anyone else seem to fight with the balance of recovery/training load?


I make sure I ingest 20g to 30g of protein, and also some carbs post work out I found helps with muscular soreness, how I feel later in the day (talking mood here) and is something that I found helps when doing consecutive days (ref below). Personally I use kid's drinking chocolate powder and full cream Milk, anywhere between 500ml, and 700ml. There are a number of articles online re the use of protein post workout; I know cyclists tend to shy away from protein as it's typically associated with weight / muscle gain but from what I understand the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) has studied the use of Chocolate Milk post workout with their cyclists and got some good results (I'll post the link if I can). Not sure about your side of the pond, but cost wise the Choclate Milk is about 4000% more cost effective then specialist supplements.

As for balancing the training load / recovery I've tried a number of different methods, including changing up the number of days, re-arranging days, reducing & increasing volume but I found three consecutive work days followed by one EASY spin day, and one completely OFF day works best for me. While this may cause the CTL to drop a little, it also allows the TSB to come up also; like most periodical plans I take a rest week where I do very little riding above Z1 (Z2 at the very most).

YMMV!


----------



## scottz123 (Jun 16, 2012)

+1 on recovery drink.

Per Joe Friel, post workout I have 16oz of grape juice, 4 tbsp of dextrose and a scoop of protein powder.

Friel's blog has of late has been on aging athlete and recovery, etc (see links in blog also) 
Joe Friel - Aging: Designing a Microcycle to Match Your Recovery


----------



## Kawigreen99 (Oct 9, 2011)

2fst4u said:


> Good discussion guys, thanks for the input. On a different note, regarding recovery, I've realized that for whatever reason I'm a below average "recoverer". I have to be really careful on how I use intensity and increasing volume. I'm 41 and my 52 year old buddy in whom puts together our group rides recovers much quicker than me and is always energetic and eager on rides where I may be dragging. I know other guys, regardless of age, that seem to bounce back from a race or intensity really well. This is mainly genetic but any suggestions on how to improve recovery (assuming sleep and nutrition is going well) Does anyone else seem to fight with the balance of recovery/training load?


Testosterone


----------



## RIDESLOW (Dec 21, 2007)

57 Y O here , with low hemocrit and low iron,dad was quite anemic.I recently went back 
Ultra 40 100% argentine beef liver pills - 5 ea 3 -4 times a day and am feeling better recoverys .I'll taper off them and quit for a while soon.FWIW.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

2fst4u said:


> Good discussion guys, thanks for the input. On a different note, regarding recovery, I've realized that for whatever reason I'm a below average "recoverer". I have to be really careful on how I use intensity and increasing volume. I'm 41 and my 52 year old buddy in whom puts together our group rides recovers much quicker than me and is always energetic and eager on rides where I may be dragging. I know other guys, regardless of age, that seem to bounce back from a race or intensity really well. This is mainly genetic but any suggestions on how to improve recovery (assuming sleep and nutrition is going well) Does anyone else seem to fight with the balance of recovery/training load?


I tend to have quite a lot of protein each day, mostly in the form of whey protein shakes and fish, such as salmon or haddock. This is small amounts spread throughout the day, rather than say a giant steak in one meal. I like whey protein shakes both because they're easily digested but also because when mixed with 500ml of water I know I'm getting regular fluid intake throughout the day.

This works out as roughly 2.5g of protein per kg of bodyweight per day when I'm really trying hard, such as at the moment. This is higher than you'll normally see recommended for cyclists but it's something that I've had success with. When recovering from injury, after operations etc I've pushed this even higher with decent results. Over the last few months I've had to rebuild all the cycling specific leg muscle that was missing so it helps with that.

My pre-ride routine is to have 30g of whey protein mixed in 500ml of water and a cereal bar about 45minutes before the ride. During the ride itself I have energy drink in the bottle and cereal bars for solid food. As soon as I get in the door I immediately have another 30g of whey protein mixed in 500ml of water, a shower and then a proper meal soon afterwards. Today for example I had homemade fish and chips.

The other thing I tend to eat quite a lot of are bananas. Only a few each day, rather than 50 banana a day level (google it  ) but I do tend to feel better recovered and more energetic from having them regularly.

https://www.nomeatathlete.com/fruitarian-experiment/

Something that I really like for riding consecutive days are my shoe heaters. They warm and dry your shoes. Waterproof winter shoes tend not to breathe very well. They get damp inside from sweat or rain and then the linings insides never dry out fully by themselves. The shoe heaters mean that my feet start off in warm and dry shoes the next day which is a big part of happy winter riding.

https://www.wiggle.co.uk/sidas-drywarmer-v20-insole/










I wasn't feeling too bad this morning so decided to do a 20 minute FTP test today (21 November 2013). The last FTP test I did was 15 October 2013, where I managed 218 watts average power (219 watts NP). The route I use is flat for the first few minutes and then I try and time it so that I ride for 20 minutes before reaching the top of the climb. The climb is a constant gradient after the first section so I find it works well. (I don't do a 5 minute interval first as living in a valley it's a bit tricky to fit into the route. Alex Simmons wrote about how he doesn't use the 5 minute interval first either so I don't worry too much about it). I make sure I use the same route and protocol each time, so that the tests are done in the same format in order to be comparable between different months and years.

Average power today was 230 watts, a power output improvement of 12 watts for about 6 weeks riding and 80 hours on the bike (I've also lost 3.5lbs of bodyweight in the same period). Both the flat and hill sections were averaging 230 watts so I was quite pleased with that.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

I meant to post this link and thought it was worth a seperate entry.

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/sins-of-sins-testing-ftp-2.html

*Sin of Sins #6 - 95% of a 20-min mean maximal power = FTP *
_"Well, this method of establishing FTP isn't one of the listed Seven Deadly Sins in the first place, but it has become such a commonly referred to/utilised method (mainly due to its publication in the excellent book, Training and Racing with a Power Meter) that it gets its own SOS number.

Firstly, the main issue with this common Sin of Sins is that the ratio between 20-min power (or other similar shorter TT duration power) and FTP is not the same for everybody, and neither does the ratio remain static for an individual. One should recognise that due to several factors, not least of which is the contribution of anaerobic capacity and the exact protocol used (e.g. performing a pre-ride blowout effort), that the ratio is likely to be within a range and where someone is within that range is anyone's guess.

So, FTP might be anywhere in the range of, say 90% to 98% of 20-min max average power. Personally, my FTP has been at both 92% and 96% of my then 20-min max average power. So, by all means use 95% of 20-min max power as a starting point but remember it may well be out by some margin and it would be wise to use an additional or alternative method to validate your FTP estimate. "_ *Alex Simmons*


----------



## scottz123 (Jun 16, 2012)

WR304 said:


> I meant to post this link and thought it was worth a seperate entry.
> 
> Alex's Cycle Blog: The Sins of Sins (Testing FTP #2)
> 
> ...


WR: good stuff

In another Alex Simmons article "In my experience, FTP is rarely as high as 95% of 20-minute maximal power. 88-93% is not an uncommon range" Alex Simmons

Alex's Cycle Blog: The seven deadly sins


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

scottz123 said:


> WR: good stuff
> 
> In another Alex Simmons article "In my experience, FTP is rarely as high as 95% of 20-minute maximal power. 88-93% is not an uncommon range" Alex Simmons
> 
> Alex's Cycle Blog: The seven deadly sins


I normally like to do the occasional one hour time trial effort as well as just 20 minute tests. It makes a change and gives something to compare against too. When it comes to a full one hour time trial I have to really try and work on pacing to get a good result and avoid fading, rather than just go flat out like I would for a 20 minute effort.

I haven't done one yet this year though, as I've mostly been concentrating on either steady three hour rides or interval sessions. On the WKO+ 3.0 power profile chart I'm barely out of the "untrained" category for one hour power. I could definitely do better and bump it up with a focused effort but apart from a higher number on a chart it doesn't mean that much really.


----------



## 2fst4u (Dec 2, 2006)

scottz123 said:


> +1 on recovery drink.
> 
> Per Joe Friel, post workout I have 16oz of grape juice, 4 tbsp of dextrose and a scoop of protein powder.
> 
> ...


Good articles on Joes website, I like the A-typical microcycle suggestions. As far as Whey protein I do a shake right after my workouts and it seems to help. Sleep as well as keeping my training load in check is what seems works the best for recovery. Right now I'm only on the bike 3 days a week (I've always done 4 minimum for all training periods) and I feel stronger and healthier. This year I'm trying some different strategies for sure... more rest days, very little if any caffeine, more intensity in base, doing short intervals at my goal 20 min power starting in base and steadily increasing them into build period.


----------



## Combatcm (Nov 15, 2005)

WR304 said:


> I normally like to do the occasional one hour time trial effort as well as just 20 minute tests. It makes a change and gives something to compare against too. When it comes to a full one hour time trial I have to really try and work on pacing to get a good result and avoid fading, rather than just go flat out like I would for a 20 minute effort.
> 
> I haven't done one yet this year though, as I've mostly been concentrating on either steady three hour rides or interval sessions. On the WKO+ 3.0 power profile chart I'm barely out of the "untrained" category for one hour power. I could definitely do better and bump it up with a focused effort but apart from a higher number on a chart it doesn't mean that much really.


I think it's better to do 1hr time trials than "hypothetically" do them, no pain no gain right?

I use a cheap speedometer on the trainer than calculates average speed. After a bunch of rides you have some reference speeds and are able to pick a target.


----------



## Tyrone Shoelaces (Nov 6, 2006)

2fst4u; said:


> very little if any caffeine,.


That's just crazy talk!


----------



## serious (Jan 25, 2005)

Tyrone Shoelaces said:


> That's just crazy talk!


Agree. Coffee is our "EPO".


----------



## fontarin (May 11, 2011)

serious said:


> Agree. Coffee is our "EPO".


Yeah, I'll just settle for being slower.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

Combatcm said:


> I think it's better to do 1hr time trials than "hypothetically" do them, no pain no gain right?
> 
> I use a cheap speedometer on the trainer than calculates average speed. After a bunch of rides you have some reference speeds and are able to pick a target.


The problem with doing 1 hour time trials as tests, rather than as intervals, is that I have to be reasonably fresh and in the right frame of mind. I'm fine with doing a hard one hour effort but for a test I want to be doing close to my best effort, hitting it as hard as I can. That takes more planning in advance to get sorted.

If you look at the test results I posted in Post #4 my 1 hour time trials in 2011/ 2012 were a bit of a mixture. I wasn't consistently riding them as well as I'd have liked (I wanted to see progression in the power outputs over time, rather than the up and down pattern that it actually was).

Doing a 1 hour effort, as part of a longer ride at endurance pace, is something I might try later in the week to see how it goes. I've been doing enough steady rides at one speed that it would make a nice change to mix up the pace and format a bit.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

WR304 said:


> Doing a 1 hour effort, as part of a longer ride at endurance pace, is something I might try later in the week to see how it goes. I've been doing enough steady rides at one speed that it would make a nice change to mix up the pace and format a bit.


I think it might be next week now.:lol: I did 3x9min under over intervals during the first hour of today's ride and then 2h30 at endurance zone 2 pace afterwards, for a total ride time of 3h30. The intervals in the first hour were solid, the first two just hitting the target power zones but I was fading a little for the third one.

About 2 hours into the ride slogging home into the headwind I was starting to feel quite rough and low on energy. There were some short steep climbs and I was down to what seemed like bottom gear. I saw a few people I knew going the other way and it was about all I could do to take a hand off the bars to wave.

At the 3 hour mark, after turning off the A38 out of the wind, I knew there was only 30 minutes left on the home stretch so I reached into my jacket back pocket to eat whatever food I had left. Imagine my surprise when I realised that I still had an hour or so worth of food available! I was expecting to be almost out and down to the last crumbs by then. I'd clearly forgotten to eat at some point (my routine is to eat a chunk of cereal bar every 15 minutes, one cereal bar per hour of riding) which was why I'd been sagging energy wise mid ride. I ate the remaining food and finished feeling ok.

My legs are toast now though. Trying to do several interval sessions per week incorporated into the longer rides is proving quite hard at the moment.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

WR304 said:


> I think it might be next week now.:lol: I did 3x9min under over intervals during the first hour of today's ride and then 2h30 at endurance zone 2 pace afterwards, for a total ride time of 3h30. The intervals in the first hour were solid, the first two just hitting the target power zones but I was fading a little for the third one.
> 
> About 2 hours into the ride slogging home into the headwind I was starting to feel quite rough and low on energy. There were some short steep climbs and I was down to what seemed like bottom gear. I saw a few people I knew going the other way and it was about all I could do to take a hand off the bars to wave.
> 
> ...


That's why I usually do either long and steady or short and intense for regular workouts... combining that kind of volume with intervals = need to recover as if I'd done a race. I've not had a need to do workouts like that with any regularity.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

I can usually do this sort of ride format without too much drama. You do the interval session full on to try and wear yourself out, get to the end of the hour, where you'd finish on the turbo trainer, and then just keep riding.

I'm still trying to get some sort of fitness back together after such a long time off the bike so I'm feeling it a bit currently. If I was a bit fitter I'd generally do intervals for the first hour and then proper hill climbing for the remaining hours of the ride to keep the pressure on. I quite like Under Over intervals because that up and down change in pace forces you to dig in when you're already feeling that you're trying hard.

I meant to post the details and overview in my previous post. This shows the overview of today's ride. There's a big sag in hour two where I wasn't feeling great before I pulled it back together later on.










This table shows the individual Under Over power outputs for the intervals. I had the workout programmed on my Garmin Edge 500 with 10 second power output as the upper display and just about stayed with it. The highlighted yellow cells are where I was below the target zone so it wasn't too bad overall, with only a few missed targets.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

I only did three hours riding today. I didn't feel too bad but there was some light rain, killing my Powertap hub for the third time in two months. If it doesn't start working again once dried out I think I might go old school, put a speed sensor on and do without a power meter for the winter. 

It's not much fun being afraid of riding in the rain due to the prospect of incurring ever higher repair bills.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

WR304 said:


> I only did three hours riding today. I didn't feel too bad but there was some light rain, killing my Powertap hub for the third time in two months. If it doesn't start working again once dried out I think I might go old school, put a speed sensor on and do without a power meter for the winter.
> 
> It's not much fun being afraid of riding in the rain due to the prospect of incurring ever higher repair bills.


Marine grease FTW.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

tommyrod74 said:


> Marine grease FTW.


It wasn't actually water that caused the issue this time. My Powertap hub had to have a new battery cradle after the old one shorted out in the rain a few weeks ago (on a Powertap SL+ hub you clip the two 357 batteries into a small plastic cradle and then plug the cradle into a connector inside the hub). When I opened it up this morning the plastic cradle had a loose fit where it had worked loose from vibration whilst riding. I changed the batteries and wedged the cradle with electrical tape in the hope that will keep it in place. It worked all of today's ride without any problems, including some offroad on a rough byway, so I'll have to see if it holds up.

I only did about a mile of offroad but it was quite bumpy, enough to get the bike's suspension working. Encouragingly my left hip handled the bumps fairly well. I had spasms and shooting pains down my left leg for about the next 45 minutes of riding back on tarmac but nothing apocalyptic so much better than previously. At this rate I might be able to do some trails next year.

I had a major scare later on though. I've got a new Endura Equipe winter jacket which has two rear side pockets and then a wide zipped centre pocket. The stretchy side pockets are narrow at the top but then deep and widen at the bottom. As it was about 46f I was only wearing thin long finger gloves, rather than full winter gloves. Near the end of the ride I reached into the bottom of the right rear pocket to try and get some food out. My hand went into the pocket fully and got trapped by the narrow opening! :eekster: I was riding along for about 15-20 seconds unable to get my right hand out of the pocket coming up to a road junction before starting the final descent home. I was having visions of having to ignominiously lay the bike down on the verge before I finally got it back out just in time...

As it's the end of November this table from WKO+ 3.0 shows how my peak power outputs have responded to starting riding again. It's very much a typical plan but is working so far. The heart rate average by month is worth looking at too. I don't normally bother with a heart rate strap because of how much my heart rate drops when riding regularly. That trend is very clear from this table.

I left out TSS and KJ because I had a few rides without the hub working and quite a bit of turbo training so it isn't a complete comparison.


----------



## eatsleepbikes (Oct 3, 2009)

your heart rate average might spike after getting your hand caught. Sounds scary


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

I was definitely concerned. The problem is that it's a percentage game. If you do enough riding these sort of strange incidents are going to happen from time to time. Who'd have thought I'd pull my foot out of the SPD pedal binding and then somehow put my foot through the front wheel last year, breaking my leg. That's quite a rare occurrence I think.

One of the training rides that I find really useful for fitness progression is to get out on the road club runs. Riding with faster riders who'll stretch you is a good way to push yourself a bit harder than you think you're capable of. If you just ride by yourself all the time, or ride with a group where you're faster than everyone else, that can see you becoming complacent.

I was dropped up every hill by a 13 year old today so fair play to him. On the plus side it wasn't as severe a drubbing as the last time I went on a club run at the beginning of November, where everyone was simply riding away from me when the road went upwards. On several of the climbs I was only 30 metres or so behind the group this time.

The hardest part of the route today was a 7 mile section that is just short hill after short hill. Riding by myself Saturday 23 November 2013 I did this 7 miles at an average power of 163 watts and an average speed of 12.9 mph. Today trying to stay with the club I did the same section at an average power of 178 watts and an average speed of 13.9 mph. I think a lot of it is psychological, once I _know_ that I can produce a particular effort and (importantly) recover from it quickly, such as being able to hold 248 watts for a 4 minute climb, rather than only 227 watts, then that becomes my new normal and I'll keep building from that new level in future.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Bummer; I didn't know that the Powertap had problems with water.

OK enough of the funny business: unless I get a lump of coal, by Christmas time I should have a new Stages power meter. I also bought a Garmin 510 bundled with a TrainingPeaks subscription. So what should I do with it? 



WR304 said:


> I only did three hours riding today. I didn't feel too bad but there was some light rain, killing my Powertap hub for the third time in two months. If it doesn't start working again once dried out I think I might go old school, put a speed sensor on and do without a power meter for the winter.
> 
> It's not much fun being afraid of riding in the rain due to the prospect of incurring ever higher repair bills.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> Bummer; I didn't know that the Powertap had problems with water.
> 
> OK enough of the funny business: unless I get a lump of coal, by Christmas time I should have a new Stages power meter. I also bought a Garmin 510 bundled with a TrainingPeaks subscription. So what should I do with it?


My first Powertap internals did well against water. The current set has gone haywire a few times in the rain though. It cut out again today as the battery connector shook loose again. I've fixed it more securely this time so hopefully it won't happen again.

You can start using the Garmin Edge 510 straight away. Set it up without the power meter and when the power meter arrives just add the new sensor to that bike profile. The .fit ride files can be uploaded to Training Peaks without needing a power meter.

One thing that I'd strongly suggest buying is an individual ANT+ speed sensor, so that speed is recorded from wheel rotations, rather than GPS. This will give you a nice smooth speed curve on any graphs so that you can compare power and cadence closely against speed. A Bontrager ANT+ speed sensor that sits on your fork will work fine with a Garmin Edge, providing a neater install than a combo sensor.

http://bontrager.com/model/09814

With a power meter all the automatic features of the Garmin Edge should be turned off. Here are my settings for a Garmin Edge 500:

*System Menu*
Auto Power Down - OFF

*Bike Settings Menu*:
Auto Lap - OFF
Auto Pause - OFF
Auto Scroll - OFF
Start Notice - OFF

Data Recording 
Cadence - NON-ZERO AVG
Power - ZERO AVG
Recording Rate - 1 Second (although it doesn't matter with a Power meter because it automatically records at 1 second intervals)

Under the Named Bike Option -

Bike Details 
Wheel Size - CUSTOM and use a manual tyre circumference so that the GPS isn't involved. Whenever you fit different tyres this needs changing. Don't leave it on auto. I have a spreadsheet where I keep the tyre circumference of the different tyres that I use at particular pressures (eg: I run my current Specialized Ground Control tyres at 50psi for road rides and 20 psi for offroad rides so I change the circumference to the correct value each time.)

ANT+ Spd/Cad - The speed and cadence both come from a Powertap hub so there's no need for any additional sensors. This setting should be disabled if you have a Powertap hub.

With a crank based power meter, such as the Stages, you need a seperate sensor for speed so Ant+ Spd single would be enabled.

ANT+ Power - YES 
Under the Calibration menu Auto Zero should be TICKED

*Garmin Edge 500 Display Settings Whilst Riding*
When riding there are four Power options available for the display - Power, Power - 3s Avg, Power - 10s Avg and Power - 30s Avg. This is the amount of smoothing on the power numbers. You need some smoothing because the power display is all over the place otherwise if you're viewing the unsmoothed power readings.

There was a comment that made me laugh on cyclingforums.com about what to use:

_"The 10 to 30 seconds rounding, I believe, is for people who are using the power meter as an expensive speedometer and don't understand how to put this expensive training tool to good use."_ (insert rolleyes smiley and apply face2palm firmly)

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/498445/power-meter-what-to-set-on-smoothing

I use Power - 10s Avg. Displayed power is always going to jump around a bit but if it's too jumpy then it becomes increasingly hard to use. This jumpiness is down to how the power data is transmitted and then interpreted by the head unit, rather than how evenly you're pedalling. The more smoothing you have the less jumpy the display is.

A nice experiment on your Garmin Edge is to set one of the display screens with the four different smoothing options (Power, Power - 3s Avg, Power - 10s Avg and Power - 30s Avg) all shown on one screen. You can then watch how they respond as you ride to decide which you prefer.

For longer sustained efforts having a stable power number allows you to gauge your effort. Riding to a power meter takes a little practice to really get the hang off but with time you can hold quite a consistent pace using it. If you're dropping too low you get an indication through the pressure slacking off on the pedals and the same if you're pressing too hard on the pedals.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

WR304 said:


> My first Powertap internals did well against water. The current set has gone haywire a few times in the rain though. It cut out again today as the battery connector shook loose again. I've fixed it more securely this time so hopefully it won't happen again.


I wasn't too impressed today. I was wearing my fluorescent lime green jacket, lit up with two rear LED lights and a front LED light riding in daylight on a main road and this car still cut me up by passing and turning off immediately in front.:madman: From the way they were driving, slow but clearly not stopping for anything, I'd guess they were old and oblivious. I gave them a sarcastic wave. Just to rub it in near the end of the ride a car turned out of a junction right alongside into my space on the road and then promptly turned off. They could have waited the 1-2 seconds for me to go past.

I was already fuming under my Assos robocap as the Powertap hub had stopped working 5 minutes into today's dry ride. I think that's it now. This set of Powertap internals are toast. The hub has a bad bearing too (they were all replaced with new bearings mid October). The battery cradle connection definitely wasn't loose today and it had new batteries. I've put my spare wheel in whilst I decide what to do next. All the options are expensive.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

WR304 said:


> I was already fuming under my Assos robocap as the Powertap hub had stopped working 5 minutes into today's dry ride. I think that's it now. This set of Powertap internals are toast. The hub has a bad bearing too (they were all replaced with new bearings mid October). The battery cradle connection definitely wasn't loose today and it had new batteries. I've put my spare wheel in whilst I decide what to do next. All the options are expensive.


Sorry to hear that. I have seen used PowerTap wheels for sale online at decent prices, for instance Online Swap Meet on Facebook.

Thanks very much for your detailed reply to a previous post. I am studying all of this thread; it's ironic that I've resisted technology in training for so long since I work in IT. I got my Garmin 510 yesterday so that's cool to try out now. It will take several weeks to ship the Stages crank arm. If forced into buying new I suppose that could be an option for you, too.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> It will take several weeks to ship the Stages crank arm. If forced into buying new I suppose that could be an option for you, too.


I would buy a Stages power meter but it's something that I'll never be able to use as I basically just pedal with my right leg nowadays. My left leg is paralysed from the knee down, I can only bend the left knee partially and most of the left thigh muscle was removed. The left leg pedals small circles using a modified crank and does barely any work.

Any power meter that relies on measurements from the left crankarm (Stages) or requires symmetrical length cranks (Garmin Vector, Pioneer etc) is ruled out permanently because I have asymmetric cranks. It's why the Powertap was good because that measures torque at the hub so the readings aren't affected by an asymmetric crank setup. Stages takes the power from the left hand crank and doubles it to give you an overall power figure.

I've been looking around and think I may possibly get a Power2Max MTB power meter. That comes with a Rotor 3D crank (alloy rather than carbon crank arms so can be welded and modified) in a triple chainset version with a 169mm q factor, allowing me to keep my current setup of 44/33/23 front chainrings.

http://www.power2max.de/europe/en/Produkt/power-meters-en/rotor-3d-mtb/

.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

On the Power2Max website there are a series of introductory articles about using a power meter. (The earliest articles start off at the bottom of the page linked below and work up).

I thought the Basics and Testing sections were quite interesting.

http://www.power2max.de/europe/en/category/training-with-a-power-meter/

.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> OK enough of the funny business: unless I get a lump of coal, by Christmas time I should have a new Stages power meter. I also bought a Garmin 510 bundled with a TrainingPeaks subscription. So what should I do with it?


I saw this tip for calibrating the Stages power meter with a Garmin Edge 510 in fewer steps and thought it might be useful to know.

"Recently got a Stages Power meter. Everything seems to work great. However, calibrating the power meter seems to be a little tedious with 9 steps to get this done
...
I'm hoping I'm missing some shortcut to be able to get this done a little quicker.

There's a slightly quicker way which doesn't require going into the bike profile. Only seven steps instead of nine. Starting in the "Ride" screen, press anywhere in the screen:
1. press the "Sensor" icon
2. press the "Power" icon
3. press "Calibrate"
4. press "Calibrate"
5. return to previous screen
6. return to previous screen
7. return to previous screen"

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?65403-Quickest-way-to-calibrate-Power-Meter


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Thank you that's good to know. I've got the 510 configured for 3 bikes so far, 2 with speed/cadence, and I'm waiting on the Stages power meter to ship. About the 510 (which has automatic sync through Bluetooth to Garmin Connect), I was disappointed that temperature data doesn't get copied to Strava by the online services CopyMySports or Tapiriik. I emailed the Tapiriik developer and he says that the TCX file is the culprit but perhaps there's a workaround by downloading both GPX and TCX from Garmin Connect.

Monday Morning Commute



WR304 said:


> I saw this tip for calibrating the Stages power meter with a Garmin Edge 510 in fewer steps and thought it might be useful to know.
> 
> "Recently got a Stages Power meter. Everything seems to work great. However, calibrating the power meter seems to be a little tedious with 9 steps to get this done
> ...
> ...


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> Thank you that's good to know. I've got the 510 configured for 3 bikes so far, 2 with speed/cadence, and I'm waiting on the Stages power meter to ship. About the 510 (which has automatic sync through Bluetooth to Garmin Connect), I was disappointed that temperature data doesn't get copied to Strava by the online services CopyMySports or Tapiriik. I emailed the Tapiriik developer and he says that the TCX file is the culprit but perhaps there's a workaround by downloading both GPX and TCX from Garmin Connect.
> 
> Monday Morning Commute


That's a decent commute. Do you ride home in the evening after work too or just do it as a one way journey on the bike?

With my Garmin Edge 500 I usually turn it on and then put it outside about 30 minutes before setting off for a ride. This lets the device acquire satellites well in advance, so that there's no waiting around when I want to get riding for the accuracy to settle down (it's normally quick but with heavy cloud cover it can take several minutes sometimes).

It also lets the device reach outdoor temperature. If you look at the temperature trace on your Garmin Connect ride you can see how the device takes a while to cool down from room temperature to outdoor temperature after you've set off. If the temperature adjustment is done before you begin recording you get a trace without the initial over reading taking place, so that the maximum and average temperature for the ride isn't skewed. It's only a small thing, as recorded temperature isn't hugely important, but it does make for a nicer graph.

The really bad one is when you get big changes in air pressure during a ride (such as starting off in sunny weather and then being caught in a rain storm up in the hills). The differences in barometric pressure send the altitude readings all over the place. About all you can do with that is to adjust the altitude trace with GPS readings post ride.

One thing that I find useful, especially on a route that's being ridden regularly, such as your commute, would be to add manual lap markers (by pressing the Lap button on the Garmin Edge 510) as you reach memorable points whilst riding. I usually do key junctions and also the start and end of each climb. That gives you an at a glance idea of how the route stacks up, allowing for quick comparisons. Manual laps are the easiest way to view split times in websites such as Garmin Connect as they're in the right place and included in the uploaded file.

On your commute for example you have three distinct sections - the rural roads at the start, the Interstate highway and then riding through the city at the end. By adding laps in you can see how each part compares. With laps added in you could see if average speed, power, cadence etc is equal across the three sections. An overall moving average speed of 18.2mph can hide a multitude of variations within the ride.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Saw an increase up to 4.2 w/kg FTP this evening! Knocking on the door of Cat 2 road on the Coggan Chart in preparation to race Pro XC this fall. Work hard and you can get it done.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> Saw an increase up to 4.2 w/kg FTP this evening! Knocking on the door of Cat 2 road on the Coggan Chart in preparation to race Pro XC this fall. Work hard and you can get it done.


Is that your best 20 minute power multiplied by x0.95 to give your FTP?

How much of an improvement has that been from when you first got your power meter and did your first test?

In terms of 20 minute minute power I've plateaued a bit in the last few months. I managed to lose around 6lbs bodyweight and improve 20 minute power by 39 watts between November 2013 and May 2014 but the last few dedicated 20 minute tests that I've done have been disasters as I somehow managed to blow up at around 6 minutes to go each time. I don't have an excuse for that. My route finishes up a climb. The Sunday before (6 July 2014) I did the climb in 9 minutes 48 seconds, 283 watts average power. When it came to the same climb in the 20 minute test (11 July 2014) 10 minutes 33 seconds, 260 watts average power. Horrible.:madman:

This chart is the updated version showing my current power bests from WKO+ 3.0.










It doesn't really tell the full story though. Although the headline 20 minute figure hasn't improved I've been setting personal bests climbing and also personal bests over longer distances such as 3 and 4 hour rides, better even than August 2012 and I was going well in August 2012.

I've also been getting close across the board. On today's club ride for example I managed top 10 power bests at Peak, 5 Seconds, 10 Seconds, 20 Seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute, 5 minutes, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 180 minutes and 240 minutes (PB).


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Good work. Your one leg is a lot more powerful than one of mine!

Yes I calculated using the standard 95% of 20-minute test. I've improved 15 watts on my FTP in the past 5 months. I can put out a lot of watts, but to get a Cat 1 roadie's FTP I would have to put out a ginormous amount of watts, not quite Ryan Trebon, but not far from it. I recently had a humbling road TT in which I put out enough absolute watts to be on the podium of Cat 1-2, but ended up DFL! Part of that was my non-aero setup, but that last 5 pounds I'd like to lose bumps some decimal points in a positive direction


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

One of my friend's is into triathlon nowadays. He's quite short 5'5", 5'6", something like that. From Strava on an aero time trial bike he'll do 51.4 miles on a flat course at an average power of 205 watts, 2 hours 8 minutes, average speed 24mph. Although he's not putting out that much power he obviously has a really good position with low drag, making that power output go further.

Something to do is have someone take a few pictures of you from different angles whilst riding so you can see what your position looks like and if there are any obvious areas that could be improved.


----------



## Devincicx (Nov 20, 2011)

chomxxo said:


> Saw an increase up to 4.2 w/kg FTP this evening! Knocking on the door of Cat 2 road on the Coggan Chart in preparation to race Pro XC this fall. Work hard and you can get it done.


good work! You'll be racing pro XC or CX?

FWIW I have a roughly 5w/kg FTP @ 69kg and race elite/Pro cross-country and I get my arse kicked very hard each time. There is so much more then power to mtb racing, altought high power doesnt hurt


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Devincicx said:


> good work! You'll be racing pro XC or CX?
> 
> FWIW I have a roughly 5w/kg FTP @ 69kg and race elite/Pro cross-country and I get my arse kicked very hard each time. There is so much more then power to mtb racing, altought high power doesnt hurt


LOL. Pro XC. Me, Trebon, Conrad Stoltz, Tom Boonen, all the same size, except one of us has 55w less FTP  Our big brothers that beat us up are the Texans; whenever one wants a real challenge we just go race in Texas. I've earned my chops against them in Cat 1 XC but Pro is a whole different ballgame. This summer I've been putting in a lot of road miles to compete in the NUE Series of 100-milers, but I'll be back to XC in the Fall.

The thing that pisses me off is that one of the best students of my coach is a little guy with a beer belly. He just happens to have a freakish heart rate range and VO2max that could have him racing in Europe. At 150lbs he can pretty much take off and win now in Cat 1 road races, Deep South or Texas, whenever he's feeling good.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

2fst4u said:


> I'm thinking of a non-typical strategy this year for getting to my goal of 4.5 watts per kilogram for 20 min. 315ish watts for me.


How did you get on with your original plan? Did it give you the decent results that you were hoping for?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Did anybody else see Nino's twitter about nationals? 5.5 watts per kg of normalized power for the entire race. Wow

Or even Kabush's 500 watts for 25 minutes to win.

Those are some serious power numbers.


----------



## moab63 (Dec 29, 2003)

*Oh yes I downloaded it to show some of my junior racers*



LMN said:


> Did anybody else see Nino's twitter about nationals? 5.5 watts per kg of normalized power for the entire race. Wow
> 
> Or even Kabush's 500 watts for 25 minutes to win.
> 
> Those are some serious power numbers.


Get to work, no time wasted.


----------



## Devincicx (Nov 20, 2011)

LMN

where did you get the 500W information for Kabush? I suffered my arse off at nationals, those guys are fast, like, sick fast. The amount of efforts above 600W for Nino is also impressive.

Really curious about Kabush datas

Oh, also, I think you have done a real good job with a young elite rider eh...? 



LMN said:


> Did anybody else see Nino's twitter about nationals? 5.5 watts per kg of normalized power for the entire race. Wow
> 
> Or even Kabush's 500 watts for 25 minutes to win.
> 
> Those are some serious power numbers.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

Seeing the top riders power outputs puts things in perspective. If you look at this for example, Michael Rogers power file winning Stage 16 of the 2014 Tour de France, he averaged 296 watts for 6 hours 24 minutes with a best 20 minutes of 441 watts, 6.09w/kg. That's after two weeks of hard racing so hardly fresh.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/...Feed:+trainingpeaks/XAlX+(TrainingPeaks+Blog)

At the same time you shouldn't get too obsessed or become disheartened with just comparing against the very best. One thing I've come to realise is that at the other end of the scale there are a _lot_ of cyclists who don't put out anything like that sort of power numbers.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I saw it on his twitter feed. Massive number.

Yeah, I was pretty exited to see how well young Evan raced. There is a lot of potential there. His power numbers are just staggering. And his technical skills are unmatched.



Devincicx said:


> LMN
> 
> where did you get the 500W information for Kabush? I suffered my arse off at nationals, those guys are fast, like, sick fast. The amount of efforts above 600W for Nino is also impressive.
> 
> ...


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

LMN said:


> Did anybody else see Nino's twitter about nationals? 5.5 watts per kg of normalized power for the entire race. Wow
> 
> Or even Kabush's 500 watts for 25 minutes to win.
> 
> Those are some serious power numbers.


With all due respect, let's look at the exact quotes:

Nino:
"369W NP over 1.5h (5.5W/kg) you need to perform to get Swiss Champion on a slippery fast course. #garmin Activity | TrainingPeaks "

His normalized power is impressive indeed, but that's NP and not average, and over 90 minutes. I'm not saying it's not well beyond us mortals, but just pointing out the well-defined factors that make up that number.

Kabush
"What does it take to win #canMTBnats? Knowledge is power and @stagescycling tells the story - I spent 24min39sec above 500W. #tapthemaple"

This one I've got to point out two things, first: 24:39 above 500w does not mean, necessarily, a 24:39 segment during which he was averaging above 500w, does it? That would mean an FTP in the range of Bradley Wiggins or better and he should be making millions of dollars a year.

I take it to mean that he spent that portion of time, throughout the 90-120 minute race, at that power output. He's got 30 second sprint numbers in the 850 watt range according to numbers from Powercranks in 2008 when he was younger and probably more powerful.

It is nice to see how well some of the top XC pros stack up against the numbers-oriented roadies.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I think your analysis is spot on.

Just as a reference I generally find that for a MTB race normalized power is within 0.5 watts/kg of average power. Which makes Nino's ride very impressive on any scale. Particularly when you think about the amount of energy that goes into handing the bike.

As for Kabush I think your right, that is the amount of time he spent above 500 watts for the whole race. When I look at Catharine's file I see that she spent 26 minutes above 300 watts. In a continuous effort she isn't lasting much longer than 5 minutes at 300 watts.



chomxxo said:


> With all due respect, let's look at the exact quotes:
> 
> Nino:
> "369W NP over 1.5h (5.5W/kg) you need to perform to get Swiss Champion on a slippery fast course. #garmin Activity | TrainingPeaks "
> ...


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> With all due respect, let's look at the exact quotes:
> 
> Nino:
> "369W NP over 1.5h (5.5W/kg) you need to perform to get Swiss Champion on a slippery fast course. #garmin Activity | TrainingPeaks "


You raise some good points in that post.

If you look at the linked Training Peaks activity for Nino Schurter he actually had an average power higher than the normalized power figure according to Training Peaks, 374 watts average power and 369 watts normalized power. I'm not too sure what's going on with that? He also had an IF of 1.06 for 1h32min riding.

As a premium Training Peaks user are you able to view the power bests at different durations for a shared file? I haven't got a subscription so only the basic summary is visible.

https://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/JH5YYBD2GFBGANFSVEARKY5REA


----------



## rupps5 (Apr 9, 2010)

I would think that an If of 1.06 would mean that his preprogrammed threshold number in training peaks is too low.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

I find it just as interesting that he didn't use a HRM at all. And 170 TSS--just another day at the office 

His peak 20 minute power was 316w. His peak 30 sec was 746w. His raw numbers aren't going to look as impressive as the bigger guys but it's all about watts/kg, and in my experience that makes a difference even on flat ground (or maybe it's wind resistance?). What I'm most surprised at is the 20.5km/h average speed? That course must be brutal.



WR304 said:


> You raise some good points in that post.
> 
> If you look at the linked Training Peaks activity for Nino Schurter he actually had an average power higher than the normalized power figure according to Training Peaks, 374 watts average power and 369 watts normalized power. I'm not too sure what's going on with that? He also had an IF of 1.06 for 1h32min riding.
> 
> ...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

WR304 said:


> If you look at the linked Training Peaks activity for Nino Schurter he actually had an average power higher than the normalized power figure according to Training Peaks, 374 watts average power and 369 watts normalized power. I'm not too sure what's going on with that? He also had an IF of 1.06 for 1h32min riding.


Maybe a bona fide "NP Buster"? Seems to fit the criteria as described in the section "Can you generate an NP Buster?" in the link below;

Alex's Cycle Blog: You can't touch this, Part III

Per the blog above;

_To generate an NP Buster you need to execute a ride which includes a lot of very hard efforts of 30+ seconds duration which are substantially higher than your FTP. Many riders simply do not have the physiological profile to do that, as it requires a rider to posses both high neuromuscular power and a high anaerobic work capacity, especially relative to their aerobic capabilities.

NP Busters often involve out of the saddle efforts that engage the upper body musculature to enable the high power outputs necessary to generate them. An example of the sort of ride where this is likely to occur is in a criterium, and in particular one where there is a 20+ second long hill and/or a U-turn to negotiate each lap._


----------



## rupps5 (Apr 9, 2010)

Does anyone know what Nino weighs?


----------



## Devincicx (Nov 20, 2011)

if you look closely, you can see Nino's minimum cadence was 10 RPM, not 0, which probably means the average power is calculated without zeros


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

rupps5 said:


> Does anyone know what Nino weighs?


If you know the average power and watts/kg for the ride you can calculate his weight by doing (average power divided by watts/kg). For that ride file it would be 374/5.49= 68.1kg weight.



Devincicx said:


> if you look closely, you can see Nino's minimum cadence was 10 RPM, not 0, which probably means the average power is calculated without zeros


When you see a minimum cadence greater than 0 in a power file in Training Peaks or WKO+ 3.0 that's to do with how Training Peaks interprets cadence in the file, calculating cadence without zeros so that it is pedalling cadence only.

I've got a Power2Max power meter. My cadence for today's club ride in the WKO+ 3.0 summary for example was Minimum 4 rpm, Average 93rpm, Maximum 115rpm. Looking back at some old Powertap files in WKO+ 3.0 they all had a minimum cadence greater than 0 also, giving a cadence excluding freewheeling.

Although that affects the cadence in WKO+ 3.0 and Training Peaks the power calculation still includes zeros.



chomxxo said:


> And 170 TSS--just another day at the office
> 
> His peak 20 minute power was 316w. His peak 30 sec was 746w.


A best 20 minute power of 316 watts sounds rather low if the overall average power was 374 watts for 1 hour 30 minutes. When you're riding flat out the best 20 minutes power is more often going to be equal to or higher than the overall average power for the entire ride.

What was the average power for each of the race laps? I would read it off myself but it isn't available to view without a Training Peaks subscription.

TSS and IF (Intensity Factor) are two items that you look at alongside one another as they rely on the FTP figure you have entered in the program. The starting point is that 100 TSS is equal to your maximum one hour time trial. An Intensity Factor of 1.0 shows that you rode at maximum intensity for that hour.

If you have a ride over an hour in length that generates more than 100 TSS per hour, and an intensity factor higher than 1.0, it's a sign that the FTP figure entered in Training Peaks is too low as it's overstating the amount of TSS. In this file for example Nino Schurter did a 1 hour 30 minute ride at maximum effort that shows 170 TSS and an IF of 1.06. You'd expect it to be more like 150 TSS (100 TSS per hour) and an IF of 1.0.

It's easily fixed by updating the FTP figure in Training Peaks to a new higher value, but is something that affects your summaries otherwise.


----------



## jimification (Apr 12, 2011)

chomxxo said:


> I find it just as interesting that he didn't use a HRM at all.


In that vein, somebody posted on Joe Friel's blog comments section that Schurter doesn't use a power meter. (Joe Friel - Why You Need a Power Meter)

"_Friend Nino Schurter won Beijing Bronze in the MTB XCO, Gold at '09 Worlds and Silver at '11 Worlds.

We trained together in Flims last September. I asked him why he doesn't use a powermeter. "I do the right intensity, guided by perceived effort. I know what full gas feels like. I train by feel and I am never lazy. Moderate intensity feels moderate compared to full gas. Friends using a power meter focus on it too much, it reinforces self-perceived limitations. Weight, the feel of quality hours of sleep and rest and medals are the best measures of training effort_."

Friel's reply is that he is likely an "artist athelete" and prefers to train by feel.

Obviously Schurter uses a PM at least occasionally, hence the TP file. Also, that comment was 2012, so perhaps he's changed his mind since or just attaches one for the coach's benefit but doesn't look at it himself?...

In any event, I find it interesting that someone who is arguably the male world no.1 doesn't SEEM like he is (or was) training with a power meter.


----------



## TapewormWW (Oct 22, 2013)

^ I do find it a tad infuriating when people declare "I train by feel!" in relation to power meters. No issues, train by feel... but record the data too. Given the narrow margins at the pointy end it just seems short sighted not to.

Here's Taylor Phinney's high tech approach how to race on feel AND get power data:-


----------



## jimification (Apr 12, 2011)

TW: Well in Nino's case, it's anecdotal, so I'm not sure how accurate it is. I can't believe his coach (Frischi?) wouldn't want the power data, even if he doesn't! Still interesting if you can get to that level without training with a PM, though.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

I remember a couple years back, former XC National Champ Jeremy Horgan-Kobelski proclaiming that he'd done away with the HR monitor and power meter and was just training by feel. That's right about when he stopped being competitive. Now he and wife Heather Irmiger race #enduro 

I personally like numbers and technology, working in IT, so I'm not offended (and I have a degree in art too, ha!) If I put out w/kg like Nino I'd want to gaze at those fine numbers all the time 

I think what pro athletes will tell you is that the most important thing is to have fun, in order to stay motivated. If training by power isn't fun, you'll train less and maybe slack off.

On the other hand, as part of Team Sky's sickening marginal gains program, former track star Wiggins slimmed down to within 5 pounds of Nino's fighting weight to win the Tour De France. 155lbs with a 450-475w FTP, that's some serious power!


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

I think that having the power meter display off, but still recording, is useful to do occasionally as a reality check. When I finally got my new power meter working in May 2014 I did the first week of riding still on feel, as I had been since December 2013, to get an idea of what I'd been doing.

As part of that week I did one of my favourite interval sessions (1x20 minute interval, 2x5 minute intervals, 4x30 second sprints) with the screen not displaying power. The 20 minute interval was my normal format - up a hill and then continuing on the flat/ slightly downhill afterwards over the top. 

Looking at the 20 minute interval done purely on feel afterwards on the computer - the first 9 minutes (uphill) 270 watts average power, the remaining 11 minutes of the interval supposedly going flat out (on the flat/ slightly downhill) 202 watts average power. I was absolutely staggered by how low the power was for the second part of the interval. I felt I'd been trying hard throughout whilst doing the interval.

Contrast that with the same 20 minute interval a few weeks later, with the screen displaying power this time so I had a visual target to aim for. The first 9 minutes (uphill) 289 watts average power, the remaining 11 minutes of the interval (on the flat/ slightly downhill) 241 watts average power. I hadn't magically found an extra 40 watts of fitness in the final 11 minutes it was just about having a reminder not to inadvertently ease off before the end.

When I'm riding with other people and really suffering, hanging on, I don't like looking at the power display though. I don't want to know. Psychologically I tend to go better if I stay fully concentrated, rather than worrying about how long I'm going to last riding so far over threshold. In that situation seeing a high power number on the display can become an excuse and justification for letting the wheel go and being dropped.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I can understand why some people are reluctant to use a power meter or stop using one after using it for a while. 

With power meters you are constantly evaluating your form, some struggle with this. Even when your training is going well, your power numbers are not always going to be great. In the middle of a hard training block, often there are some very mediocure power numbers. This can mess with an athletes confidence and confidence is important.

I also think there is a danger of training being too controlled. Control isn't always good.

All that being said, I do find PMs to be a very useful training tool, but they certainly aren't nesecary for success, even at the elite level.


----------



## danridesbikes (Sep 10, 2009)

here is my power data, with 20m best highlighted from today, have powermeter on road bike - powertap G3 and on mtb stages x9,


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

I've spent the last few weeks doing some fairly intensive resting. I was knackered and needed some time off to recover.

After two weeks mostly off and then a week of unstructured riding around I woke up in the mood to do something a bit more serious today. I have a reference 20 mile out and back flat route that I do, it takes just over an hour, so I thought I'd do that as a straight up time trial. My best moving times for the entire route:

22 June 2011 26x1.5" Schwalbe Marathon Racer Slick Tyres - *1 hour 4 minutes 5 seconds*, 217 watts average power, 228 watts normalized power (best 60 minutes 218 watts)

17 April 2012 29x2.1" Specialized Ground Control Knobbly Tyres - 1 hour 4 minutes 42 seconds, 230 watts average power, normalized power 241 watts (best 60 minutes 230 watts)

9 August 2014 29x2.1" Specialized Ground Control Knobbly Tyres - *1 hour 3 minutes 50 seconds*, 231 watts average power, normalized power, 240 watts (best 60 minutes 235 watts)

That gave a best 60 minutes of 235 watts / 3.55 w/kg today compared to a best 60 minutes of 230 watts / 3.4 w/kg (I weighed more) in 2012! I got caught at the traffic lights and then the roadworks near the end today too. That isn't ideal as it breaks up the rhythm when I'm trying to finish fast instead of having to stop and then accelerate again.

It was also my best time for the route too, faster even than 2011 with slick tyres on. I was pleased with that.

This graph shows the best 60 minutes with the dotted line showing the 235 watts average power for today's ride.


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

Question for the experts whom seem to frequent these threads; At the risk of getting embarrassed by my data compared to you guys, does Strava estimated power mean anything without the use of a Power Meter? I just turned 55, raced CAT3 MTB last year and CAT2 this year. I was toward the back of the field in the Kenda Cup series in my age group. I also raced another series and moved up a couple positions but clearly CAT2 is WAY different than beginner. 

Seeing as I do not have a power meter, do these Strava "extended statistics" give you guys any data that you can give me any useful feedback? I do not always use a HR monitor but I did today and pushed fairly hard at my local location Bonelli Park (home to many XC races including HC category) I am 55 years old, 6 foot 3 and weigh 202. I know I need to drop say 20 lbs and I am working on that! I ride 3 to 4 days per week and around 2300 miles this year and 230,000 feet of gain. I sometimes climb well over 5,000 feet in a 26 mile loop. 

The Strava shows my "weighted" watts/kg at 3.89 but my avg at 3.15 for today's ride. Is any of this useful or not really because I do not have a power meter? Does this power look ok for an old guy just starting CAT2 MTB? Thanks in advance for any detailed feedback!


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Weighted is roughly equivalent to normalized power, not average power. 

Also, I don't trust any power estimates from Strava. Best comparison? Delta between you and the top guys. Make it shrink. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalker (Jul 25, 2016)

The Nino quote is from 2012. Fairly sure I've seen pictures of him on a road bike that has a PM mounted.

I've trained with a PM since my first road bike 6 years ago. I can guess my wattage usually within 10w. I rarely use it to guide training unless it's a make or break session OR if somehow my pacing feels off. Usually use it post-ride. Some sessions do require focus if the target range is narrow, but ain't nothing wrong with RPE IF you still have a valid system of testing and measuring performance whatever that may be.

I've found a huge renewed interest in HR the past few years after monitoring HRV for myself and athletes I coach/have coached as well as HR response metrics during intervals.

Everything has it's place. Performance is improved by addressing limiters first and in XC those limiters can come in many forms.


----------



## bootsie_cat (Nov 3, 2004)

Most riders do not have your fine sense of RPE.

That said, there were still well trained riders before powermeters, strava, training peaks or any of that kind of stuff-


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

Sorry, but Strava power estimation #'s are a guesstimation. Yes, they say that they take into account "type" of bike you use (mtb, road, etc). It cannot take into account terrain you are on (fast rolling, muddy), or headwind or tailwind for example

https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216917107-How-Strava-measures-Power

Like LeDuke said if you are using Strava for comparison's "Best comparison? Delta between you and the top guys. Make it shrink."

I would compare your time's to your age group in Strava for example.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

Strava wattage guesstimates are about as accurate as their "calories burned" guess. Which is not very.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I think that their wattage estimates are tuned for and based on road bikes. 

I.e., a rider at a certain number of kilograms going so fast up a paved climb at a certain grade of a certain length produces a certain number of watts to attain that speed.

As a result, I think they drastically underestimate MTB wattages sometimes. You'd think that they'd take update their algorithm to incorporate the power data that people upload. 

Hypothetical scenario: you, me and John Smith all weigh 65kg. We all happen to have the same super awesome bike and equipment, too. Crazy.

I do the climb in 10:00 and 350w, and John Smith does it in 11:00 and 315w (10% slower, and 10% lower wattage). You do the climb in 10:30, with no power meter. In theory, as there is a more or less linear relationship between watts/kg and climbing speed (until aerodynamics come into effect), your wattage should split the difference between what I did and what John Smith did.


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> I think that their wattage estimates are tuned for and based on road bikes.
> 
> I.e., a rider at a certain number of kilograms going so fast up a paved climb at a certain grade of a certain length produces a certain number of watts to attain that speed.
> 
> ...


+1

I do use PM on MTB (Stages per your recommendation) and agree on discrepancy - I have MTB rides using App w/o PM and Stages using 520 (I had some GPS issues). And the difference is obvious.

Per Strava:
P(rolling resistance)
The power required to overcome rolling resistance can be described by the formula P = Crr x N x v, where

P is the power required.
Crr is the rolling resistance coefficient. We define this based on the type of bike (road, mtb, cross) you used.
N is the normal force of the bike and the athlete against gravity.
v is the rider velocity.

There are so many idiosyncrasies on MTB using PM with terrain variations, short steep climbs, there is NO way Strava can track it.

I ride at Palos and I was shocked and amazed that @ Palos Meltdown w/PM for a 1 hr race that 56% of the time I was in Z1 and 28min out of that I did NO pedaling. I am a 50+ Age grouper and was in the back end of the top half of the field in Sport overall (if that makes sense) - Yes I know a PM is overkill for me


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

trmn8er said:


> Question for the experts whom seem to frequent these threads; At the risk of getting embarrassed by my data compared to you guys, does Strava estimated power mean anything without the use of a Power Meter? I just turned 55, raced CAT3 MTB last year and CAT2 this year. I was toward the back of the field in the Kenda Cup series in my age group. I also raced another series and moved up a couple positions but clearly CAT2 is WAY different than beginner.
> 
> Seeing as I do not have a power meter, do these Strava "extended statistics" give you guys any data that you can give me any useful feedback? I do not always use a HR monitor but I did today and pushed fairly hard at my local location Bonelli Park (home to many XC races including HC category) I am 55 years old, 6 foot 3 and weigh 202. I know I need to drop say 20 lbs and I am working on that! I ride 3 to 4 days per week and around 2300 miles this year and 230,000 feet of gain. I sometimes climb well over 5,000 feet in a 26 mile loop.
> 
> The Strava shows my "weighted" watts/kg at 3.89 but my avg at 3.15 for today's ride. Is any of this useful or not really because I do not have a power meter? Does this power look ok for an old guy just starting CAT2 MTB? Thanks in advance for any detailed feedback!


Those pictures are from the separate Stravistix for Strava Google Chrome extension, rather than the default Strava screens.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...strava/dhiaggccakkgdfcadnklkbljcgicpckn?hl=en

Although you were wearing a heart rate monitor you haven't set your training zones within the Stravistix plugin. When you zoom in on the heart rate table it shows your zones on the right hand side. At the moment it is based on a maximum heart rate of 190bpm (the default in the plugin). You need to do a test and set these to your own preferences. You can't tell much from the heart rate otherwise, apart from that if you were trying hard on that ride your highest heart rate was under 158bpm so your maximum heart rate is unlikely to be 190bpm.

I'd start off by doing a test to work out some heart rate zones eg: Joe Friels ones using LTHR:

Joe Friel's Quick Guide to Setting Zones | TrainingPeaks

To change the Stravistix settings click on the small arrow by the summary, click on settings and then select heart rate zones










There are 14 zones by default but you don't need that many. If you want to use the Joe Friel zones there would be 7 zones to set.

Click the small Dustbin icon to delete the rows until you have 7 remaining, and then use the small up and down arrows next to each %HRR value until the heart rates match your new zones.










I think this only changes the heart rate zones in the plugin so you'll want to change the heart rate zones in Strava proper too.

When it comes to estimated power numbers on Strava they're not accurate. You can have your correct weight, bike type etc entered but they're often way out.










(2011, 2012 was a Power Tap disc hub, 2014, 2015 and early 2016 Power2Max Classic, June 2016 on Power2Max Type S)

This picture shows my times up the same hill. Constant hills are usually where estimated power from a formula will be closest to actual power. As you add more changes and variability in with different terrain to the ride (uphill, downhill, corners, wind etc) the formulas will be even further out. The power outputs with a lightning flash alongside were with a power meter and the power outputs without a lightning flash are where I was riding without one. Everything up to June 2016 is on the same Specialized Epic mountain bike, although different days and years.

You can see how the fastest times also have the highest actual power outputs, forming an overall pattern: 1. 274 watts 7min 12sec, 2. 247 watts 7min39 but then 3. (estimated power) is 207 watts 8min02sec, which doesn't match the pattern as it is lower than the recorded power outputs surrounding it.

The other estimated times are also lower than my actual power would have been. It looks like I typically need to average 215 watts plus to get a personal top 10 time up this climb yet the estimated power outputs are 193 watts, 189 watts and 177 watts, being too low.

*Edit:* The two times for July 5 2015 are actually a direct comparison. I realised that I rode the same loop including that climb twice on the same day. Once on my 2012 Specialized Epic Expert with a power meter 216 watts average power, 8 minutes 35 seconds. A few hours later I rode exactly the same loop on a 2015 Specialized Epic Elite World Cup demo bike that I had for the weekend with a time of 8 minutes 37 seconds. Strava estimated power was 189 watts, 27 watts lower than the power meter recorded.


----------



## Kwalker (Jul 25, 2016)

Most riders lack awareness in general, however, the Borg scale is pretty damn easy to equilibrate and figure out.


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

WR304 said:


> Although you were wearing a heart rate monitor you haven't set your training zones within the Stravistix plugin. When you zoom in on the heart rate table it shows your zones on the right hand side. At the moment it is based on a maximum heart rate of 190bpm (the default in the plugin). You need to do a test and set these to your own preferences. You can't tell much from the heart rate otherwise, apart from that if you were trying hard on that ride your highest heart rate was under 158bpm so your maximum heart rate is unlikely to be 190bpm.
> 
> I'd start off by doing a test to work out some heart rate zones eg: Joe Friels ones using LTHR:
> 
> Joe Friel's Quick Guide to Setting Zones | TrainingPeaks


Good catch on default HR and advice!


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

twobigwheels said:


> Good catch on default HR and advice!


Yup excellent feedback from both of you. I modified my actual data in Strava StravistiX settings using 165 BPM as a WAY more realistic max compared to the default (190) and it changed my Zones to be clearly more accurate. Obviously I know all the Strava stuff is not totally accurate but at least my HR is closer to reality. Now it shows I hit 94% of max, but my weighted watts/kg went down and weighted power dropped to only 272 average. Arguably more realistic? Also note how much higher I was in Zones compared to when I had the incorrect estimated max heart rate. Lastly, keep in mind this was not a race effort, only a fairly hard effort. Going forward, I will wear the HRM on all races for 2017. Thanks much for the feedback!


----------



## Kwalker (Jul 25, 2016)

Why not use a real data analysis platform like Golden Cheetah?


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

I prefer old-school 5 zones and that's what my coach works with: Z1 recovery, Z2 base (70% MHR), Z3 tempo (83% MHR), Z4 87% MHR, Z5 hard as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slowride454 (Jan 11, 2014)

Noobie here...I've been riding for a couple years and started to get more serious about racing last year. I am fat(250#), middle-aged(41yo) and slow, and I race in the Citizen Clydesdale class. I've never used power before and only started using a HRM mid-season last year. I ride and "race" quite a bit, but I do it slowly. I do 20-30 MTB/fatbike races per year. I'm working on losing weight, but will most likely be in the Clydesdale class for the upcoming season unless something miraculous happens.

I did my first FTP test on Zwift yesterday. It told me 240W. I struggled to hold the 315W for 5min interval during the warm-up. so my w/kg is 2.1 and VO2 Max is 30

I think I need some structure to my riding instead of just taking everyone's past advice to just ride more and have fun. Competitive XC racing is not supposed to be fun, its supposed to hurt. I regularly get beat by 60 year old dudes and the entire ladies field who starts after us passes me early in the first lap.

Where do I start to get to that magical 3w/kg or 4w/kg to be somewhat competitive?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

slowride454 said:


> Noobie here...I've been riding for a couple years and started to get more serious about racing last year. I am fat(250#), middle-aged(41yo) and slow, and I race in the Citizen Clydesdale class. I've never used power before and only started using a HRM mid-season last year. I ride and "race" quite a bit, but I do it slowly. I do 20-30 MTB/fatbike races per year. I'm working on losing weight, but will most likely be in the Clydesdale class for the upcoming season unless something miraculous happens.
> 
> I did my first FTP test on Zwift yesterday. It told me 240W. I struggled to hold the 315W for 5min interval during the warm-up. so my w/kg is 2.1 and VO2 Max is 30
> 
> ...


Honest truth: lose 90lbs.

I recently listened to an audiobook, "The Secret Race".

It's a book about doping, by Tyler Hamilton, one of Lance Armstrong's proteges. While training (and doping) was/is a huge part of their success, getting the denominator down was just as important. The watts per kg ratio goes up pretty fast when you lose weight.

I'm at a decent winter weight right now. 145-146lbs/66kg.

Which puts me at just under 5w/kg. Raced at 65kg last year.

If I get down to 63kg and gain no fitness I'm at 5.16w/kg. At 62, 5.24. At 60, which is a stretch, 5.41.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

slowride454 said:


> Noobie here...I've been riding for a couple years and started to get more serious about racing last year. I am fat(250#), middle-aged(41yo) and slow, and I race in the Citizen Clydesdale class. I've never used power before and only started using a HRM mid-season last year. I ride and "race" quite a bit, but I do it slowly. I do 20-30 MTB/fatbike races per year. I'm working on losing weight, but will most likely be in the Clydesdale class for the upcoming season unless something miraculous happens.
> 
> I did my first FTP test on Zwift yesterday. It told me 240W. I struggled to hold the 315W for 5min interval during the warm-up. so my w/kg is 2.1 and VO2 Max is 30
> 
> ...


2 things: one, the more weight you lose, the faster (and healthier) you'll be. Two, although there's no substantial reason for you to do power training at this point (focus on long Z2 rides and weight loss), your better power tests will happen outdoors.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I was about 230 pounds 10 years ago, 200 5 years ago when I started riding again. Now I'm seeing 169 on the scale pretty regularly, down from 175 a year ago, at 6'3" that's about where I would like to be. It's totally possible to get thin and fast, - minimize or eliminate those bad habits!


----------



## slowride454 (Jan 11, 2014)

I definitely am working on losing weight. I fluctuate a lot. I'd love to lose 90lbs. I haven't weighed 160 since I was a sophomore in high school. I wrestled 171 my junior and senior years of HS and 167# my first two years of college until a shoulder injury ended that. I was 5% body fat at 167. According to my last body composition analysis about 2 weeks ago, my lean body mass is about 180#. I'm 5' 11" and 243 this morning, down about 10 pounds from 10 days ago since I started dieting again. Much of my body fat percentage is visceral if that makes a difference in how I approach my calorie deficit and HR zones. The heaviest I've gotten was 280# right before I bought my first bike in April 2012.

Are there particular weight lifting regimes that work better than others for building endurance and strength. I'd always been a powerlifter back when I was a gym rat. I doubt 4x4s to failure is best for an older guy looking to get faster on a MTB.



Le Duke said:


> Honest truth: lose 90lbs.
> 
> I recently listened to an audiobook, "The Secret Race".
> 
> ...


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

As a former power lifter turned racer myself I can say that If you apply the regimen you once did to Power lifting and purely focus on cycling, you will see massive weight loss. 

You WILL lose arm mass, and you will have to come to terms with this, but don't worry about where the weight decides to come off first. You will get much much faster and be able to ride farther and see more trail in the same amount of time.

I would avoid the gym all together other than to put in an hour to 1:30 on a trainer/indoor bike, recumbent. Use a heart rate monitor so you cant lie to yourself about how hard you are working in the gym. 

Guys like us don't need to build power, we need to lose fat and try to maintain the power we have while working on the steady paced power that power lifting does not train you for. Its great for short sprints and grinding out super steep short climbs and "power" moves. 

I dropped from 202-186 during the race series last year and got quite a bit faster. I will have to work hard to get own to the 170s for this year series since I have catted up.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

slowride454 said:


> I definitely am working on losing weight. I fluctuate a lot. I'd love to lose 90lbs. I haven't weighed 160 since I was a sophomore in high school. I wrestled 171 my junior and senior years of HS and 167# my first two years of college until a shoulder injury ended that. I was 5% body fat at 167. According to my last body composition analysis about 2 weeks ago, my lean body mass is about 180#. I'm 5' 11" and 243 this morning, down about 10 pounds from 10 days ago since I started dieting again. Much of my body fat percentage is visceral if that makes a difference in how I approach my calorie deficit and HR zones. The heaviest I've gotten was 280# right before I bought my first bike in April 2012.
> 
> Are there particular weight lifting regimes that work better than others for building endurance and strength. I'd always been a powerlifter back when I was a gym rat. I doubt 4x4s to failure is best for an older guy looking to get faster on a MTB.


At 5'11", 167lbs is a little on the heavy side for a Cat 1 or better racer, but you could probably do well enough and have fun. I weigh now, leaning towards middle age, as much as I did in high school. I've raced well, quit for a year, gained 50 pounds, and then lost it; now I'm looking to be even better than before.

It can be done, if that's what you want to do, but it's gonna take some long hours in the saddle and cutting back on eating. Nothing fancy about it.


----------



## coke (Jun 7, 2008)

slowride454 said:


> I definitely am working on losing weight. I fluctuate a lot. I'd love to lose 90lbs. I haven't weighed 160 since I was a sophomore in high school. I wrestled 171 my junior and senior years of HS and 167# my first two years of college until a shoulder injury ended that. I was 5% body fat at 167. According to my last body composition analysis about 2 weeks ago, my lean body mass is about 180#. I'm 5' 11" and 243 this morning, down about 10 pounds from 10 days ago since I started dieting again. Much of my body fat percentage is visceral if that makes a difference in how I approach my calorie deficit and HR zones. The heaviest I've gotten was 280# right before I bought my first bike in April 2012.
> 
> Are there particular weight lifting regimes that work better than others for building endurance and strength. I'd always been a powerlifter back when I was a gym rat. I doubt 4x4s to failure is best for an older guy looking to get faster on a MTB.


I'm 5'11 and also used to do power lifting.

I used to focus on power lifting while avoiding most cardio, and weighed 215. I was very strong, but not very fast on the bike.

A few years later after some health issues, I weighed 170 but could still deadlift 450 pounds. I was faster on the bike, but still not very fast.

Now I've given up weight lifting and weigh around 155. I've lost a LOT of muscle, but am in a completely different league on the bike. I don't have any numbers, but I can essentially sustain the speeds at which I used to only be able to do during short sprints.

My suggestion would be to give up weight lifting and spend the time on the bike with a focus of losing weight, even at the expense of sacrificing muscle.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Jaroslav Kulhavy just posted on Facebook that he averaged 304 watts today. Over 4 hours. Gulp.


----------



## RadBartTaylor (Dec 1, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> Jaroslav Kulhavy just posted on Facebook that he averaged 304 watts today. Over 4 hours. Gulp.


Sven Nys is around the same but @ 72kg, 275-300W according to him.

Shimano Presents: Cross Talk with Sven Nys Part I ? BTB TV ? Cyclocross Racing Coverage


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

ArizRider said:


> Sven Nys is around the same but @ 72kg, 275-300W according to him.
> 
> Shimano Presents: Cross Talk with Sven Nys Part I ? BTB TV ? Cyclocross Racing Coverage


300w for an hour is entirely different from 300w for 4 hours.


----------



## RadBartTaylor (Dec 1, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> 300w for an hour is entirely different from 300w for 4 hours.


Who said anything about an hour? It's a multi hour ride which is why I made the comparison, per his comment in the link.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

chomxxo said:


> 300w for an hour is entirely different from 300w for 4 hours.


I'm guessing ol' Sven NYS is above 400w for an hour.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> I'm guessing ol' Sven NYS is above 400w for an hour.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk





ArizRider said:


> Who said anything about an hour? It's a multi hour ride which is why I made the comparison, per his comment in the link.


You're right, I got a chance to watch the full interview last night. Sven Nys is a machine like Kulhavy, but he communicates better


----------

