A Rant on Power-Based Training

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
AeroObsessive
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

^ And this statement: "bianchidude’s point is just that HR is more effective for purely training than just a power meter since with just power you’re kind of guessing how hard you’re pushing" is the crux of what is misleading.

They are the wrong way around. As mentioned, I have had people at 160bpm+ and I assure you there is no "work" being done. A high(er) HR does NOT always mean work is being done, and just having a high(er) HR does not mean any useful adaptations will come of it, unless work is being done. And the inverse may apply for a low(er) HR.

This breaks down to simple logic.

Rising power output will see a corresponding rise in lactate levels. Conversely, rising lactate levels (outside of metabolic abnormalities) usually matches the rising powerout.

Rising lactate levels will see an increase HR. But increased an increase of HR does not always match rising lactate levels. Again this is due to the legion of things that can effect HR. For those that have done sprint efforts - there is a reason why HR lags the output.

What's that quote again, HR is at best guide, at worst it's misleading?

As above, Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) is another VERY useful data point, though does require some brutal self-assessment to be effective.

If HR and RPE, if the only tool available they can 100% be used for effective training. But add a power meter into the mix and you gain far more useful data.

As mentioned above, the other aspect where HRMs fall short are in shorter and high power outputs, be they in the form of repeated short duration efforts or sprint efforts. HR will tell you that you are working hard. The PM will tell you HOW hard. HR for efforts such as micro-bursts lags and then flatlines, yet if not monitored power can fluctuate wildly.

And again, power meters can be used for other VERY useful things like testing aero and rolling resistance.

But for the OP to make out that HR is the superior tool, and that there is no science behind the use of power meters is disingenuous and utterly farcical.

spartacus
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 pm

by spartacus

I think you make some good points. I'm not educated enough to really speak to the science behind training but it seems to me that the gist of bianchidude's rant makes sense if you make a number of assumtions about the person in question. I don't know what kind of bike racers you're training that can be at 160bpm and not doing work that causes a physical adaptation, but I don't think that represents a typical road cyclist - at least not any I've known or ridden with. I agree that the HRM is basically useless for sprints but for steady state efforts, I can see how it can be a better way to monitor fatigue than just power output. I think Bianchi is operating under the assumption that people are needlessly tiring themselves out shooting for a wattage number versus watching their HR and maximizing the value/effort ratio of the workout. To me that seems plausible if you "believe in" polarized training and are talking about trying to improve as an already somewhat fit rider - without long term fatique and short term plateauing - in other words base building. At leas that's how I'm understanding all of this. I could be wrong.

by Weenie


AeroObsessive
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

^ the point about the "160bpm" example is you can get HR up there with no physical output and with *no* benefit, ie: highlighting that HR in isolation can be misleading.

With other data points it becomes more useful, but still a guide.

Again, everyone should use what they got , but intentionally eschewing data because of misconceptions is unhelpful.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

AeroObsessive wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 1:16 am
^ And this statement: "bianchidude’s point is just that HR is more effective for purely training than just a power meter since with just power you’re kind of guessing how hard you’re pushing" is the crux of what is misleading.
What I actually am saying is, training with just a power meter is dangerous and a flawed training methodology.
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 1:16 am

They are the wrong way around. As mentioned, I have had people at 160bpm+ and I assure you there is no "work" being done. A high(er) HR does NOT always mean work is being done, and just having a high(er) HR does not mean any useful adaptations will come of it, unless work is being done. And the inverse may apply for a low(er) HR.
Post some Strava accounts of this. Otherwise you're picking 1 exception (or simply making stuff up). I can easily post thousands of Strava accounts with 160bpm+ showing a considerable power output. I think I would struggle to find a single rider who did an average of 160bpm and was not doing any work. Or are you talking about someone who is about to overdose on heroin or in the middle of a heart attack? Then yeah, they have a high HR and not doing much effort. Or someone who just got off the bike after a hard effort? That's just disingenous.

A higher HR for an athlete training on a bike almost always means that more work is being done.
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 1:16 am

Rising lactate levels will see an increase HR. But increased an increase of HR does not always match rising lactate levels. Again this is due to the legion of things that can effect HR. For those that have done sprint efforts - there is a reason why HR lags the output.
I don't know where you came up with this, but this is not accurate. Lactate acid is a byproduct and a result of some other causal factors, which happens to be muscle contractions and is tied to oxidation and other processes involving the consumption of energy for the muscle contractions such as gluconeogenesis. Simply put, any muscle contraction will result in lactate acid, even if you have sufficient oxygen available. Rising lactate does not always result in an increase in HR, and in fact, can result in a decrease in HR. This is highly dependent on your body's ability to deal with lactic acidosis, converting lactate into energy, etc.

And you are correct, an increase in HR would not necessarily lead to an increase in lactate, although the two factors are somewhat correlated. But this is not due to the "legion of things that can effect [sic] HR." HR and lactate do not share a cause-effect relationship as mentioned above. Lactic acid accumulation depends on oxygen uptake, hence the use of respirartory tests together with blood lactate tests when actually testing for lactate.
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 1:16 am
As mentioned above, the other aspect where HRMs fall short are in shorter and high power outputs, be they in the form of repeated short duration efforts or sprint efforts. HR will tell you that you are working hard. The PM will tell you HOW hard. HR for efforts such as micro-bursts lags and then flatlines, yet if not monitored power can fluctuate wildly.
Let's try to be precise here. When you say "working hard" do you mean effort level? Then no, a PM will not tell you anything about your effort level.
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 1:16 am
But for the OP to make out that HR is the superior tool, and that there is no science behind the use of power meters is disingenuous and utterly farcical.
You just demonstrated an utter lack of understanding of lactic acid production so I'm not surprised you have this opinion. And no, there is very little scientific research on power meter based training programs, so please do share with us if you are aware of actual science being conducted on power meter based training functioning as a viable alternative to HR zone based training. The only research I am aware of criticizes FTP as inaccurate, but yeah, doesn't stop coaches from shilling FTP-zone based training programs...science.
Last edited by iheartbianchi on Sat May 25, 2019 8:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy SR / Chorus 11spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

iheartbianchi
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

spartacus wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 3:09 am
I agree that the HRM is basically useless for sprints but for steady state efforts, I can see how it can be a better way to monitor fatigue than just power output. I think Bianchi is operating under the assumption that people are needlessly tiring themselves out shooting for a wattage number versus watching their HR and maximizing the value/effort ratio of the workout. To me that seems plausible if you "believe in" polarized training and are talking about trying to improve as an already somewhat fit rider - without long term fatique and short term plateauing - in other words base building. At leas that's how I'm understanding all of this. I could be wrong.
Regarding steady state, HRMs are actually probably "most" important for steady state efforts given that this is a level that is below the lactate threshold, but certainly above Zone 2 and so it's critical that you don't go too fast, or too slow (relative to your LT) during such efforts. Crucially, "steady state" was actually researched and developed as a part of heart rate training! It's the same thing as "sweet spot" training, and it's been around for decades. The concept of steady state was discovered, and its benefits measured, as an experiment of HRM-based training, so obviously the HRM is the very tool on which the training itself depends on. Of course the power meter crowd decided to be a bit sneaky and replace the words "steady state" with "sweet spot" and replaced the HRM with a power meter, and the HRM zones with FTP zones, and think everything transferred over just fine. Of course, there's zero research or testing to actually show whether or not this is a viable approach (not saying it's not, just saying it's not been tested)...but that's the current state of affairs!

And a note on sprinting - controversy! If you ask a real sprinter (track or road) about power meters, well you would quickly find out they are not a fan! "Complete garbage, lag, averaging doesn't work, inaccurate. Stages is junk." As far as I know, SRM is the only power meter that is actually relied upon to some degree by elite sprinters, and we know how much those cost!

Not to mention nobody is staring at their power meter while actually sprinting, nor are watts the only consideration for speed.

"But watts are not the be-all and end-all, warns UCI WCC Coach Craig McLean, himself a team sprint Olympic silver medallist in 2000 and UCI World Champion in 2002. He says the fastest of his current group of athletes has the smallest wattage."

The main benefit of power meters for sprint training is measuring progress from time-to-time. That's it. Sprinters do not do 30s/60s/peak power tests every day. Do sprinters actually say, "let's train so you can average 1500watts for 30s?" and then build some zany training program where they have to hit [x] number of watts in [y] number of sprints during an interval session? Uhm...that's not how sprint training works. What they'll actually do is spend a whole lot of time in the weight room pushing really heavy weights, and doing sessions of very hard controlled sprints (very often indoors). While the data is available, the coach will assess the progress over a period of weeks and make adjustments to the training load as necesasry. They are also using much more expensive power meters (in addition to several other measuring tools) than what you and I are using or have access to. They're not just looking at watts, they're look at body weight, aero, biomechanical efficiency, balance, torque, spikes, lag, cadence, differences between legs, pressure points. Etc.

So claimning that power meters (at least the ones that you and I can afford) are more useful for sprinting than HRM is really quite funny given that they are both equally useless.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy SR / Chorus 11spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

AeroObsessive
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

iheartbianchi wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 6:21 am
And no, there is very little scientific research on power meter based training programs, so please do share with us if you are aware of actual science being conducted on power meter based training functioning as a viable alternative to HR zone based training. The only research I am aware of criticizes FTP as inaccurate, but yeah, doesn't stop coaches from shilling FTP-zone based training programs...science.
Oh wow.

I'll put this in bold - The training isn't different. There isn't suddenly a different modality of training just because you have a new set of data to work with. If an athlete of mine suddenly gets a power meter their program doesn't change. They just now have a new and more comprehensive data set to work with. Using the polarised model - a 5hrs Z1 ride is a 5hr zone 1 ride, be it PM, HR, RPE, or preferably all of the above, the specific tool doesn't matter *that* much - but they sure can help.

I am not aware of many studies (if any) that compare "training plans". The only one that springs to mind would be some of Seiler's recent work looking at intensity distribution. There may be others, but by and large any study proving one method over another only works at a macro scale, as soon as it comes to the individual it usually doesn't work one way or another.

So when you talk about "power meter based training programs" I don't know what the *f##k* you're on about. There's training, and then there are the tools to measure.

I am sure there is some tree/forest analogy here.

You also keep bringing up FTP, which would indicate that you seem to have the idea that as soon as you strap on a PM you have to use that metric... which is farcical.

Do you have some axe to grind about FTP. Did a coach pushing FTP hurt you? Point on this doll where the watts hit you.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

iheartbianchi wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 8:06 am
And a note on sprinting - controversy! If you ask a real sprinter (track or road) about power meters, well you would quickly find out they are not a fan! "Complete garbage, lag, averaging doesn't work, inaccurate. Stages is junk." As far as I know, SRM is the only power meter that is actually relied upon to some degree by elite sprinters, and we know how much those cost!

Not to mention nobody is staring at their power meter while actually sprinting, nor are watts the only consideration for speed.

"But watts are not the be-all and end-all, warns UCI WCC Coach Craig McLean, himself a team sprint Olympic silver medallist in 2000 and UCI World Champion in 2002. He says the fastest of his current group of athletes has the smallest wattage."

The main benefit of power meters for sprint training is measuring progress from time-to-time. That's it. Sprinters do not do 30s/60s/peak power tests every day. Do sprinters actually say, "let's train so you can average 1500watts for 30s?" and then build some zany training program where they have to hit [x] number of watts in [y] number of sprints during an interval session? Uhm...that's not how sprint training works. What they'll actually do is spend a whole lot of time in the weight room pushing really heavy weights, and doing sessions of very hard controlled sprints (very often indoors). While the data is available, the coach will assess the progress over a period of weeks and make adjustments to the training load as necesasry. They are also using much more expensive power meters (in addition to several other measuring tools) than what you and I are using or have access to. They're not just looking at watts, they're look at body weight, aero, biomechanical efficiency, balance, torque, spikes, lag, cadence, differences between legs, pressure points. Etc.

So claimning that power meters (at least the ones that you and I can afford) are more useful for sprinting than HRM is really quite funny given that they are both equally useless.
Well, maybe things are done different Down Under, but all the National track team, enduro and sprinters alike, use power meters. And yes, they sure ain't looking at the power meters when diving off the banking or coming around the derny. The data however is exceptionally useful.

As for speed, you know how you test and and quantify rolling and aero resistance? I'll give you a hint, its not with a HR monitor...

Oh, but there's not a study for any of this, so I must be wrong :roll:
"They're not just looking at watts, they're look at body weight, aero, biomechanical efficiency, balance, torque, spikes, lag, cadence, differences between legs, pressure points. Etc.
It's... its almost like they collect all the data they can. Wow. Shocking.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

AeroObsessive wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 10:14 am

I'll put this in bold - The training isn't different. There isn't suddenly a different modality of training just because you have a new set of data to work with. If an athlete of mine suddenly gets a power meter their program doesn't change. They just now have a new and more comprehensive data set to work with. Using the polarised model - a 5hrs Z1 ride is a 5hr zone 1 ride, be it PM, HR, RPE, or preferably all of the above, the specific tool doesn't matter *that* much - but they sure can help.
I think that is the disagreement here. I think the training is actually different.

You seem to think whether it "be it PM, HR, RPE, or preferably all of the above" that whichever measurement tool you use, the zones are the same. What is the scientific basis for this? Let's not pretend that there is any evidence that a polarized training model based on power zones is as effective as a model based solely on HR zones. There is no research on this. In fact, the research indicates that FTP-based zones are inaccurate.

I don't even know how you would create a reliable system where you would combine PM, HR and RPE into a polarized model that isn't pure guesswork. Today you use FTP Z1 but tomorrow HR Z1? Or you assume that the two are interchangeable? I know Trainingpeaks believes that FTP/HR zones are interchangeable, but where is the evidence for this?

The point of HR zones is very goal-specific. Z2 to build capillaries and mitochondria. Limited time in Z3 for more "high-quality aerobic" exercise. Z4 for threshold work. Z5 for power and efficiency. These are easy to understand, each zone has been extensively tested for results and efficacy. Each Zone directly linked to some measurable physiological response and adapation in your body. What testing has there been done regarding the physiological response to FTP Zone 1? Let me tell you...none. Zero. So in this setting, what exactly do you tell your athletes why they are doing an FTP Zone 1 ride? "Uhm I guess this will build more capillaries, but I don't really know for sure?" Or "trust me, I know better than you..."? Or do you say something like "FTP Zone 1 is basically HR Zone 1 and so you will build capillaries..."? Except, there is no evidence that FTP Zone 1 is the equivalent of any particular HR Zone, although using some common sense and logic, there will surely be some degree of overlap between FTP Zones and HR Zones, but again, we don't even know where those overlaps are since it's not been tested or studied. It's guesswork.

Now if you are saying, FTP zones are close enough to HR zones to fit most people's needs, and that based on your experience, most people can improve using FTP zones, then I think that's a fine approach. But the problem is, people take it futher. People claim (as they have in this thread) that PM is somehow superior, more accurate than HR as a measurement tool, with the implication that the FTP zones are more effective. This, without any mention that the FTP zones are not established in research, that power meters cost 10X more than HR monitors, and ignoring the massive body of evidence lending support to the success of HR-zone based training for elite and amateur cyclists. If we are going to encourage the far more expensive option, well it better be far more effective.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy SR / Chorus 11spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

AeroObsessive
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

^ there is just so much misunderstanding and misinformation that that's all hard to unpack.

Let's try and start at the beginning.

1) Give me just one study that proves the superiority of one training program over another. I'll wait.

2) the basic concepts of super compensation do not change because of the measurement method. If I want someone to log a 5hr ride below their LT1 there is a band of power they can work in. Or HR is they have that. Or both. It's still a 5hr ride.

3) you seem incapable of understanding that just because power is monitored does not mean you have to suddenly use FTP. Which would indicate you don't understand much of anything about using a power meter.

4) the benfits of using a power meter far outweigh the cons. The pros: being able to accurately identify demands of racing, traking progress and changes in output over time, energy expenditure during training/racing (that's a big one), pacing in time trials (if you're into that kind of thing), aero testing, rolling resistance testing. And from those, that can help shape training needs and ensure relevant power is trained. As well as ensuring good recovery takes place. Cons: cost, calibration, battery changes (looking at you SRM).

5) speaking of cost, who the *f##k* cares if not everyone can afford one? I can't afford a Canyon Aeroroad, bad luck for me I guess. If you can afford a power meter and are serious about training, great, get one. If not, great, training as mentioned does not change.

Nefarious86
Moderator
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
Contact:

by Nefarious86

Wow.... Just. Wow.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Using Tapatalk

iheartbianchi
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 10:02 am

1) Give me just one study that proves the superiority of one training program over another. I'll wait.
That was never the contention. The contention is, HR based zones are tried and tested. FTP zones are not. HR based zones are backed by decades of research. FTP zones are backed by...nothing. It's literally an invention created by...nobody actually knows, and nobody actually knows based on what other than hypothesis and theories which have not been tested in any study. Tested vs. guesswork. Which is superior? Who knows maybe the guesswork will turn out to have been pretty accurate in the future, but nobody knows.
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 10:02 am
2) the basic concepts of super compensation do not change because of the measurement method. If I want someone to log a 5hr ride below their LT1 there is a band of power they can work in. Or HR is they have that. Or both. It's still a 5hr ride.
They may be 5 hour rides, but the question we are asking is, what are the physiological adaptations based on the 5 hour ride? This is critical. A 5 hour ride at Z2 is very different from a 5 hour ride at Z3 or Z4. And my contention is, nobody actually has any real idea what adapations are occuring at any specific FTP zone. It's just guesswork. And if you're going to say, well you have HR monitors to tell you what HR zone you were in, then why weren't you training based on HR zones in the first place? Why were you doing a % of FTP ride? More on FTP zones below...
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 10:02 am
3) you seem incapable of understanding that just because power is monitored does not mean you have to suddenly use FTP. Which would indicate you don't understand much of anything about using a power meter.
Show me a power-based training program that tells you to use HR zones (and I don't mean, "well you could use an HR zone system instead using this conversion"). I'll wait. I don't know if you're being intentionally blind. The vast majority of youtube or internet training articles/blogs/vlogs what have you offer up training methodologies based on FTP zones. Most of these don't even mention HR monitors. The simple reality is very few power meter-based training programs utilize HR zones (actually I have not seen a single one, and I must have watched hundreds of videos on youtube about power meter based training). The vast majority say, "do this FTP test and then base your training based on these power zones." Why are you being so willfully ignorant to this?
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 10:02 am
4) the benfits of using a power meter far outweigh the cons. The pros: being able to accurately identify demands of racing, traking progress and changes in output over time, energy expenditure during training/racing (that's a big one), pacing in time trials (if you're into that kind of thing), aero testing, rolling resistance testing. And from those, that can help shape training needs and ensure relevant power is trained. As well as ensuring good recovery takes place. Cons: cost, calibration, battery changes (looking at you SRM).
This is not the point I am even attempting to argue. Simply, I am saying power meter based training is dominated by FTP zones, which I am arguing is not backed by any research. I agree a power meter offers great data points for assessing your progress. I am not saying power meters are useless. I am saying the current paradigm of using power meters in training, which tends to be overly reliant on FTP zones, is not backed in science. If you use power meters to guage progress, and as a useful pacing guide during training rides, great, that's actually what I believe to be the intended use of power meters. But to create an entire system of "power zones" for some perceived aerobic benefit? Come on now...at least include a disclaimer that you're only guessing.

This is not to say that at some point in the future, there won't be any research conducted on the viability of FTP zones. But this has not happened yet. And I assume once the research actually does occur, the % of FTP zones that we understand as being most effective will be completely re-written, and the concept of FTP itself will be revisited and revised. But all we know so far is, there is a lot of disagreement between how to even test for FTP, and that in either event, it is unclear what in fact FTP is supposed to represent given it's not that close to your lactate threshold.

We have this entire paradigm of training based on FTP and percentages of FTP, but who decided that FTP should be the starting point for all subsequent zones? And based on what? Nobody seems to have the answer to this question, other than straight out incorrect lies like "it is close to the lactate threshold" because it's been proven that it actually isn't.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy SR / Chorus 11spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

AeroObsessive
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

1) Again referring to FTP. FTP is just one metric that is based in power. It is not the only one, and not one that everyone can or should used. There are lots of ways to determine training zones defined as bands of power (descriptive of the effort, not prescriptive). As for guesswork... Please. Power and cycling has been studied for as long as power meters have been in existence. And amazingly sports studies only go so far to effective training. Very little of sport training is validated by a study. They guide, but that's about it. Hence, coaches.

2) If you can do a 5hr ride at Zone 4 (assuming you mean the 5 zone model) then you should be signed up as a pro already. As for some basing zones off a singular FTP test - Yes, they do. But that is not the tool. Regardless of the tool, there are a legion of training theories and different ways of determining training zones. Step tests, all out vo2 max efforts, lactate testing, lab tests etc. All can then be assigned to zones of effort expressed in watts. Whether that be a 7 zone, three zone model, it doesn't really matter.

3) FTP, please stop mentioning it as being synonymous with power meters. It's not. Some use it, some don't.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 11:38 am
1) Again referring to FTP. FTP is just one metric that is based in power. It is not the only one, and not one that everyone can or should used. There are lots of ways to determine training zones defined as bands of power (descriptive of the effort, not prescriptive). As for guesswork... Please. Power and cycling has been studied for as long as power meters have been in existence. And amazingly sports studies only go so far to effective training. Very little of sport training is validated by a study. They guide, but that's about it. Hence, coaches.

2) If you can do a 5hr ride at Zone 4 (assuming you mean the 5 zone model) then you should be signed up as a pro already. As for some basing zones off a singular FTP test - Yes, they do. But that is not the tool. Regardless of the tool, there are a legion of training theories and different ways of determining training zones. Step tests, all out vo2 max efforts, lactate testing, lab tests etc. All can then be assigned to zones of effort expressed in watts. Whether that be a 7 zone, three zone model, it doesn't really matter.

3) FTP, please stop mentioning it as being synonymous with power meters. It's not. Some use it, some don't.
Well I'm sorry if my OP wasn't clear (although I have tried again and again to clarify in later posts)...I am only talking about FTP and FTP zones here...nobody would dispute the usefulness of power meters in training. The only thing I have an issue with, is the shoving down our throats of FTP and FTP zones when anyone talks about training with power meters. If you google "training with a power meter", at least the first 20 results point you to doing an FTP test and then setting training zones based on that test. I'm sure the first 1,000 results would say the same thing but I don't feel like clicking that far. But you don't seem to be defending FTP or FTP zones, so I don't see cause for any disagreement since I agree with most of what you just wrote.

And as an aside, I actually don't have a huge issue with the existence of FTP or FTP zones. They are a novel idea and deserve to be more thoroughly tested and refined.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy SR / Chorus 11spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

TheRich
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

iheartbianchi wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 12:28 pm
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 11:38 am
1) Again referring to FTP. FTP is just one metric that is based in power. It is not the only one, and not one that everyone can or should used. There are lots of ways to determine training zones defined as bands of power (descriptive of the effort, not prescriptive). As for guesswork... Please. Power and cycling has been studied for as long as power meters have been in existence. And amazingly sports studies only go so far to effective training. Very little of sport training is validated by a study. They guide, but that's about it. Hence, coaches.

2) If you can do a 5hr ride at Zone 4 (assuming you mean the 5 zone model) then you should be signed up as a pro already. As for some basing zones off a singular FTP test - Yes, they do. But that is not the tool. Regardless of the tool, there are a legion of training theories and different ways of determining training zones. Step tests, all out vo2 max efforts, lactate testing, lab tests etc. All can then be assigned to zones of effort expressed in watts. Whether that be a 7 zone, three zone model, it doesn't really matter.

3) FTP, please stop mentioning it as being synonymous with power meters. It's not. Some use it, some don't.
Well I'm sorry if my OP wasn't clear (although I have tried again and again to clarify in later posts)...I am only talking about FTP and FTP zones here...nobody would dispute the usefulness of power meters in training. The only thing I have an issue with, is the shoving down our throats of FTP and FTP zones when anyone talks about training with power meters. If you google "training with a power meter", at least the first 20 results point you to doing an FTP test and then setting training zones based on that test. I'm sure the first 1,000 results would say the same thing but I don't feel like clicking that far. But you don't seem to be defending FTP or FTP zones, so I don't see cause for any disagreement since I agree with most of what you just wrote.

And as an aside, I actually don't have a huge issue with the existence of FTP or FTP zones. They are a novel idea and deserve to be more thoroughly tested and refined.
Actually, it was based on the strawman (among many) that people are exclusively using power.

Nefarious86
Moderator
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
Contact:

by Nefarious86

The reason the use of FTP and Zones are so common for a power meter is the fact that for the vast majority of mortals it's an effective method of building strength when used correctly.

This rant is a whole other level of pointless.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Using Tapatalk

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post