Training With Zero Metrics

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

scapie
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:19 am

by scapie

AeroObsessive wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:29 am
scapie wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:29 am
i started a thread specifically about training with zero metrics and you two both can't help yourselves can you? You just have to start dribbling on and on and on about exactly what this thread is not about.

why not go start your own?

someone called me out about not contributing so thats what i did. you want me to call you both out? it would be extremely easy.
Welcome to the internet. Are you new here?
lol. you get a pass but only because you're an OG here.

by Weenie


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

by AeroObsessive

^ and I do apologize for the derailment of topic.

The concept of NO metric is really hard to comprehend for a data junkie such as myself.

However the endeavour of training with nothing would be a very interesting one, if only from the pure psychology of it. I was a guinea pig for a TT study once, 40km TT with NOTHING. No time, pace, power, anything. It was an... Interesting experience.

scapie
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:19 am

by scapie

AeroObsessive wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:49 am
^ and I do apologize for the derailment of topic.

The concept of NO metric is really hard to comprehend for a data junkie such as myself.

However the endeavour of training with nothing would be a very interesting one, if only from the pure psychology of it. I was a guinea pig for a TT study once, 40km TT with NOTHING. No time, pace, power, anything. It was an... Interesting experience.
Not even the internal temperature probe? They probably could have accomodated if you had have asked nicely ha ha!

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

by AeroObsessive

^ oh, they had that *well* in. I should clarify - the boffins were recording everything, I just wasn't privy to any of it while doing the TT.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

AeroObsessive wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:28 am

1) you point of FTP being "off". In what context, and how was it tested?
2) wattage IS the one output that is the most important. Everything else we measure (HR, gas exchange, lactate) is *usually* as a result of that work being done. HR is an outlier as it can fluctuate regardless of work being/not being done. Power, and power alone (over time), can be used to develop very accurate, and effective training. The extra data sets help confirm. Information either confirms or informs, and in this vein more is better.
3) RPE and power - personally, I find these highly informative. Especially when there's a clear disconnect.

Thought experiment: if you had only one source of data, HR, power, speed, lactate, gas, whatever -combined with time, which would yield the most certain information of the work being done and hence the adaptations likely to take place?
I posted links to I think 3 studies testing the linkage of FTP to lactate threshold, which all came to the same conclusion - it was nowhere close. Power alone cannot be useful - you need some other variable. What you are implying (power alone), would only be useful if you had a very accurate sense of RPE.

If I had to choose only one source of data, I would go with HR. If I had to choose two, I would go with HR and lactate threshold.
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: 298
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

TheRich wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:55 am

This is a strawman holding a red herring.

If you're not going to respond to what I wrote, don't respond at all.

Show us on the doll where the FTP test touched you.
You keep saying power is more accurate than HR. I am responding that this is exactly the problem. Power measures only power. HR measures only HR. Both are useless unless linked to something that is happening in your body.
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: 343
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:29 am
TheRich wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:55 am

This is a strawman holding a red herring.

If you're not going to respond to what I wrote, don't respond at all.

Show us on the doll where the FTP test touched you.
You keep saying power is more accurate than HR. I am responding that this is exactly the problem. Power measures only power. HR measures only HR. Both are useless unless linked to something that is happening in your body.
If I find a power output that I am happy with as far as RPE and HR goes, it is easier to maintain that power when using a power meter. That has nothing to do with FTP or anything else, I'm just talking about looking at the display. It is more accurate than HR because it says what you're doing right now, whle HR will lead you to hunt for the right exertion level as it lags up and down.

...and quit making it an either/or proposition because nobody has suggested that, because it's silly.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

TheRich wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:43 am

If I find a power output that I am happy with as far as RPE and HR goes, it is easier to maintain that power when using a power meter. That has nothing to do with FTP or anything else, I'm just talking about looking at the display. It is more accurate than HR because it says what you're doing right now, whle HR will lead you to hunt for the right exertion level as it lags up and down.

...and quit making it an either/or proposition because nobody has suggested that, because it's silly.
The statement you wrote was "power is more accurate than HR for measuring effort." This is not even accurate and the premise itself is flawed. Power doesn't measure effort. It measures work. You are equating work with effort, which implies you are doing some kind of weird calculation in your brain to connect power values to physiological effort (probably FTP).
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:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:27 am
I posted links to I think 3 studies testing the linkage of FTP to lactate threshold, which all came to the same conclusion - it was nowhere close. Power alone cannot be useful - you need some other variable. What you are implying (power alone), would only be useful if you had a very accurate sense of RPE.
And there are studies that shows that in trained persons it matches pretty with MLSS reason well... depending on the protocol and various methodology used.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29745765/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3 ... 65/related

Oh looky, I can use Google too 🙄

For those who like a bit of reading and some good reading to the pros and cons of FTP, read this:-
http://marktallonphd.com/the-myth-of-fu ... power-ftp/

Should people use FTP in my opinion? It depends.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

AeroObsessive wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:16 am
iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:27 am
I posted links to I think 3 studies testing the linkage of FTP to lactate threshold, which all came to the same conclusion - it was nowhere close. Power alone cannot be useful - you need some other variable. What you are implying (power alone), would only be useful if you had a very accurate sense of RPE.
And there are studies that shows that in trained persons it matches pretty with MLSS reason well... depending on the protocol and various methodology used.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29745765/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3 ... 65/related

Oh looky, I can use Google too 🙄

For those who like a bit of reading and some good reading to the pros and cons of FTP, read this:-
http://marktallonphd.com/the-myth-of-fu ... power-ftp/

Should people use FTP in my opinion? It depends.
You can google, but can you actually understand the study?

The first one uses Bland Altman analysis and produced a result of 95% LoA of 1.4 ± 9.2% in its group of trained/well-trained cyclists. That means in 95% of the results they were within 9.2% of their MLSS (in the trained group, it was 11.8% difference). The second study shows very similar results. Mind you, the FTP test was conducted in labs in highly controlled settings with technicians standing by - if we are dealing with 12% deviations for these trained cyclists in a lab, I don't even want to imagine how far off a recreational athlete doing a test outdoors will be.

And I don't like to "play games" with statistics, but based on the study you cited, you're looking at a theoretical range of 18.4%, or 23.6% in the trained cyclist group! Think about what that means. It's actually comical how inaccurate FTP is, and yet people want to sell you training programs and coaching based on FTP, when you can just get your lactate tested for not much money at all, and avoid all of this guesswork (I reiterate that I think power meters and lactate testing is overkill for amateurs, but if you are going to use a power meter as some kind of measurement of work and by correlation, effort, then at least take your training seriously enough that you're not guessing how hard you are working).

But I digress. If you are happy with 12% deviations from your MLSS, more power to you. But you may as well be using the 220-age formula to calculate heart rate zones if you insist on wildly guessing. And at least be honest and up-front that well, if you use a power meter and FTP zones, you could be very far off your lactate threshold. There is no such disclosure or disclaimer anywhere (partly because people decided to revise the definition of FTP so it now has nothing to do with lactate levels, how convenient!). But you get a lot of people saying how accurate power meters are. Yes, it is largely accurate in measuring your power output, and yes it can be an effective pacing tool / measurement of effort if you tie your power values to anything but FTP.
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:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:45 pm
But you get a lot of people saying how accurate power meters are. Yes, it is largely accurate in measuring your power output, and yes it can be an effective pacing tool / measurement of effort if you tie your power values to anything but FTP.
Now we are getting somewhere. Except you don't need to tie it anything more than time, if you have enough collated power data (20-30 sessions inc some racing).

Believe it or not, close enough really is good enough for effective training.

TheRich
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:45 pm
AeroObsessive wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:16 am
iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:27 am
I posted links to I think 3 studies testing the linkage of FTP to lactate threshold, which all came to the same conclusion - it was nowhere close. Power alone cannot be useful - you need some other variable. What you are implying (power alone), would only be useful if you had a very accurate sense of RPE.
And there are studies that shows that in trained persons it matches pretty with MLSS reason well... depending on the protocol and various methodology used.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29745765/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3 ... 65/related

Oh looky, I can use Google too 🙄

For those who like a bit of reading and some good reading to the pros and cons of FTP, read this:-
http://marktallonphd.com/the-myth-of-fu ... power-ftp/

Should people use FTP in my opinion? It depends.
You can google, but can you actually understand the study?

The first one uses Bland Altman analysis and produced a result of 95% LoA of 1.4 ± 9.2% in its group of trained/well-trained cyclists. That means in 95% of the results they were within 9.2% of their MLSS (in the trained group, it was 11.8% difference). The second study shows very similar results. Mind you, the FTP test was conducted in labs in highly controlled settings with technicians standing by - if we are dealing with 12% deviations for these trained cyclists in a lab, I don't even want to imagine how far off a recreational athlete doing a test outdoors will be.

And I don't like to "play games" with statistics, but based on the study you cited, you're looking at a theoretical range of 18.4%, or 23.6% in the trained cyclist group! Think about what that means. It's actually comical how inaccurate FTP is, and yet people want to sell you training programs and coaching based on FTP, when you can just get your lactate tested for not much money at all, and avoid all of this guesswork (I reiterate that I think power meters and lactate testing is overkill for amateurs, but if you are going to use a power meter as some kind of measurement of work and by correlation, effort, then at least take your training seriously enough that you're not guessing how hard you are working).

But I digress. If you are happy with 12% deviations from your MLSS, more power to you. But you may as well be using the 220-age formula to calculate heart rate zones if you insist on wildly guessing. And at least be honest and up-front that well, if you use a power meter and FTP zones, you could be very far off your lactate threshold. There is no such disclosure or disclaimer anywhere (partly because people decided to revise the definition of FTP so it now has nothing to do with lactate levels, how convenient!). But you get a lot of people saying how accurate power meters are. Yes, it is largely accurate in measuring your power output, and yes it can be an effective pacing tool / measurement of effort if you tie your power values to anything but FTP.
You're making a semantics argument
iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:50 am
Yes, it is largely accurate in measuring your power output, and yes it can be an effective pacing tool / measurement of effort if you tie your power values to anything but FTP.
Which was what I was saying.

User avatar
MattMay
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:26 pm
Contact:

by MattMay

Wish there was a thread about training without metrics. Oh wait....

cdorcy
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:16 am

by cdorcy

scapie wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 8:44 am
I don’t train every week all year but when I do I will do 2 sessions per week and 1 harder ride on the weekend. After a few weeks when my fitness has started to come up I will ad in a tempo session mid week. For the rest of the time I just ride easy.

I have a power meter on my bike but I only use it for pacing when I want to test my legs. I never use heartrate. I’m not at all interested in FTP. All of the interval training I do is no longer than 5 minutes.
Could you comment on what kind of interval sets you find most effective for your hard sessions? Sounds like some tabata style sessions...any other go to sessions? Thanks.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post