Why do you need a power meter?

Fail.

Using an example of power output v power output in a set situation and blaming the power out put differences as the 'error' and then saying that an Ironman pacing tool such as power is better replaced by RPE is extremely flawed. The part of the equation that caused the difference was your fatigue. Training and racing involves much and this is why we Taper and recover. You would not go out and do n FTP test on day 7 of a 1000km bike week unless you were stupid. You would wait until say day 6 of rest week to do it when fresh. Your fatigue did not allow you to push your numbers. If this was actall a race you would hav rigt there in black and white feedback that your physical state was not up to scratch instead of some very subjective 'feeling'.

To forgt power for second and use similar concept in swimming, lets just say on those two days you did a 6 x 100m all out and graphed the times. I would guarente that on those days you would have suffered similar fade. This is because it is an all out efort. Let us not forget with power for Ironman it is 70% of threshold so not by any means hard.

To pose a question o RPE V Power come race day, just say you did go in fatigued, which would give you the faster time, riding an RPE that is adjusted as per your 'feeling' or busting your arse to ride you goal power zone? The major failure of RPE in my personal experience is that it is far too easy to take the 'easy' option when things get hard as there is no quantifiable effort beyond things like 'moderately hard' or 'easy'. When I am stuffed at the end of an Ironman, moderately hard is actually pretty friggn slow.

Taking it a little further, was talking with the guy who is coaching the local group here about racing strategy and pacing. Using Busso as a specific example, my goal is to get of the bike in 6 hours flat. That 6 hours is swim, T`1 and bike. What that is for me in real terms is a 62 min swim, 3 min transition and 4:55 bike. 4:55 is just a touch faster than 36km/hr.

The rule of thumb for an Ironman bike in power terms id 72-75% of FTP. For me, that is something around 275 watts average as I have mentioned before. This has always concerned me as I know that 275 average is atually a pretty solid ride and I am not certain I could go out and run all that well off it. Anyway, I did some more testing on my new bike. I am going to get the cda figures crunced to find out exactly what it is but the summary was pretty good. The day was a little windy which skews power figures a bit in the high sense so my actual speed for the average would be higher in a more calm environment. I discovered that riding a window between 240 and 250 watts (248 average in the end) was 36.1km/hr average. Rad. Saved myself about 10% of effort for my goal outcome. Now, just to do some training and make it happen for real

On the days when you can't get to 90% of target power for the interval duration you turn around and go home. There is no training benefit to be had and you are just going to dig the fatigue hole deeper.

If you turn up to a race and feel like that then you've completely botched your preparation.

If you were being rigorous about your testing you would do it at the same TSB each time.

Alex, are you saying that the new bike and setup has reduced your drag by that amount or that your previous figures were crap? Or something else? Maybe the calibration of PM on the bike isnt right? How did that power feel?

All the talk about powermeters had me thinking that making one wouldnt be all that hard and pretty benificial, so out the garage i went and this is what i whipped up.

Cameron G wrote:Alex, are you saying that the new bike and setup has reduced your drag by that amount or that your previous figures were crap? Or something else? Maybe the calibration of PM on the bike isnt right? How did that power feel?

It looks like I worded it poorly. The gist of what I was saying is that I was putting the chicken before the egg. The quick summary is that my FTP is 382, 'experts' say that the perfect power output for an IM is 72% of FTP which sees me as just on 270 watts. My race goal is to get off the bike in 6 hours race time which sees me needing a 36km/hr average. A 36km/hr average only requires 248 watts with my current set up. This means I can ride easier than first thought and therefore be less burnt for the run. Conversely, I could pick a figre somewhere between the two and be a little faster off the bike than planned but still under the 72% figure. What is good is that right now I am in good enough bike shape to ride a reasonable IM bike leg and I am at least 12 months away from having to do so. A very good starting point for once as opposed to being 20 kilos overweight and unfit

What was also interesting is that I did 3 different test that day. The speed increase from 200 to 220 watts was about 2km/hr but 220 to 240 was just over 1km/hr. It was too windy for a 260 test as I would run out of gears on one of the sections that was completely tail wind so I could not see the speed increase for that one.

Alex R wrote:

Cameron G wrote:Alex, are you saying that the new bike and setup has reduced your drag by that amount or that your previous figures were crap? Or something else? Maybe the calibration of PM on the bike isnt right? How did that power feel?

It looks like I worded it poorly. The gist of what I was saying is that I was putting the chicken before the egg. The quick summary is that my FTP is 382, 'experts' say that the perfect power output for an IM is 72% of FTP which sees me as just on 270 watts. My race goal is to get off the bike in 6 hours race time which sees me needing a 36km/hr average. A 36km/hr average only requires 248 watts with my current set up. This means I can ride easier than first thought and therefore be less burnt for the run. Conversely, I could pick a figre somewhere between the two and be a little faster off the bike than planned but still under the 72% figure. What is good is that right now I am in good enough bike shape to ride a reasonable IM bike leg and I am at least 12 months away from having to do so. A very good starting point for once as opposed to being 20 kilos overweight and unfit

What was also interesting is that I did 3 different test that day. The speed increase from 200 to 220 watts was about 2km/hr but 220 to 240 was just over 1km/hr. It was too windy for a 260 test as I would run out of gears on one of the sections that was completely tail wind so I could not see the speed increase for that one.

G'day Alex,

How far out from IM will you test your FTpower to establish your IMpower (ie 72%)?

I was under the impression that once your in full IM training mode you start to lose your FTpower, but in saying that your IMpower begins to increase as a % of FTpower. It's such a constant moving target power and it's highly dependent on training.

I still think a race sim ride targeting (IM) XXX watts over say 100-150km TT BUT have your monitor covered is one the best ways to establish your correct effort. The reason being if your targeting 248watts and if you can do that in training without seeing your monitor, your sure as shit going to nail your bike effort.LOL, But if you do your race sim ride and the result ends up being 260 watts, your in trouble. People look at it as being, Yeah, I'm fitter, .....but it's not, it's poor execution in training. if you can't execute in training, there's little hope of being able to stick to the race plan in a race.

Your methodology for establishing the right level of effort is spot on, being able to execute the right level of effort is the next step. Would love to hear your thoughts on that.

fluro
P.S Typhoon had some good things to say about you in China.

Alex, I asked a similar question on RoadGrime, but thought I'd get your thoughts. (And anyone elses)

Would a PM be of use for someone of my standard?
Looking at a bang for buck scenario, say something like Alex S coaching/PT hire package over 13 weeks.
Gary K on Roadgrime is looking at setting up something similar in SEQ it seems.
Would I gain substantially more out of that than just a standard, non power based 13 week cycle training from someone like Boothy in Brisbane?

Dave Tyno wrote:Alex, I asked a similar question on RoadGrime, but thought I'd get your thoughts. (And anyone elses)

Would a PM be of use for someone of my standard?
Looking at a bang for buck scenario, say something like Alex S coaching/PT hire package over 13 weeks.
Gary K on Roadgrime is looking at setting up something similar in SEQ it seems.
Would I gain substantially more out of that than just a standard, non power based 13 week cycle training from someone like Boothy in Brisbane?

G'day Dave,

I think you need to be careful as to what you think it is you'll get out of a power meter. Reading your posts, my guess is that your looking for extrinsic motivators to keep you going. It's hard to keep going relying on external motivators.

Once you learn how to internalise your motivation you'll have no trouble at all training. You be so motivated to train because your reward will come from within and not from som number on screen or a pat on the back from a mate. That is where your biggest improvements will come from, and that's why I wouldn't recommend a power meter for you, because it won't give you what you need.

Last year I did a bike focus and I was so motivated to do this bike focus that I had no interest in telling anyone else about it. It didn't matter, all my rewards where internalised. Over time I started duelling with Alex and I couldn't quite keep up with the hours he was doing. While I was highly motivated to try and catch him at the end of the day I was so satisfied sitting at a coffee shop after each ride and rewarding myself with a big cup of coffee and a muffin. I was content within myself. I made my biggest improvement that year, because I stopped worrying about being motivated by external factors, eg av sp, gaining respect, my results compared to my mates, etc.

I don't think you need a power meter.

Hope it helps, even if it is a little off topic


fluro

Paul F wrote:

I think you need to be careful as to what you think it is you'll get out of a power meter.
fluro

Hey Paul - I guess that's the thing I wonder about. Whether I'd get anything out of it at all. I understand where you're coming from saying I wouldn't need it though.

Alex was the first bloke I really knew of that got into using power for training. A few of the blokes on Road Grime talk about it as the best training tool. A few more of the better Cycos have PMs as well. All the people I know of using PMs are already way better cyclists than me, but they usually rave about it as a training tool.

I'm basically looking at improving where ever I can. I'm happy enough trying to improve my endurance and avg cadence etc using what I have now - A bike and a CS200 CAD. Just exploring ideas.

Dave Tyno wrote:

Paul F wrote:

I think you need to be careful as to what you think it is you'll get out of a power meter.
fluro

Hey Paul - I guess that's the thing I wonder about. Whether I'd get anything out of it at all. I understand where you're coming from saying I wouldn't need it though.

Alex was the first bloke I really knew of that got into using power for training. A few of the blokes on Road Grime talk about it as the best training tool. A few more of the better Cycos have PMs as well. All the people I know of using PMs are already way better cyclists than me, but they usually rave about it as a training tool.

I'm basically looking at improving where ever I can. I'm happy enough trying to improve my endurance and avg cadence etc using what I have now - A bike and a CS200 CAD. Just exploring ideas.

G'day Dave,

All good points. However, assess your number 1 limiter in terms of what it is that will take you to the next level. Will it be a powermeter, will it be a coach, will it be addressing your limiters in training, consistency, nutrition, etc.

Make sure you 100% clear as to where your biggest bang for your buck will come from, then pursue that avenue relentlessly because that's where your biggest improvements will happen. Sometimes it takes a new toy like a power meter to trigger that motivation to be out there ever day, week after week, month after month, while on other occassions it may be as simple as writing down a goal and sticking it on fridge.

fluro

Dave, I would not bother with power as yet in your position. I personally went to power for two reasons. Firstly, I cooked myself at Ironman by going far too hard on the return from Lake Cathie on lap 2. There was a 15 minute window there that I know was directly responsible for the issues I later had. Power is an outstanding tool. Secondly and probably more importantly, I started with it so as to be able to use Training Peaks WKO+ for the training load monitoring. I have mentioned a few times over the years but to remind even myself, I have put myself deep in the over training box twice. The most recent saw me very unwell.

As a specific for you suggestions, coaching from Boothy or Gary is the last thing you ned. Both are excellent TT riders but neither are triathlete coaches. I have done a cycling program before and most of what I did would be a waste for anything other than Sprint Triathlon.

If yu are training with a group or pack on the bike, a power meter is only useful for monitoring load as it is just about impossible to ride your zones properly. This is a whole other subject that I have thought about specifically in relation to improvements I have made at various times through training myself.

As a general statement, I really fel strongly that for the Ironman Triathlete who trains mostly alone a power meter is probably one of the handful of 'must haves'. I am not training anywhere near as much as I did but when I turn a crank it is 100% quality.

Hey, fluro, if you got this far do you remember the 'critial volume' thing? I was thinking while riding yesterday about what would be an awesome trainng volume for cycling based on watts 180km/wk at IM watts along with 180km at 'endurance' watts which is about 80% of IM watts. Build to this over X weeks to say 8 weeks out, kep the 180km of IM watts then change the 180km endurance to slowly transform to 180km half IM watts. Somthing like this

Week 1-3 180km endurance, plus 30/60/90km IM watts
Week 4-6 180km endurance plus 120/150/180km IM watts
Week 7-10 180km IM Watts plus 60/90/120/90km Half IM watts. Week 8 180km race sim ride. Week 9 and 10 TTs of 120 and 90 at half IM pace with 60 min runs off them.
Week 11-12 Some form of taper. Say 120ence/60IM 60 half IM then 90km endurance/45 IM 45 half IM
Race week. Personal pref.

probably need a week 3a, 6a and 10a as rest weeks as well giving a 16 week program.

Alex R wrote:
Hey, fluro, if you got this far do you remember the 'critial volume' thing? I was thinking while riding yesterday about what would be an awesome trainng volume for cycling based on watts 180km/wk at IM watts along with 180km at 'endurance' watts which is about 80% of IM watts. Build to this over X weeks to say 8 weeks out, kep the 180km of IM watts then change the 180km endurance to slowly transform to 180km half IM watts. Somthing like this

Week 1-3 180km endurance, plus 30/60/90km IM watts
Week 4-6 180km endurance plus 120/150/180km IM watts
Week 7-10 180km IM Watts plus 60/90/120/90km Half IM watts. Week 8 180km race sim ride. Week 9 and 10 TTs of 120 and 90 at half IM pace with 60 min runs off them.
Week 11-12 Some form of taper. Say 120ence/60IM 60 half IM then 90km endurance/45 IM 45 half IM
Race week. Personal pref.

probably need a week 3a, 6a and 10a as rest weeks as well giving a 16 week program.

I like it. I always believed that the critical volume for Ironman athletes on the bike is 360km PW with 50% of that spent in the IMzone (ie just below to just above IMeffort, or -5bpm to +5bpm of IMHR). It is hard to get to though.

In that bike focus year we did last year, I ended up averaging 360km PW on the bike but my IMspecific volume only made it to about 35%, and I was doing around 5-10% of my training week above IMeffort, close to HIMeffort for the muscular endurance effect. I just couldn't get there in terms of moving my IM specific volume up to 50% without it having a negative impact on my swim and run training. It really shows how inexperienced I still am in terms of having an ability to recover in time (key ingredient to sucess).

If you can pull that suggestion off above your'e essentially knocking out an IM bike leg every week as broken intevals. That's a very high quality bike plan and it lends it self well to mastering your nutrition, but more importantly executing a plan as close as possible to your potential (Not a easy point to find when it's a moving target). The thing about doing high intensity lower bike volume protocols you are still somewhat guessing what you can handle. That's not the case here.

Week 8 and 9 and 10 look identical to what Bulldog had me doing for China. It was essentially 2-3hrs at IM effort, 1.5hrs of climbing and then 1.5hrs at HIMeffort. We only had breaks to refuel. They were done at 6, 5, 4 weeks to go from memory, I'll have to check my logs.

Like I said I think your suggestion would work very well for athletes that want to race to their strengths (be it the bike), which is more than just setting yourself up to run well.


fluro

this is bandying semantics but

If you can pull that suggestion off above your'e essentially knocking out an IM bike leg every week as broken intevals. That's a very high quality bike plan

is not entirely true. Lots of time at IM power 68-73% of FTP (generally) is a low quality bike plan - lots of junk miles. It is reasonably specific though I would argue that the broken nature limits some of the specificity and merely increases fatigue.

Here is the plan for one of my athletes. Steady build of CTL up to B race (long course), then continuing the CTL build but lifting the long ride to mirror IM TSS. TSB maintained at a survivable level throughout.


The basic premise of an IM bike program (as I see it) is to get the CTL to 100+ and do some 300 TSS rides in the last few weeks.

David B wrote:this is bandying semantics but

If you can pull that suggestion off above your'e essentially knocking out an IM bike leg every week as broken intevals. That's a very high quality bike plan

is not entirely true. Lots of time at IM power 68-73% of FTP (generally) is a low quality bike plan - lots of junk miles. It is reasonably specific though I would argue that the broken nature limits some of the specificity and merely increases fatigue.

Here is the plan for one of my athletes. Steady build of CTL up to B race (long course), then continuing the CTL build but lifting the long ride to mirror IM TSS. TSB maintained at a survivable level throughout.


The basic premise of an IM bike program (as I see it) is to get the CTL to 100+ and do some 300 TSS rides in the last few weeks.

G'day David,

Thanks for chiming in.

Not sure about the comment in bold as you often see people with high FTP but are knocking but have poor ability to execute IMpower (ie 68 - 73% of FTP). Moving an athlete from 68 - 73% take up the most time and is really where specificity principle comes in. You need to enhance your economy and efficiency at IMpower, if you want to develop the ability to ride 180km well. It more than just developing your ability to push the pedals along in the most efficient manner, it also involves, developing your ability to hold your position, ie adapting your back, your neck, mental toughness etc to ride 180km well.

I think I understand what yo mean about increasing your stress or training load. But as you spend more time above IMpower, you are effectively unloading the specific demands it takes to hold your IMpower for 180km. You'll notice this in races, particular in the last 40km of an IM bike leg, people are still generating the power, but are struggling to stay on the tri bars. So while they are holding the power they are losing time, due to other factors, eg sore back, necks, tight hammies, cramps, etc Does that make sense?

It's balance between focusing on just getting fit and weighing that up with meeting the demands of the event. As an example of this th cyclist I ride with routinely stress me out on a weekly hammer fest, but then I return the favour when I hit the 4hr mark on a long ride with another 1hr to go. These guys are fitter, stronger and fatser then me but I do have a better ability to hold higher numbers towards the end of long rides.

Need some 101 for dummies on CTL, TSS,

Paul

G'day David,

Something else I'm thinking about. The TSS of 300 is that like your maximum stress score for the bike? How do you take into consideration then swimming and running? The guys I coach I put most of the stress on the run in the last few weeks because I feel that is what you lose the quickest. The hardest load on the bike happens further out 5-7 weeks as it is easy to hold that power and there should be less focus on generating more power in the last few weeks on a IM prep. Which why I do a regular 180km ride each week but I don't kill myself, the goal is to consolidate your ability to hold your power and fine tun your race day plan. However, when I'm at 7 weeks out I'm generally popping a lot more on the bike with the goal of raising my power both at FTP and moving from 68 to 73% of FTP.

In the last 5 weeks of IM training when things are starting to all come together it's really easy to start overstating what we can handle. I've been down that road too many times. It's a critical time in a IM prep.
I trained with guys that are 2 hours slower than me in an IM but start smoking me in training on the bike. It happens all the time as IM athletes get fit but lose focus and their ability to know what they can handle.


Good topic this one

Paul

TSS of 280 for the IM bike is regarded as a good goal to maximise your marathon potential. For example, I did 60km in 1:40 with a TSS of 105, average watts of 247 and normalised power of 252. Triple that and it is 180km, 5 hours flat, TSS 315.

Normalised power takes out zeros and stuff and is a kind of power smoothing figure that assumes a constant power output. As my averge and NP were very close, this shows that I held a very consistent power zone. The VI (variability index, NP divided my average) was 1.04 wich is pretty awesome if I do say so myself and is a direct demonstration of how powerful power is (lol) as a pacing and racing tool as the lower the VI the more consistent the power output.

Back to the numbers in para 1, that shows that with my FTP right now at 320W (loosley calculated but not massively important to my training right now), that effort is too high for IM. Of note, I could ride exactly the same split, exactly the same average power but put in some surges and slowings and the TS would be far higher as the NP would be higher because the VI would be greater (eg, a points race sees me well over 1.4 VI). Again, the use of the power meter as a gauge allows you to regulate the mini over power/effort instances that all add up.

As for the charts, I am not personally into looking at CTL or ATL for bike and run by themselves and basing volume increases on it. I do run both charts and for example, my overall CTL is 69.3 with a TSB (fatigue) of -5.1, my pure running CTL is 20.5 with a TSB (fatigue) of +5. Looking at the run chart in isolation, I am fresh but looking at the bike and run together, I am less so. When these numbers start to pick up into the extreme with 20 hour weeks, the TSB will be way down showing fatigue At the eak of my chart, my CTL is 158 with a TSB of -37.5. On that same day, my running TSB was -5.4 The quick summary of that ois that I was pretty patigued but just looking at my running, I was not so much ad infact had the same stand alone TSB as I do when I am averaging something like 7 hours a week.

All of this assumes your FTP is right.

Ive just purchased a Saris PowerTap SL+ 2009, laced to a Mavic Open Pro 32H Rim, DT Spokes so am now re-reading this thread and for some reason its all gobbledegook. Will all these acronyms become apparent once ive started using it?

Prior to using the unit what should I read, what info should i collate before using to work out the suggested power for each ride?

What programs are you using to analyse? Has anyone used the new SportTracks plugin for power?

It seems everyone who uses power says buy Coggan's book.
Maybe start here:
http://www.twowheelblogs.com/training-with-power/coggan-power-levels

I have a copy of Training and Racing with power that is currently unused/taking space on bookshelf. Let me know if you need or want it.

My head hurts.

David B wrote:On the days when you can't get to 90% of target power for the interval duration you turn around and go home. There is no training benefit to be had and you are just going to dig the fatigue hole deeper.

Many people try to quantify using numbers to gauge wether they are training enough or too much. The fact is it takes a great understanding of how you feel, not how you want to feel (ego) that makes the difference. That being said this is a great piece of advice and one of the few ways to quantify your fatigue. Alot of running intervals are based on a similar principle. ie Once you can't make the time or if you can't make the time from the start GO HOME. OR get to know your body and just stay in bed

Dave Tyno wrote:Alex, I asked a similar question on RoadGrime, but thought I'd get your thoughts. (And anyone elses)

Would a PM be of use for someone of my standard?
Looking at a bang for buck scenario, say something like Alex S coaching/PT hire package over 13 weeks.
Gary K on Roadgrime is looking at setting up something similar in SEQ it seems.
Would I gain substantially more out of that than just a standard, non power based 13 week cycle training from someone like Boothy in Brisbane?

Hi Dave, These guys will help you, but money may be better spent later on when you are after incremental increases.

"Would I gain substantially more out of that than just a standard, non power based 13 week cycle training from someone like Boothy in Brisbane?" NO, regardless of coach.

CONSISTENCY

PATIENCE

AND A VERY STRONG INTERNAL DESIRE TO GET TO YOUR GOAL

Glenn C wrote:

David B wrote:On the days when you can't get to 90% of target power for the interval duration you turn around and go home. There is no training benefit to be had and you are just going to dig the fatigue hole deeper.

Many people try to quantify using numbers to gauge wether they are training enough or too much. The fact is it takes a great understanding of how you feel, not how you want to feel (ego) that makes the difference. That being said this is a great piece of advice and one of the few ways to quantify your fatigue. Alot of running intervals are based on a similar principle. ie Once you can't make the time or if you can't make the time from the start GO HOME. OR get to know your body and just stay in bed

100% agree and I think this guy (below) on transitions sums it up pretty well. One thing I have found with your quote above Glenn, especially the bolded part, the more you learn to undertand FEEL the less valuable the tools become. it's hard to explain why and I just haven't been able to get it onto paper effectively. I don't even look at my speedo on my bike anymore, I just focus on what is ahead and what is install and I process that information using RPE before I get there.


fluro

I'll argue with you that the work from which the top pro's are getting their bang for the buck is not all the filler shit they do around their key sessions, it's the key 'harder aerobic' sessions themselves. Aka Crowie's 10 x 1 mile at 6:00>>5:30/mile reps on a 6:30 send off. Chappo's (NOT a pro anymore. He works big-time! could do with some kids,though) big TT's at the end of his long rides and long swim sets. Or fartlek runs on tired legs. I'd hazard a guess that these PISS buoys are doing alot of their pushing on tired bodies. So they're too fatigued to totally be red-lining their effort, and instead punching out a high quality 'aerobic' effort on their tired legs. Adaptations 101, and mental farking hardening!!

And that makes me digress again...that term 'high aerobic' that everyone uses per the great Kiwi run coach Arthur Lydiard. So many people make the assumption that he was talking about 'threshold'/1-hr TT pace('AT' pace) training

However, a huge majority of Lydiard's training (100miles a week) was targeted at a pace they could back up day after day.

The Lydiard trained runners who ran around 2:10 marathons were hitting a core pace on the flats in training of about 3:15-3:20 per km. Yet the 'AT' requirement for that sort of marathon runner would be about 2:55-2:57/km.

I remember talking to a little known guy called Scott Molina about this years back, and he said the same thing.

That's a high aerobic/sub-threshold/mod-hard/tempo/close to half IM/grey zone type effort they were hitting.

Think I have gone off track again. :-) Getting too, anal.

Just go training, don't think 'too' much like I used to, and understand if you want a result you gotta sometimes punch it a bit when you least think you should.