# What is your watt/kg ratio?



## plank (12 Feb 2010)

Just wondering what other peoples power to weigh ratio is?

I'm 95kg mine is 

6seconds 

average 1325/95 = 13.95

1 min (actually 1min 5 secs for 1 km)

average 618/95 = 6.5

sorry become watt obsessed after having a go!


----------



## amaferanga (12 Feb 2010)

I've just bought a power meter and haven't yet got round to doing any testing (I've had a stinking cold since the day before it arrived ) so I don't have any figures.

You might find this spreadsheet on Power profiling interesting.


----------



## plank (12 Feb 2010)

yeah I found that but I don't like it as it puts me low down the table because I'm quite heavy


----------



## gaz (12 Feb 2010)

anyway to work it out without a power meter?


----------



## amaferanga (12 Feb 2010)

gaz said:


> anyway to work it out without a power meter?



Not really.


----------



## SimonC (12 Feb 2010)

plank said:


> Just wondering what other peoples power to weigh ratio is?
> 
> I'm 95kg mine is
> 
> ...



Power is usually measured over 1 hr for typical power/weight ratio calc!!


----------



## amaferanga (12 Feb 2010)

SimonC said:


> Power is usually measured over 1 hr for typical power/weight ratio calc!!



That's FTP. Power profiling involves testing for your W/kg over 5s, 1min, 5min and an hour.


----------



## plank (12 Feb 2010)

Yeah I haven't done that  not sure if I fancy an hour on a watt bike.


----------



## Rob3rt (12 Feb 2010)

gaz said:


> anyway to work it out without a power meter?



If you go to a gym, some of the machines in there will measure power(the ones in my gym have a power option if you press a button marked perosnal trainer a number of times to get to it) but I guess its brand specific, the machines in my gym are made by "Life Fitness", also I dont know how it reflects vs riding on a real bike.


----------



## plank (12 Feb 2010)

Do you think watt/kg only comes into play while going up hills? I can't see it having much effect on the flat or downhill....

edit also I think the regular gym bikes work from an equation of resistance and RPM so unlikely to be reliable.


----------



## Rob3rt (12 Feb 2010)

plank said:


> Do you think watt/kg only comes into play while going up hills? I can't see it having much effect on the flat or downhill....
> 
> edit also I think the regular gym bikes work from an equation of resistance and RPM so unlikely to be reliable.



Could be right, dont know, guess it depends on the equation used and the variables considered. I dont know how a normal power meter works, so cant say I know the difference between the possible ways a gym machine could potentially measure power and a power meters way. At a guess, a bike attached power meter works on some sort of equation too (again though I dont know how they work )


----------



## amaferanga (12 Feb 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> Could be right, dont know, guess it depends on the equation used and the variables considered. I dont know how a normal power meter works, so cant say I know the difference between the possible ways a gym machine could potentially measure power and a power meters way. At a guess, a bike attached power meter works on some sort of equation too (again though I dont know how they work )



Power meters like the PowerTap use strain gauges to measure torque which is then converted into a measure of power.

Gym bikes and most turbo trainers that _measure_ power don't actually measure power (or even torque), but use a formula to infer the power from the speed. I have a turbo trainer that claims to give reliable power readings, but in fact it varies by >25% (for a given speed) depending on the ambient temperature and how long/hard I've been riding for.


----------



## Bill Gates (12 Feb 2010)

So how can knowing your sustainable power for one hour, 5 minutes or whatever time period help you with your training? It will always improve with training but then that's inevitable. If you are working to a training plan then unless you are peaking for a race, you will always be below what is achievable as you will be recovering from previous training.

Right now I'm way below peak fitness because of the bad weather. I don't need a power reading to tell me that, just as I don't need one to know when I'm at my best. It's a tool that pro's will use with their coaches because it's available and they can. What good it does a run of the mill club rider I don't know. I've seen those that recommend them can usually supply them as well (at a price).

Comparing your power readings is like comparing your average speeds. It produces a competition to see if you can beat the previous best. If you train like that you are an idiot.

The only reading that matters is your performance in a race. I.e Where you finish.


----------



## plank (12 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> So how can knowing your sustainable power for one hour, 5 minutes or whatever time period help you with your training? It will always improve with training but then that's inevitable. If you are working to a training plan then unless you are peaking for a race, you will always be below what is achievable as you will be recovering from previous training.
> 
> Right now I'm way below peak fitness because of the bad weather. I don't need a power reading to tell me that, just as I don't need one to know when I'm at my best. It's a tool that pro's will use with their coaches because it's available and they can. What good it does a run of the mill club rider I don't know. I've seen those that recommend them can usually supply them as well (at a price).
> 
> ...



sounds like a response from someone who doesn't put out much power


----------



## PK99 (12 Feb 2010)

amaferanga said:


> I've just bought a power meter and haven't yet got round to doing any testing (I've had a stinking cold since the day before it arrived ) so I don't have any figures.
> 
> You might find this spreadsheet on Power profiling interesting.



ditto this one:

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2008/02/power-to-weight-ratio.html


----------



## GrasB (12 Feb 2010)

Power meters are, apparently, rather useful in TTs were,due to training with one, you can instantly know if you're over doing it or not. Or so I've been told, having never used one let alone used one in a TT I have no idea.


----------



## Bill Gates (12 Feb 2010)

plank said:


> sounds like a response from someone who doesn't put out much power



Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows or cares? I don't.


----------



## Bill Gates (12 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> Power meters are, apparently, rather useful in TTs were,due to training with one, you can instantly know if you're over doing it or not. Or so I've been told, having never used one let alone used one in a TT I have no idea.



All other things being equal, a rider in a TT will increase power going up inclines and descrease power going down. The how much you increase power by so that the rider does not overcook it cannot be measureable, as climbs have different lengths and steepness. 

On a pan flat road then the power output might be relevant if you know what you can do for 20 minutes or an hour on a turbo, but a turbo is altogther different from the road and in a race adrenaline kicks in to increase your effort. 

I can see that the average power readings could be useful to analyse later, but by then it's too late for the race you've just done. In a race HR and power readings are irrelevant because the chances are that due to preparation and adrenaline you will be beating figures from training sessions.

Let's say that I know that I can sustain a power reading of 300 watts for an hour. How will this assist me in my training?


----------



## gaz (12 Feb 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> If you go to a gym, some of the machines in there will measure power(the ones in my gym have a power option if you press a button marked perosnal trainer a number of times to get to it) but I guess its brand specific, the machines in my gym are made by "Life Fitness", also I dont know how it reflects vs riding on a real bike.



What is this gym you speak off?


----------



## amaferanga (12 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> All other things being equal, a rider in a TT will increase power going up inclines and descrease power going down. The how much you increase power by so that the rider does not overcook it cannot be measureable, as climbs have different lengths and steepness.
> 
> On a pan flat road then the power output might be relevant if you know what you can do for 20 minutes or an hour on a turbo, but a turbo is altogther different from the road and in a race adrenaline kicks in to increase your effort.
> 
> ...



So your knocking something you seem to know nothing about? 

Books have been written on training with power so if you're genuinely interested then you might want to get hold of one. But to briefly answer your question - if you know you can hold 300W for an hour then your FTP is 300W. You can then use that number to set your training zones accordingly to target different systems, in the same way that people use HR and RPE, but without much of the guesswork due to e.g. cardiac drift.

There's much more to the analysis of power than just the average. Again, books have been written on this so I won't attempt to explain here.

I'm very new to training wit power, but to me at the moment it will allow me to track improvement and see the (hopefully) positive effects of my training.


----------



## Bill Gates (12 Feb 2010)

amaferanga said:


> So your knocking something you seem to know nothing about?
> 
> Books have been written on training with power so if you're genuinely interested then you might want to get hold of one. *But to briefly answer your question - if you know you can hold 300W for an hour then your FTP is 300W. * You can then use that number to set your training zones accordingly to target different systems, in the same way that people use HR and RPE, but without much of the guesswork due to e.g. cardiac drift.
> 
> ...



Same as LT. You can use HR and RPE in training quite successfully. You don't have to be so accurate as to train right on the LT button but within a zone is OK. Also RPE and HR take fatigue and health into account as you wouldn't want to push yourself when going too hard could knock you back.

RPE is the safest and best way to pace yourself, and if you want to race that way then you should train that way. 

You're all hope and prayer, and I'm completely unconvinced, and considerably better off financially for not buying what I think is the "emperor's new clothes".


----------



## plank (12 Feb 2010)

If the opportunity to get a reading came up why would you not want one?


----------



## Will1985 (12 Feb 2010)

Luddite!


----------



## amaferanga (12 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> Same as LT. You can use HR and RPE in training quite successfully. You don't have to be so accurate as to train right on the LT button but within a zone is OK. Also RPE and HR take fatigue and health into account as you wouldn't want to push yourself when going too hard could knock you back.
> 
> RPE is the safest and best way to pace yourself, and if you want to race that way then you should train that way.
> 
> You're all hope and prayer, and I'm completely unconvinced, and considerably better off financially for not buying what I think is the "emperor's new clothes".



I can tell already that you're at least 60 years old and still use downtube shifters 

Seriously though, invest £8 in the book Racing and Training with a Power Meter by Allen and Coggan and then you might understand why power is BETTER than RPE and HR for pacing and training.


----------



## jimboalee (12 Feb 2010)

Here he comes….

Why do you need to know your power output while you are riding?

For a start, you don’t need a power meter to get an idea of your ability.
You need a hill and a speed measurement. Rolldown test, as previously described in an earlier episode ( here’s one I made earlier ).

In practicality, on a 5 hour stage in a multi stage Roadrace, the riders need to know when to eat, drink ( and make merry )… 
The riders will have done all the test work in a wind tunnel, on a track and up some hills; and the team coach will evaluate the route to see where the long flat sections are and where the hills are. He will make an estimation of the rider’s calorific consumption - which is directly related to Watts – and with the team’s nutritionalist, instruct the riders when to gulp down the energy drink and Mars Bars.

The riders, after miles and miles of riding and testing – cus it’s their job – will know if they are strong enough to climb up the mountain, or go on a lone breakaway. 

The team’s nutritionalist will know how much energy drink – cus it’s his job – and pass the bidons to the domestiques and command them to give the bidons to the star riders. No need for the star riders to remember when to feed. They are waited upon.

I think what Bill is going to say next is PowerTap et al, is a sales hype to extract money from the unwitting.

It was fifteen years ago when I strapped my bike to a dynamometer. All in the name of ‘getting through a Rando 300 without bonking’….

Of course it is interesting to know one's specifics, but a £800 piece of kit is not necessary.


----------



## plank (12 Feb 2010)

well, to be honest the reason I posted is I wanted to beat someone on the internet. If you haven't got a reading could you make one up that significantly less than mine? I would also feel better if you weighed a lot less too. Thanks!

edit: if you do make one up you need to pretend its real.


----------



## Bill Gates (13 Feb 2010)

The only valid arguments put forward in favour so far are to measure improvement to know if training is working and to accurately establish training zones. Both of which are true. But do you NEED it?

Any experienced rider will instinctively know training zones from RPE and how to improve fitness without having to measure it along the way. As a TT rider I'm fully aware of the importance of reducing drag and will happily use the latest technology etc. to facilitate that goal. Luddite I'm not.

I may not be fast now but used to be able to hold almost 30 mph on a road bike for 10 miles and won numerous open TT's at all distances up to 100 miles so should know how to reach my full potential.


----------



## davidg (13 Feb 2010)

yeah, but did you win them with the right power?!


----------



## Bill Gates (13 Feb 2010)

I've had this debate before and ended up getting the same old name calling, slurs on my character and unfunny (meant to be funny) comments. Typical tactics employed by those who are unable to contend with the basic truths.

1) RPE and HR reflect how you feel, which in turn reflects your current levels of fatigue and health and should take precedence over any pre-determined level of training intensity with power.

2) Your FTP or whatever sustainable power number you choose is a moving target as you get fitter or lose fitness so how can this be accurate for measuring training zones?

3) Knowing your current sustainable training power is only relevant to your performance on that day and could well be bettered on race day with better preparation and the adrenaline you get from racing.

I find it amusing when I read or hear what power a rider can generate. I'm more interested in did they win and that takes a combination of technique, endurance, speed, strength and will power. Train for all of those and the power looks after itself.


----------



## amaferanga (13 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> I've had this debate before and ended up getting the same old name calling, slurs on my character and unfunny (meant to be funny) comments. Typical tactics employed by those who are unable to contend with the basic truths.
> 
> 1) RPE and HR reflect how you feel, which in turn reflects your current levels of fatigue and health and should take precedence over any pre-determined level of training intensity with power.
> 
> ...



1) Example: you're on a turbo and trying to maintain a constant effort for say 1 hour. Your turbo is subject to drift as it heats up and your HR will also drift so how exactly can you tell if you are maintaining a constant effort (power) or if your effort is actually slowly falling off through the hour? You can use RPE and probably (if you are an experienced rider) get it just about right, but RPE is subjective. Power is an objective measure of your effort.

2) You retest your FTP regularly.

3) If you analyse your power data from the race and you have put out a bigger sustained power than your latest FTP test suggest should be possible then you should either use the FTP inferred from the race (if possible) or you retest your FTP.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that training with power is the secret to instant success, but it is a tool that (unlike RPE and HR) allows you to objectively and accurately determine your training zones and pace your efforts. To do well in races you still need to do the training miles and you still need to work on different aspects (not just trying to improve FTP) and you still need to acquire the tactical knowledge, but to me there's little doubt that training with power is superior to training using subjective measures.


----------



## Bill Gates (13 Feb 2010)

amaferanga said:


> 1) Example: *you're on a turbo and trying to maintain a constant effort for say 1 hour. Your turbo is subject to drift as it heats up and your HR will also drift so how exactly can you tell if you are maintaining a constant effort (power) or if your effort is actually slowly falling off through the hour?* You can use RPE and probably (if you are an experienced rider) get it just about right, but RPE is subjective. Power is an objective measure of your effort.
> 
> 2) *You retest your FTP regularly.*
> 
> ...




You're assuming that a rate of effort in training has to be right on the button to be effective. But it isn't. Training within a zone is enough for any particular improvement to occur for that level of effort be it endurance, LT or VO2max.

When you're training LT then I allow for cardiac drift on my HRM. I also use a cadence meter and speed readout on my computer to show level of effort. You do know of course that as you get fitter then you go faster for a given level of HR. Therefore using your HR is a more accurate way of establishing LT as it is self correcting. Constantly having to re-test your FTP is a nonsense for training purposes. I'm totally unconcerned about the the turbo heating up and affecting anything substantially BTW.

You should know as an experienced racing cyclist that during a race your effort fluctuates with the terrain, also in a Time Trial it is beneficial to be conservative at the start and then wind the effort up during the race so that by the end of the TT you are on the limit. Without an innate sense of RPE learned in training then you will lose time. 

Focus totally on training with power and you'll be in danger of trying to beat yesterday's numbers and burn yourself out.


----------



## amaferanga (13 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> You're assuming that a rate of effort in training has to be right on the button to be effective. But it isn't. Training within a zone is enough for any particular improvement to occur for that level of effort be it endurance, LT or VO2max.
> 
> When you're training LT then I allow for cardiac drift on my HRM. *I also use a cadence meter and speed readout on my computer to show level of effort*. You do know of course that as you get fitter then you go faster for a given level of HR. Therefore using your HR is a more accurate way of establishing LT as it is self correcting. Constantly having to re-test your FTP is a nonsense for training purposes. I'm totally unconcerned about the the turbo heating up and affecting anything substantially BTW.
> 
> ...



I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, but by using cadence/speed on your turbo _you do know_ that you are using a proxy for power to gauge your efforts? A much cheaper, but also much less reliable alternative unfortunately.

I'm a firm believer in not knocking something until you at least know a little about it.


----------



## Bill Gates (13 Feb 2010)

amaferanga said:


> I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, but by using cadence/speed on your turbo _you do know_ that you are using a proxy for power to gauge your efforts? A much cheaper, but also much *less reliable* alternative unfortunately.



Have you taken in anything I've posted at all? 



amaferanga said:


> I'm a firm believer in not knocking something until you at least know a little about it.



What do you know about racing TT's then? Ever raced one?


----------



## Garz (13 Feb 2010)

Keep it sensible please fella's.


----------



## jimboalee (13 Feb 2010)

Garz said:


> Keep it sensible please fella's.



Naaa...


----------



## jimboalee (13 Feb 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Naaa...



Please note. The BSO has it's forks the WRONG way round. Must come from Halus Fordius.


----------



## Bill Gates (14 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> What do you know about racing TT's then? Ever raced one?




So you're training with power (for the first time) to train for racing (for the first time), and you accuse me of knocking something I know nothing about.


----------



## amaferanga (14 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> So you're training with power (for the first time) to train for racing (for the first time), and you accuse me of knocking something I know nothing about.



I'm sure you know much, much more about racing and training than me, which is why training with power is IMO more useful to me than RPE and HR since I don't have many years of experience (racing that is - I've been riding bikes for a long time) to fall back on.


----------



## Garz (14 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> So you're training with power (for the first time) to train for racing (for the first time), and you accuse me of knocking something I know nothing about.



Arguing with yourself again Bill?


----------



## davidg (14 Feb 2010)

Drago v Rocky

one guy has state of the art, another chops up logs...


----------



## Bill Gates (14 Feb 2010)

davidg said:


> Drago v Rocky
> 
> one guy has state of the art, another chops up logs...



And you are a spectator, a pathetic noneity in the crowd, wanting to be part of the action but lacking the moral courage, strength of character, knowledge or experience to contribute to what is a decent debate. 

I respect ameraferanga for his views and his willingness to debate them openly but despise those who think a decent contribution is creating a laugh at others expense.


----------



## Bill Gates (14 Feb 2010)

amaferanga said:


> I'm sure you know much, much more about racing and training than me, which is why training with power is IMO more useful to me than RPE and HR since I don't have many years of experience (racing that is - I've been riding bikes for a long time) to fall back on.




OK. To be honest if you've invested in the technology then you are already motivated to improve your fitness and if you follow the various training sessions designed to get you to peak fitness over time then it will be money well spent.

In other words in your position it can only be of benefit. I can see that for some riders knowing the numbers and seeing them improve can be motivational enough without ever getting to the stage of entering a race.

It is worth keeping tabs on your HR though and if you don't feel up to doing or completeing a session then stop. Once you find it too hard to keep the effort going then carrying on will take away rather than contribute to your progress. Good Luck!


----------



## lukesdad (14 Feb 2010)

amaferanga said:


> I've just bought a power meter and haven't yet got round to doing any testing (I've had a stinking cold since the day before it arrived ) so I don't have any figures.
> 
> You might find this spreadsheet on Power profiling interesting.



If I were you I d worry less about your power meter, and more about your diet and recovery and cut out the colds. You could then do some training instead of talking about it.

£800 thats nearly 40 race entries..... More money than sense some people


----------



## amaferanga (14 Feb 2010)

lukesdad said:


> If I were you I d worry less about your power meter, and more about your diet and recovery and cut out the colds. You could then do some training instead of talking about it.
> 
> £800 thats nearly 40 race entries..... More money than sense some people



Thanks for the advice, but there's nothing wrong with my diet and I don't get colds frequently (as you seem to be suggesting).

£800 is less than some people spend on a pair of wheels and certainly a lot less than some people spend on bikes so I don't think its excessive.


----------



## lukesdad (14 Feb 2010)

A set of decent wheels or, for that matter a better bike would give you a marked improvement in your performance. Shame the same can t be said about power meters.


----------



## plank (14 Feb 2010)

Have you had a go on it yet ama?

I have just got over a cold, don't normally get them either but this was a nasty one but thankfully only lasted 4 days and now I feel 100% again.

I've got my first race in 2 weeks so glad the cold is out of the way.


----------



## davidg (14 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> And you are a spectator, a pathetic noneity in the crowd, wanting to be part of the action but lacking the moral courage, strength of character, knowledge or experience to contribute to what is a decent debate.
> 
> I respect ameraferanga for his views and his willingness to debate them openly but despise those who think a decent contribution is creating a laugh at others expense.



pathetic non-entity! charmed I am sure...

sorry if my humour has caused offence, but it's likely you have just taken it the wrong way....

if you want me to expand, all I am saying that that there is a technical way and a "raw" way of doing things and I believe that people should do what is right for themselves.

I am not really sure what to say about the rest of it as I don't think it takes morale courage to create an argument of that type....you are making taking a stance on an internet forum into some sort of heroic action.


----------



## Bill Gates (15 Feb 2010)

davidg said:


> pathetic non-entity! charmed I am sure...
> 
> sorry if my humour has caused offence, but it's likely you have just taken it the wrong way....



There's humour and there's ridicule. Ridicule me and expect to get some stick back.




davidg said:


> if you want me to expand, all I am saying that that there is a technical way and a "raw" way of doing things and I believe that people should do what is right for themselves.



Bullsxxx

You were using ridicule to portray training with power as progress and training with HR and RPE as backward.




davidg said:


> I am not really sure what to say about the rest of it as I don't think it takes morale courage to create an argument of that type....*you are making taking a stance on an internet forum into some sort of heroic action*.



Nothing of the sort. I'm proactive to debating my views and reactive to abuse.


----------



## amaferanga (15 Feb 2010)

lukesdad said:


> A set of decent wheels or, for that matter a better bike would give you a marked improvement in your performance. Shame the same can t be said about power meters.



And you don't think proper training (be that with a power meter or another means) would lead to a more marked improvement compared to a lighter bike or lighter and/or more aero wheels? 

Can you provide some evidence for your claim that training with a power meter doesn't lead to improved performance as it seems there are a lot of very successful cyclists who are wasting there time using them....


----------



## davidg (15 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates, I am really sorry you see it that way because no ridicule was meant...

it's quite obvious to me that the original statement was too subjective in its meaning now, so sincerely I apologise if you took it not as I meant it, but as you have. To me it was just a bit of banter saying that there was more than one way to skin a cat....

no bullsxxx, that's what I meant. Anyway take it as you want to; an apology because you feel you were insulted; or you can just continue to see it as ridicule when I have denied it...

Rocky won you know!


----------



## Bill Gates (15 Feb 2010)

davidg said:


> Bill Gates, I am really sorry you see it that way because no ridicule was meant...
> 
> it's quite obvious to me that the original statement was too subjective in its meaning now, so sincerely I apologise if you took it not as I meant it, but as you have. To me it was just a bit of banter saying that there was more than one way to skin a cat....
> 
> ...



Accepted. Many Thanks


----------



## Seamab (15 Feb 2010)

lukesdad said:


> A set of decent wheels or, for that matter a better bike would give you a marked improvement in your performance. Shame the same can t be said about power meters.



Yes, but all the bling doesn't improve the athlete does it?

There is an ever growing number of power meter users out there who will testify to the fact that they do work (if used properly).

The power meter is the new objective tool on the block that costs a lot of money compared to an HR - but it is just that - a tool - to be used correctly or incorrectly like any other.

For the record, i don't have one nor an HR - i go on cheapskate perceived effort. I don't race and don't have the experience of Bill and others who have posted on this thread. I have bought the Allen & Coggan book and find it very interesting but i don't have £800 to splash. If i did, i'd seriously consider one.

To train properly with one requires a lot of commitment (and a liking for analysis and numbers) and is not for everyone - one could argue that the money may be better spent on coaching.

I can't understand the anti power meter bias on here. It's just another way of training (with an expensive initial outlay). Perhaps that's the real issue here? The implication on this thread is that anyone who has one has more money than sense.

I'd certainly like to hear how Amaferanga gets on with his new toy.


----------



## Bill Gates (15 Feb 2010)

Seamab said:


> There is an ever growing number of power meter users out there who will testify to the fact that they do work (if used properly).
> 
> The power meter is the new objective tool on the block that costs a lot of money compared to an HR - but it is just that - a tool - to be used correctly or incorrectly like any other.



I can't think of any training method used by cyclists that doesn't work. The question is more which gives the best value of time and effort spent to get you where you want to be.




Seamab said:


> For the record, i don't have one nor an HR - *i go on cheapskate perceived effort.* I don't race and don't have the experience of Bill and others who have posted on this thread. I have bought the Allen & Coggan book and find it very interesting but i don't have £800 to splash. If i did, i'd seriously consider one.



RPE and HR reflect how you feel, which in turn reflects your current levels of fatigue and health and should take precedence over any pre-determined level of training intensity with power.



Seamab said:


> To train properly with one requires a lot of commitment (and a liking for analysis and numbers) and is not for everyone - one could argue that the money may be better spent on coaching.



Your FTP or whatever sustainable power number you choose is a moving target as you get fitter or lose fitness so how can this be accurate for measuring training zones? Unless you're going flat out i.e.sustainable power (TT, or measured time/distance) then your fgures will obviously be less than those achievable. 

So their only use is when going flat out. How many times do you go flat out in training. Once a month? a week? every day?



Seamab said:


> I can't understand the anti power meter bias on here. It's just another way of training (with an expensive initial outlay). Perhaps that's the real issue here? The implication on this thread is that anyone who has one has more money than sense.



It is useless to use in a race. During a race your effort fluctuates with the terrain. Without an innate sense of RPE learned in training then you will lose time. They are a money spinner for the suppliers but even if I won the lottery I wouldn't use one. That's a personal choice.


----------



## Bill Gates (15 Feb 2010)

amaferanga said:


> 1) Example: you're on a turbo and trying to maintain a constant effort for say 1 hour. * Your turbo is subject to drift as it heats up* and your HR will also drift so how exactly can you tell if you are maintaining a constant effort (power) or if your effort is actually slowly falling off through the hour?



Haven't been on the road for 2 weeks as too cold so went on the turbo.

Just finished 45 minutes and tested roll down time at 20 mph to stop a number of times. Started the first test at 5 minutes - roll down time 6 seconds. Same - 6 seconds each time until 40 minutes just before warm down when it became nearly 7 seconds. HR went up for the same level effort after warm up from 75%MHR to 79% MHR. 

Turbo heating up can be ignored (on my turbo anyway)


----------



## jimboalee (15 Feb 2010)

Who wants to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of measuring the power output of a wheeled vehicle 'at the tyre' against 'at the flywheel'?

Then who would like to discuss VO2 uptake, Lactate Threshold, Max HR, Muscular endurance and fatigue et al.

Until you have sorted out the latter, you may as well forget the former.


----------



## jimboalee (15 Feb 2010)

If you are concerned about variations in frictional losses in the dyno bearings, strap an electric motor to the dyno and run it until the current consumption has stabilised at it's lowest for five continous minutes.

Then remove the electric motor and put your bike on and get riding within five minutes.

Motorcar emissions dynamometers require a 'warm-up' prior to testing. It's in the regulations.
Bicycle turbos?


----------



## Seamab (15 Feb 2010)

> Bill Gates said:
> 
> 
> > I can't think of any training method used by cyclists that doesn't work. The question is more which gives the best value of time and effort spent to get you where you want to be.
> ...


----------



## Will1985 (15 Feb 2010)

Arguing on here is pointless without any experts to offer insight. Go on timetriallingforum or slowtwitch where there are qualified sports scientists who know what they are talking about (including the authors of books about power).

FWIW, I managed 264W during a Hardriders 25 yesterday (1:05) - 3.95W/kg which is where I want to be for this time of year.

I'm not convinced about the value of W/kg - last year a bunch of us in the club had lab testing done, and despite me having one of the lowest W/kg I always beat the others up long hills. Theoretically I think shouldn't have ever reached the top first (some guys had values of 5-5.5W/kg and lighter bikes) but I did, which suggests that technique or another physical attribute is in play too.

Back on topic, can't we just agree that there are the old traditional methods of training and racing by feel, and the new scientific methods? What really turns me off traditional clubs are the old racers who insist that the way they trained when young is still the best - I'd like to be able to talk about other topics on a club run too! This isn't universal as I also know many veterans who have accepted or embraced more modern methods of training. 

There is clearly value in the older style of training as nobody these days could probably beat Alf Engers' 25 time on an old school bike. It's perhaps worth noting that the current BBAR trains "old school" without power.


----------



## Bill Gates (15 Feb 2010)

Seamab said:


> > Couldn't agree more. Power users will argue that there's is the best. Others will think differently.
> >
> >
> > What you describe is training *by *power rather than *with *power. The object is to only do what you can do - not to shatter yourself to make the end of a workout at a predefined power.
> ...


----------



## Bill Gates (15 Feb 2010)

Will1985 said:


> Arguing on here is pointless without any experts to offer insight. Go on timetriallingforum or slowtwitch where there are qualified sports scientists who know what they are talking about (including the authors of books about power).



A Coggan told me that the way I was training was correct and that a power meter was not something that could help me; due to my experiences of racing and training using RPE. That was on another forum (banned from it now)



Will1985 said:


> *I'm not convinced about the value of W/kg *- last year a bunch of us in the club had lab testing done, and despite me having one of the lowest W/kg I always beat the others up long hills. Theoretically I think shouldn't have ever reached the top first (some guys had values of 5-5.5W/kg and lighter bikes) but I did, which suggests that technique or another physical attribute is in play too.



Neither am I. And you were the one who called me a luddite



Will1985 said:


> Back on topic, can't we just agree that there are the old traditional methods of training and racing by feel, and the new scientific methods? What really turns me off traditional clubs are the old racers who insist that the way they trained when young is still the best - I'd like to be able to talk about other topics on a club run too! This isn't universal as I also know many veterans who have accepted or embraced more modern methods of training.
> 
> There is clearly value in the older style of training as nobody these days could probably beat Alf Engers' 25 time on an old school bike. It's perhaps worth noting that the current BBAR trains "old school" without power.



It's a healthy debate well worthy of a Training Forum. There are others who read this who have no experience and will have benefited from these exchanges.

However I take your point. I won't post on this thread anymore.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Feb 2010)

amaferanga said:


> And you don't think proper training (be that with a power meter or another means) would lead to a more marked improvement compared to a lighter bike or lighter and/or more aero wheels?
> 
> Can you provide some evidence for your claim that training with a power meter doesn't lead to improved performance as it seems there are a lot of very successful cyclists who are wasting there time using them....



Nothing wrong with "proper" training. But I know where I d rather spend my £800, and all these succesfull cyclists would still probably be succesfull without it and there are far more succesfull guys not using them than are at least around here anyways.


----------



## Seamab (15 Feb 2010)

> No magic bullet here.


No magic bullet - you've still got to do the training!



> FTP is just one sustainable power measurement - and I beg to differ; it changes a lot. What you are describing is Tempo pace, and you don't waht to be doing a lot of that as it will wipe you out. If you are talking about training LT it s 85-95% MHR not 85-95% of FTP. Threshold training as a % of FTP is 95-105%.


The levels described by Allen & Coggan are 
Tempo: avg power 76-90% of FTP or approx 84-94% of avg HR
Lactate Threshold: 91-105% FTP or approx 95 - 105% of avg HR

Tempo level workouts are possible on consecutive days if duration is not excessive and dietary carb intake is adequate. LT workouts are performed when rider is sufficiently rested and not normally on consecutive days although possible.

FTP does not change a lot except for new riders who can make large jumps relatively quickly. The more trained you are the more difficult it is to improve or sustain FTP.

I don't see why we need experts to have a debate - what a strange suggestion. Take that to its conclusion and there would be no forum.

I very much respect the contribution Bill makes to this forum and appreciate his experience on many threads. It is evident that Bill doesn't need a power meter due to how well he understands his body after many years of successful training and racing.

I'm not sure i need one either but wouldn't mind giving it a try someday...


----------



## Bill Gates (16 Feb 2010)

Seamab said:


> The levels described by Allen & Coggan are
> Tempo: avg power 76-90% of FTP or approx 84-94% of avg HR
> Lactate Threshold: 91-105% FTP or* approx 95 - 105% of avg HR
> *
> Tempo level workouts are possible on consecutive days if duration is not excessive and dietary carb intake is adequate. LT workouts are performed when rider is sufficiently rested and not normally on consecutive days although possible.



For a moment there I thought you were saying that you could get 105% of* MHR.*

For those of us using HR to train then my figures are more meaningful and measureable as a % of MHR.

Tempo 75-85% MHR, LT (or FTP) 85-95% MHR

I did a tempo workout on the turbo for 45 minutes yesterday


----------



## Bill Gates (16 Feb 2010)

Seamab said:


> I don't see why we need experts to have a debate - what a strange suggestion. Take that to its conclusion and there would be no forum.



So much for my last post. Heh Heh 

Sports scientists and coaches are fond of using scientific surveys as a basis for their recommendations. For me this advice sometimes flies in the face of my own adecdotal experiences. The temptation is to dump your own experiences and opt for the scientific survey; after all it's scientific and can't be challenged.

I'm a bit of a maverick here as when I know something works for me then I not going to change it on the say so of someone else. And as an athlete, competing to the best of my ability is what I strive for so there is nothing dogmatic about this. If it works then I'm all for change.

Whenever I've crossed swords with a coach who posts on the forums they have resorted to character slurs and name calling. You can see their point. Their reputation is their livelihood and challenging their coaching mantras mean that they will use all means at their disposal to discredit you. Their best defence is "scientific surveys" and that you as a mere rider are merely exercising "belief" methods, and here's a good one - you don't understand basic physiology, which is a nice little insult bearing in mind their sports science degrees. Guaranteed to put you in your place that one.

Reading some scientific stuff recently on developing core strength, leg strength and high cadence advantages at high power levels have actually supported my andecdotal experiences. Just shows you that these guys can be wrong.

Sorry rant over.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Feb 2010)

Good rant agree with what you ve said. You don t need to prove anything to anybody accept yourself. I know what works for me . I race as a bi-product of my prime objective which is to get me back and forwards to work . Experts would not take this into account when making generalisations which is what alot are.

Every rider is different with different needs, and , it must be remembered that some of these experts have their own agenda usually financial (funding ,products books etc.)
So I d be wary of something I personally hadn t tried took me years to convince myself I needed an HRM.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Feb 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Good rant agree with what you ve said. You don t need to prove anything to anybody accept yourself. I know what works for me . I race as a bi-product of my prime objective which is to get me back and forwards to work . Experts would not take this into account when making generalisations which is what alot are.
> 
> Every rider is different with different needs, and , it must be remembered that some of these experts have their own agenda usually financial (funding ,products books etc.)
> So I d be wary of something I personally hadn t tried took me years to convince myself I needed an HRM.



An addition to the above post: it is not allways wise to ignore experts advice; maybe not relevant but, I didnt protect myself from the sun for years,untill skin cancer 2 years of hell and sickness and not a lot of bike riding. I think you need to select what advice you think is good sound advice then act accordingly.


----------



## Will1985 (16 Feb 2010)

Seamab said:


> I don't see why we need experts to have a debate - what a strange suggestion.


Not at all - a healthy debate needs well informed arguments from both sides. There seems to be plenty on here for the traditional method with many years of experience, but the ones using power are still on the learning curve. Compare that to a thread on slowtwitch where there are brilliant exponents of both methods, making the thread a stimulating read. 

Note that I am the only person to have replied to the OP...this isn't P&L you know.


----------



## plank (16 Feb 2010)

Thanks Will! Glad you don't like the W/Kg. As I said earlier mine comes out quite low on the chart for the tests I did, lower 4th cat, I was expecting it to be higher really. I have my first race in 2 weeks so will find out if its true or not(I hope not)


----------



## Bill Gates (16 Feb 2010)

Will1985 said:


> Not at all - a healthy debate needs well informed arguments from both sides. There seems to be plenty on here for the traditional method with many years of experience, but the ones using power are still on the learning curve. *Compare that to a thread on slowtwitch where there are brilliant exponents of both methods, making the thread a stimulating read. *
> 
> Note that I am the only person to have replied to the OP...this isn't P&L you know.



Like this one you mean. 

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Heart_Rate_P2687799


----------



## Seamab (16 Feb 2010)

Will1985 said:


> Note that I am the only person to have replied to the OP...this isn't P&L you know.



Indeed Will - apologies to the OP.

I have a turbo that measures power but i'm sure it's nowhere near the accuracy of a proper power meter. Based on Tacx watts my watts/kg ratio at FT would be approx 3.6.

According to the charts that would place me in the middle of 3rd Cat. I don't think i'm anywhere near that so its doubtless an inaccurate figure. I don't race nor intend to so i'll never find out anyway.

My reason for posting on this thread was that i thought it gave an imbalanced view against power meters if someone just happened along - not to offer any kind of expert opinion. As you say there seem to be few power meter users on here - either that or they are keeping quiet.


----------



## plank (16 Feb 2010)

ahh no problem you can talk about whatever you like.

I don't have time to do an FTP test at the gym with the watt bike. Did you have figures from the lower time ranges e.g. 5s or 1 min? Don't worry if you don't! I don't suppose it matters, I'm just going to find out soon when I race how I do. I'm going more towards the view that W/KG isn't going to make much difference and if its going to be a problem it will only be during climbing and accelerating, maybe if I was going to do a race up an alp it would be something to worry about.


----------



## Bill Gates (17 Feb 2010)

Will1985 said:


> Not at all - a healthy debate needs well informed arguments from both sides. There seems to be plenty on here for the traditional method with many years of experience, but the ones using power are still on the learning curve. *Compare that to a thread on slowtwitch where there are brilliant exponents of both methods, making the thread a stimulating read.
> *
> Note that I am the only person to have replied to the OP...this isn't P&L you know.






Bill Gates said:


> Like this one you mean.
> 
> http://forum.slowtwitch.com/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Heart_Rate_P2687799




Will is there another thread on this subject on slowtwitch as I didn't find this one particularly stimulating and the exponents of both not that brilliant?

I didn't see you calling anyone there a luddite either.


----------



## Bill Gates (5 Mar 2010)

Looks as though David Lloyd and Splottboy speak the same language as me. Check this out guys: -

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12684993&start=20

Look out for our old friend the inexperienced, never raced, all singing dancing power meter expert Amaferanga from this thread criticises Dave Lloyd over there.


----------



## plank (5 Mar 2010)

I know you dont care but I retested last night on a watt bike.

max 1782
1min average 700 (1km in 1.02)

actually I cant remember the last 2 numbers from the kilo test!

I also dropped 2kg down to 93. I'm finding all the testing and training quite interesting.


----------



## jimboalee (6 Mar 2010)

Something else to consider.

During an argument on another thread, I remembered Chris Boardman and Mike Burrows at MIRA doing aerodynamics testing on the Lotus bike for Chris' hour record.

The object of the exercise was to determine the bike's ( with Chris ) coefficient of drag.
Using this, Mike could calc how much power Chris would need for the speed to break the record.
Chris went away and trained on an ergometer ( and the Lotus bike ) until he could achieve the sustained power output to keep him at the required speed for the sixty minutes.

Chris also monitored his HR, but only for medical and observation reasons.

The hour record was broken more through physics and engineering rather than physiology, heartrate and Lactate threshold.

The power requirement was ascertained, and then Chris trained to achieve it.
Job was a goodun.

In roadracing, a rider's power to climb hills, sprint and keep a good speed are all researched by the team coach and known by the rider. The rider trains to BETTER these values.


----------



## plank (6 Mar 2010)

OH! also I did my first race last weekend and did terribly


----------

