44 replies to this topic Post Order

[Austin]

BikeMax:

1.Yes, for that specific individual.

2. Not daunted, just not at race level focus. And if he does motivate himself to this level, it is not good as it will count as a racing day and in our business( Elite racing) you have to manage these days very carefully so not to have too many. 45mins for this athlete, yes. Again very individual, but pretty close to results of 60mins, and shorter methods( Scherrer/Monod). Normal riders: Shortened methods of Scherrer/Monod(using their CP determined form the 1, 6, 12, 20min test to determine power... you know the rest)Now I am starting to sound technical, ai....

3. As standard, yes there are other well documented shorter methods. Per Elite individual: Maybe use it when in season to track him. By me: Depending on many factors of each athlete and time in racing season.

 

4. yip, it is the case, but not the reason for shorter test as explained in point 1. The MAP test at the end and the way I use it is the reason I brought up difference in aerobic state of riders during such TT test. Why I do it and how I use it has been key to some of the results. So that my property for now( maybe worth, maybe not worth much)

 

Again, not trying to convert anyone, just tried to state that W/kg has many fascets to consider in promising end result to riders: But got the result, saw the smile on the guys face...am happy. Hope to keep on making selected few happy. Ciao for now!

 

[BikeMax]

Quote

BikeMax:

1.Yes, for that specific individual.

2. Not daunted, just not at race level focus. And if he does motivate himself to this level, it is not good as it will count as a racing day and in our business( Elite racing) you have to manage these days very carefully so not to have too many. 45mins for this athlete, yes. Again very individual, but pretty close to results of 60mins, and shorter methods( Scherrer/Monod). Normal riders: Shortened methods of Scherrer/Monod(using their CP determined form the 1, 6, 12, 20min test to determine power... you know the rest)Now I am starting to sound technical, ai....

3. As standard, yes there are other well documented shorter methods. Per Elite individual: Maybe use it when in season to track him. By me: Depending on many factors of each athlete and time in racing season.

 

4. yip, it is the case, but not the reason for shorter test as explained in point 1. The MAP test at the end and the way I use it is the reason I brought up difference in aerobic state of riders during such TT test. Why I do it and how I use it has been key to some of the results. So that my property for now( maybe worth, maybe not worth much)

 

Again, not trying to convert anyone, just tried to state that W/kg has many fascets to consider in promising end result to riders: But got the result, saw the smile on the guys face...am happy. Hope to keep on making selected few happy. Ciao for now!

 

So, to be clear;

1. 60 min TT at race pace is considered a bad idea but 45 mins at race pace is not ?

[Austin]

For this guy yes, for others it will differ. For average Joe the normal CP prediction will do. Work personally in their faces every day, so that the judgement call made. He has tendancy to use too much anaerobic muscle fibre and want to extend the usual shortened test to counter bad results.

 

When I use the normal CP model to determine  values it predicts a value about 5 watts to 10 watts higher than the "funny" 45mins test. Those watts important to monitor that he grows aerobically more than anaerobically as many South Africans have done due to the short nature of our races (which adversely affects performance on international scale where higher aerobic state is crucial. Will not see the true benefits out of this in any test or practicals in SA, but quickly got awakened to it when got the results of constant Euro racing of young SA riders.

 

Anyways, you doing a great job getting people onto power. I may be different, but made these descisions based on the fact that a live with these guys, eat with them, go on tour to Europe with them for at least three months of the year and therefore it works in this sitution.

[Trackz]

Your debate, albeit fascinating, has left me feeling rather inadequate but I won't go chew my wrists just yet!

Perhaps 2 pieces of advice for a up and coming Vet MTBr like me:

1) Help us with some suggestions on power training without having to purchase a R5000 power tap device.

2) I sometimes ride on the fancy Technogym stationary bike in gym but can;t seem to get the same power levels as tested on a similar Technogym stationary trainer at a cycle shop. How accurate are these machines?

3) How about some tips on basic power training methods without buying the expensive powerhubs & stuff.

Thanks for the interesting thread.

[Austin]

PM me to get my email. The whole team stays in Heidelberg GP. Come ride the trails here, have a coffee at Wiesenhoff with us and will share some ideas. Have got 4 guys in team without Powermeters and have to improvise for them. Maybe some of those simple practical ideas may help.

[Cois]

Quote

Quote

It seems that Cycling isn't a sport (or fun past time) any more. You make it a science project with weird names and all that stuff, but in the end "what works for you, works for you"

Every one has his own way of doing a thing. Respect the other views...

That's a very strange assumption [IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Wink" />Cycling is more fun (for me anyway) than it has ever been - I love being able to accurately measure performance and help others improve - why should being able to analyse something make it less enjoyable ?What works for you is fine but if somebody can help or advise and you can improve then surely that is a good thing

I think that it is fun to try and see to what level I can push myself, without a computer or whatever you use telling you weird things... I don't care if I can push out 250 watts for 2 hours (what ever that might mean)



Cycling isn't fun if you have to hit podium every race. If you preform weak today, you are gonna try and find out what went wrong. Me on the other hand will let it be. So what if I come last in a race. At least I got full use of the R50-00 (or what ever a race entry might be).



I dont wan't to compare my level of fitness with anyone. There is only one Cois in the world and there is no one like me. I wanna have fun, I want to go out and do what I want to do... Without watts kilojules and all that mumbo jumbo...



Thats Me...

[BikeMax]

Quote

For this guy yes, for others it will differ. For average Joe the normal CP prediction will do. Work personally in their faces every day, so that the judgement call made. He has tendancy to use too much anaerobic muscle fibre and want to extend the usual shortened test to counter bad results.

 

When I use the normal CP model to determine  values it predicts a value about 5 watts to 10 watts higher than the "funny" 45mins test. Those watts important to monitor that he grows aerobically more than anaerobically as many South Africans have done due to the short nature of our races (which adversely affects performance on international scale where higher aerobic state is crucial. Will not see the true benefits out of this in any test or practicals in SA, but quickly got awakened to it when got the results of constant Euro racing of young SA riders.

 

Anyways, you doing a great job getting people onto power. I may be different, but made these descisions based on the fact that a live with these guys, eat with them, go on tour to Europe with them for at least three months of the year and therefore it works in this sitution.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Why not use a power/duration curve to evaluate aerobic Vs anaerobic capacity. If the curve is skewed towards the shorter durations and drops off sharply over time then it would indicate a need for more aerobic work (if this is a focus area)

I find these really useful in evaluating a riders weaknesses.

[BikeMax]

Quote

Your debate, albeit fascinating, has left me feeling rather inadequate but I won't go chew my wrists just yet!

Perhaps 2 pieces of advice for a up and coming Vet MTBr like me:

1) Help us with some suggestions on power training without having to purchase a R5000 power tap device.

2) I sometimes ride on the fancy Technogym stationary bike in gym but can;t seem to get the same power levels as tested on a similar Technogym stationary trainer at a cycle shop. How accurate are these machines?

3) How about some tips on basic power training methods without buying the expensive powerhubs & stuff.

Thanks for the interesting thread.

Tough to measure power cheaply - but maybe a second hand Polar power sensor ?

Technogym machines are not accurate - ignore the figures unless for comparison on the same machine.

Basic tips - some good articles here;

http://www.bikemaxpower.com/training

Good luck.

[bruce]

Austin, I have read through this thread and the interesting debate, and I have a couple of questions (based on my understanding which of course is not necessarily correct).

1. The MAP test is still an aerobic test, and is generally an indicator of power at VO2Max (an athletes aerobic ceiling).  Anaerobic capacity is usually tested using a Wingate test - i.e. maximal power output for a duration of 30 seconds.  Would it not be more appropriate to use at Wingate test at the end of the 45min TT?

2. By combining these two tests, do you not end up compromising both i.e. the 45 mins is not a true reflection of the riders 45min capability, because the rider is clearly having to hold something in reserve for the MAP at the end?  Neither is the MAP a true reflection of power at VO2Max since the rider is somewhat fatigued going into the MAP test.

3. The general guideline on the 20 min TT is that CP60 (or FTP) is 95% of CP20.  Even using a linear interpolation, CP60 should be around 98% of CP20.  Thats a 2% difference and is pretty much the same magnitude as the most accurate power meters available - which means that the results are within the range of error of the power meter and are not really valid down to that resolution.

4. You state that a 60 min effort is in fact a "race" effort, and that these need to be managed very carefully.  I find that statement interesing because:
    - In one of the world hour records (I'd need to search for which).  The rider failed on his first attempt, and actually broke the record less than 24 hours later.
    - a 60min effort at maximum is considered 100 training stress points.  Less than the daily average of most if not all elite riders.
    - If the rider is currently racing, race data should provide plenty insight into what their ftp is, and tests are not really necessary (certainly for the purpose of setting training zones).  If the rider is not currently racing, then a 60min TT race effort is not going to compromise performance because they are not currently performing.

Your thoughts?

[domenic]

Quote

 
Why not use a power/duration curve to evaluate aerobic Vs anaerobic capacity. If the curve is skewed towards the shorter durations and drops off sharply over time then it would indicate a need for more aerobic work (if this is a focus area)

I find these really useful in evaluating a riders weaknesses.

 

Now this makes sense. In fact all training levels are best established by basing them on the power/duration curve of the athlete. Using average predicted values based on FTP can never be as good.

[Austin]

Hi Bruce

 

There is something you guys misread all the time. The "extra tests" are not anaerobic or aerobic test as you guys know or understand it. It is done to evaluate certain criteria to determine muscle fibre recruitement.

Power or HR test per say do know show you directly what fibre you are recruiting. When doing threshold type tests it is important for me to understand the way the athlete is usung his Typ 2 A fibres and wether he is exploiting the maximal aerobic potential thereof. It is easy to get it wrong by doing all the in-the-book tests. These are great for 100k riders or if you know he constantly does 160k races, but when preparing him for 160k races in europe, yet data received is mostly from 100k races in SA, it becomes vital for correct fibre recruitement.

Example: Last year at Edenvale classic one of my guys won the Elite race. He broke away and only had to do 4.9W/kg for last 5kms to win. That is low, but because the whole teams prep was such that their type2a fibre recruitement had a very aerobic nature, while most other SA Pro's had a anaerobic nature of recruitement, the others could not respond due to to much muscle fatigue due to anaerobic nature of function.

 

I will gladly sit down for coffee with you sometime over this and other training issues. Am just getting very busy now as I have to run a team, do the training, plan Euro schedule, etc .I have to shift focus for replies each day. PM me for email address or phone number to meet sometime. We can sommer then rave about the Force groupsets too.

[Skinny]

Please don't.

 

Keep this thread going, you are educating us idiots.

 

Well me at least.

[bruce]

Quote

Hi Bruce

 

There is something you guys misread all the time. The "extra tests" are not anaerobic or aerobic test as you guys know or understand it. It is done to evaluate certain criteria to determine muscle fibre recruitement.

Power or HR test per say do know show you directly what fibre you are recruiting. When doing threshold type tests it is important for me to understand the way the athlete is usung his Typ 2 A fibres and wether he is exploiting the maximal aerobic potential thereof. It is easy to get it wrong by doing all the in-the-book tests. These are great for 100k riders or if you know he constantly does 160k races, but when preparing him for 160k races in europe, yet data received is mostly from 100k races in SA, it becomes vital for correct fibre recruitement.

Example: Last year at Edenvale classic one of my guys won the Elite race. He broke away and only had to do 4.9W/kg for last 5kms to win. That is low, but because the whole teams prep was such that their type2a fibre recruitement had a very aerobic nature, while most other SA Pro's had a anaerobic nature of recruitement, the others could not respond due to to much muscle fatigue due to anaerobic nature of function.

 

I will gladly sit down for coffee with you sometime over this and other training issues. Am just getting very busy now as I have to run a team, do the training, plan Euro schedule, etc .I have to shift focus for replies each day. PM me for email address or phone number to meet sometime. We can sommer then rave about the Force groupsets too.

Cool, would love to sit and chat.  I guess at the end of the day, results are the ultimate measure of training success so I don't think anyone can argue with that.

Getting the hang of the SRAM stuff, beginning to love it!!