What is your watt/kg ratio?

[plank]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!

Accepted. Many Thanks

 

[Seamab]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Couldn't agree more. Power users will argue that there's is the best. Others will think differently.

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.

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.

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?

This is not the case. FTP is a figure based on a 1 hour flat out effort. The training zones are then set as a percentage of this figure with a lot of work done in the 85 - 95% zone and endurance work at a much lower level. Every now and then (when you feel that the workouts are becoming too easy! you retest to see if your FTP has gone up - it goes down as well as up). Retesting is only recommended maybe 3 or 4 times per year, not every week.

One of the metrics that a power meter gives is an indication of how hard each workout is and how it affects your overall training load - so that you are forewarned when overtraining (or undertraining) may be happening.

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.

I'd agree with this. However, later study of the race power file can reveal insights into what went wrong i.e. reveal weaknesses for you to work on. The theory is that once you get used to the feel of x watts then you should be able to manage on RPE

NB I'm basing my reply on what i have read - not personal experience.

 

[Will1985]

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]

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.

In other words the same as makes no difference to any/all other methods. No magic bullet here.

This is not the case. FTP is a figure based on a 1 hour flat out effort. The training zones are then set as a percentage of this figure with a lot of work done in the 85 - 95% zone and endurance work at a much lower level. Every now and then (when you feel that the workouts are becoming too easy! you retest to see if your FTP has gone up - it goes down as well as up). Retesting is only recommended maybe 3 or 4 times per year, not every week.

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%.

Surely using HR, which automatically reflects fitness levels (you go faster as you get fitter for a set HR level) is much more accurate, and for zone training you only need to be in the range to make progress. Again- same as makes no difference to any/all other methods. No magic bullet here either.

One of the metrics that a power meter gives is an indication of how hard each workout is and how it affects your overall training load - so that you are forewarned when overtraining (or undertraining) may be happening.

RPE and HR tells the body what you can handle. If you feel tired don't train. and if you're hot go for it. Some weeks you can handle more training than others. Why I don't know. It's that simple, it really is.

 

[Bill Gates]

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)

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

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.