Training with power?

[jeffg]

Hey, how many folks here use watt-based training? I would be interested in how you structure your workouts and how you find the results versus using heartrate? It seems like watts may be a better measure of performance, but HR is still key in making sure that you do not blow up in an endurance ride. Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

best,

Jeff

[Matt Barkley]

Howdy,
I have used SRMs and Tacx trainers. I really believe you have to ask yourself the question, "What do I want to acomplish on the bike differently than I am doing now?"
Training by power shows you how much power you are producing and allows you to possibly train in a way to produce more power, again "possibly" at equal or lower heartrates. So with regards to "endurance" rides and possibly how you train for them the power moniter can be of help - moreso than a HR moniter alone - which can give you information leading to overtraining, (ie. Heart Rate not going up but power is up.)
I think "Too Tall" may be able to chime in here or I can fill in later. - Matt

[jeffg]

What would I like to do differently on the bike? Well, I would like to be more efficient on a bike and be able to measure HR effort against the actual power produced. If, for example, I could produce equal or more power at a lower HR, then I would be faster over a given course.

Also, I guess my first post was a clumsy way of asking whether you tend to train by riding at a prescribed HR intenisty and noting your power, or by using watt-based intervals (15 min at X watts).


thanks for the help!

Jeff

[keno]

I am persuaded that training with power is the best way to improve speed over distance, particularly when using a trainer. I also believe that heart rate needs to be tracked. In using both, you can track power producing capability as well as improvements in fitness gauged against constant power. I suspect that the large majority of elite racers use training with power, in fact I'd be very surprised it they did not.

I have a Computrainer and a PowerTap, which I used before I got the Computrainer and used only indoors. I attribute the gains I've made over the past year to training with power. I've also seen my heart rate drop in the 15-20 bpm range at similar wattages, present vs a year ago. I'm just a hacker at cycling, not even in the wannabe class, but I have found that working out with power has made working out indoors much more interesting and productive. Having wattage output in front of me is the kind of carrot that is worth something to me. I don't focus on wattage each and every workout, but when I'm working on intervals and jumps and TT work, it's indispensible to me. I can easily determine goals for a particular workout, and there's nobody better for me to best than myself.

You might find http://www.bicyclewattage.com/modules.php?name=Forums interesting to look at.

If you want to see some specific workouts, go to the Graber (PowerTap) website and there is a training manual on it.

keno

[Matt Barkley]

Definitely watt-based intervals. After you make that nice super-hefty purchase of a power-measuring device, you should do some sort of AT test / super threshold test. I have used variations of the Conconi Test. This , if done properly should show you your super-threshhold / which is usually below the "Anaerobic Threshhold" formulas from your age/max-HR formulas.

Once you have this number (mine is about 170 when I am out of shape - which is pretty much most of the time) You can do a number of things. I try to do 5 to 20 minute intervals at the wattage I put out just below my AT. So in other words when I do a Conconi with an SRM my heart rate will deflect at about 172/173 and my wattage will be about 220-225 - So I try doing most of my Aerobic Power intervals of 5 to 20 minutes at a constant 215-220 watts.
HR will start at about 150 then by the end of the inteval will be about 171. These intervals are for AEROBIC POWER. Which is really probably what most of us are after.

I hope this has been of some help. Maybe even to myself.

Do keep in mind all these power measuring devices are all over the place in terms of comparing them to one and other. Accuracy is really all over the place. WHat really matters is that your own personal device is linear in its accuracy and that it won't change over the course of you using it. You compare your watts now on your device to your watts later on your device.
Cheers - Matt

[dcotcamp]

Jeff,

I've done the vast majority of my riding for the last 3 years using a power meter. I think it's by far the best way to actually - know- what you're doing on the bike. None of this 'I was really strong today - I averaged X mph' stuff. You either produce more power than usual or you don't.

I have to try to correct a couple of misconceptions, though. You say that if you can average more power at a lower heart rate, you'll be faster. Sorry, but I disagree. If power goes up and all else stays the same (meaning weight and aero drag), you'll be faster. The bike neither knows nor cares what your heart rate is.

I think that in the context of power based training, heart rate is very nearly irrelevant (at least for healthy people). I do my training with prescribed power and time. I might notice HR, but often don't. The HR function on my SRM has been broken for a year, and I don't really care.

The other (I think underappreciated) use for a power meter is to monitor effort on easy or recovery days. Especially when you're in good form and feeling good, it's very easy to go out and ride too hard on what should be an easy day. A power meter will quickly tell you that you're working too hard. Power meters will also tell you how much energy you've used on the ride. This can be helpful in weight loss, if that's a goal, or in making sure you're eating enough to keep out of an extreme caloric deficit on a long ride.

Having said all that, I'd urge you to ask yourself what you want most from your riding. For some, a device like a power meter, or even a bike computer, takes too much of the spontaneity and joy out of riding. I'll admit that I certainly enjoy the occaisional ride with no 'instruments' when I just go out and ride the thing.

I'd be happy to point you to other resources on the subject if you want.

good luck,
Dennis

[Matt Barkley]

Well said dcotcamp... Especially about asking what you want out of cycling. Always training by power works well for some and not for others.

Also your comments on HR are definitley relevant.
- Unless your HR is low because you are too tired in which case you can be putting out higher watts but are actually tired. Also using a HR with the power allows you to learn your body and how it responds in training and then maybe racing. HR monitering can be of great value training and learning how to be faster on your bike. Keeping yourself phsychologically cool and collect and seeing you rest (or not) level. Perceived effort - yes watts helps A LOT!

Gotta go by beer - girlfriend wants me off computer. The last Pinkus Organic Wheat is almost gone. - Matt

[Dr. Doofus]

The good doctor trained by watts (using an SRM and an Accusport portable lactate analyzer) from 96-99. During that time, the following observations:


1) You discover that HR is not an accurate measure of intensity. I could do endurance rides at lower HR, and doing intervals by % of LT led to days where my HR was usually in the 'hood of -10 beats of LT (the "4" zone), but sometimes higher, sometimes lower. HR is a reasonable gauge during races, when you don't want the weight of a power meter. However, you find that there isn't always the correlation you would think (given the theories from the late 70s-early 90s on HR training) between blood ph/lactate concentration--HR--power output.

The available public literature on watt-based training (Friel, Carmichael, and the stuff Koechli has made available...and *especially* his software) is sound and will help make for a strong training program. However, if you can justify the expense to yourself of a powermeter -- even a power tap -- then also think about getting a coach who understands the data.

2) Once you go watts, you don't fart around with HR monitors that much. When I ride now, I just ride. I found that my
"inner monitor" had a stronger correllation to my output than my HR monitor did...since I'm a non-racer, I sold the SRM (kept the accusport to use with the runners I coach) and now just ride by feel. If it was good enough for Sean Yates, good enough my, the doc's, wanna be never was lousy ass....

3) you find out that the doubts many have voiced about the presence of a "point of deflection" in the Conconi test are valid, and that, as a result, HR isn't always a valid indicator of LT. Also, you find the Conconi test isn't a 100% valid indicator of LT...the TT is the thing....


4) If you want to go from a 2 to a 1, and you can make back the investment in prize money, or from a 1 to a pro, go for the powermeter and the proper coach. If you just want to beat your buddies, save the money, spend a fraction of it on fatty foods, beer, and low-dollar hookers that you provide for *them*, f-up their health and power-to-weight ratio, beat them that way, and then use the wad of cash you saved on the power meter and the coach to buy another bike...c'mon, you want that anyway....

[jeffg]

Originally posted by Matt Barkley
Well said dcotcamp... Especially about asking what you want out of cycling. Always training by power works well for some and not for others.

Also your comments on HR are definitley relevant.
- Unless your HR is low because you are too tired in which case you can be putting out higher watts but are actually tired. Also using a HR with the power allows you to learn your body and how it responds in training and then maybe racing. HR monitering can be of great value training and learning how to be faster on your bike. Keeping yourself phsychologically cool and collect and seeing you rest (or not) level. Perceived effort - yes watts helps A LOT!

Gotta go by beer - girlfriend wants me off computer. The last Pinkus Organic Wheat is almost gone. - Matt

No more Pinkus?! Better get moving! I tend to prefer a Franziskaner Hefeweizen, but let's not get picky.

As for the power meter, I use it indoors since the Northeast is not so conducive to climbing in the winter months. Without a trainer I would have little chance of preparing for a ride with mega-climbing by late April. Now that I am doomed to ride indoors, I figure I might as well make the most of it (like Keno). If I were in California I wouldn't bother -- I'd just go out and ride. The other advantage of the trainer is that I am working so much riding in daylight during the week is hardly an option. This way I can get an appropriate workout regardless of weather, time, etc. It isn't the same as riding outdoors but it would be worse to have to give up the events I love to boot.

I also have a question on the Conconi test. I did it once and, in addition to the graph, it gave a reading of watts/power/HR at one point in red. Is this the AT test result?

thanks again for all the input! The Serotta forum rules!


best,
Jeff

[Dr. Doofus]

Ok, you might think the doc is a little crazy, and he is, but here goes on my above comments:

The point of deflection would, in theory, be the point where the linear, upward power increase tapers off -- right where the "red" zone would start.

I'd like to hear what Barkley will chime in on this one, and the jerk, but the Conconi test has some serious drawbacks. Running and swimming coaches found quickly (and pursuit coaches have ben geting around to it in the last six years of so) that, in many athletes, *there is no point of deflection* -- and that, rather, the best indicator of LT was the measurement of 4mm of lactic acid in the blood.


Now, for many triathletes, marathoners, and 40K TT types, there *is* a point of deflection, and in the case of a very high slow twitch athlete, who isn't successful at the middle distances (or, in cycling, doesn't have the explosive attack), the Conconi test is pretty accurate -- not because its a good test, but becuase a "pure" endurance athlete doesn't have the anaerobic enzyme activity to keep pushing up the watt ramps in the protocol after the 4mm point has been reached (what Joe Friel calls "speed endurance"). An interesting exception would like in many East African distance runners, who are nasty half-marathoners on up, but who biopsy as 70% or more fast-twitch -- the catch is that they are fast-twitch A, which can be trained for endurance, or explosiveness (fast twitch B (I may have these screwed up....its been a while) are pure sprint fibers, and fast twitch C still confound the white coats).

These FTA fibers are what f-up the Conconi protocol. Bear in mind Con-co-mo-fo developed this test working with northern European and Italian cross-country skiers -- a genertic pool that is pretty slow twitch -- and then used it for cyclists, most notably Moser, who was never known for a badass sprint or for a nasty 3-minute attack, but for being able to grind it out over the cobbles and ride folks off his wheel.

A FTA-fiber cat (like Jalabert (?), Kelly, or Cooke/Bettini) would be a middle-distance swimmer or runner. The strong aerobic engine makes them great at the 15-minute effort, but the explosiveness and high lactate tolerance (from the FT fibers and their high anaerobic enzyme activity) make them nasty nasty nasty at the 1-3 minute all out attack, and give them the kick to sprint at the end of a 250k race (keep in mind that cycling road sprinters are *not* pure explosive athletes like a 200 or 100m sprinter -- those guys end up on the track...even Cipo fits more the 400m man profile, which is why Ferrari told him he'd be ideal for the kilo, and if you check your back pages of Bici, Cip was thinking about trying the kilo for a while...).

Those FT fibers *also* are what enable an athlete of that stripe (the 400-800 or 800-1600 combo guy in track, the 100-200 swimmer, the pursuit guy who has a good road sprint) to sustain a high power output even after acidosis sets in, thus blowing the Conconi protocol. A great example of this is Adam Goucher, the 5000m runner. He has pushed in the red on a Conconi-protocol test for *10* minutes. Think about that. Here is an athlete who competes what would be thought of as a "distance" event *almost entirely in the red*. Does Brad McGee's ability to hang around in a bunch sprint, and also win a prologue, but never seem to be competitive in a 200k+ race make some sense now?

In swimming, Treffene's "aerobic triangle" theory (also called "critical velocity") matched up with Conconi. Like the C-test, it worked great for the pure endurance guy. Get into the middle-distance physiology, and weird stuff starts to happen. Currently, coaches are thinking more and more about the "mystery zone" -- the aerobic/anearobic grey area between 1 minute and up to 15. Forget about those tables based upon respiratory exchange ratios that would call a 1-minute effort 50/50, and a 5 minute effort 90/10, aerobic to anaerobic. Portable lactate training and testing reveals that those ratios fluctuate by athlete, which is why blood sampling is becoming the main thing for assessing training in the middle distnaces in track, swimming, and world-class pursuiters...because these are the cats for whom the Conconi-based theories get thrown out the window.


The doc is really, really sorry for the remarks about hookers. However, he and I are really, really serious when we say that if you blow for the power meter, invest in the coach who has experience with cycling data, and with a variety of physiologies (i.e., explosve types, long diesels, and anything in between), and who can do some serious correllating of power/HR/lactate. Otherwise, the powermeter is a nice toy, but you're not really getting at what you need to do with it.


Robert


Who wishes somebody would give me their SRM so I can sell it and buy a Luigino or a Della Santa...if you ain't fast, its about pimpin.

[Matt Barkley]

Dr Doofus, Jeff, others,
I hear you.

Jeff:
The indoor trainer with power sounds like the best bet for you. Making indoor workouts which are necessary for you (and me) in the Atlantic/Northeast - especially after dark more interesting should be enough justification. Throughout the pre-season and year to year you will be able to compare watts. Intervals can be done properly - and perceived effort learned and refined. As for your number/red point in the Conconi - I am guessing you had someone help you graph the test or this is a software program and you did the test on a trainer - I am not sure - sounds like it it the AT or abouts.... Yes, there abouts...

Dr Doofus,
Man you know some stuff here. I have read extensively, grasped moderately, and maintained minimally. (Probably due to too many anaerobic bouts in Crits I should probably just have been watching. The latest reading I have really gotten into is Jeukendrup - who seems to bring together many elements and apply them to real (if not mostly Tour and the like calibre) bike racing. From what I see Power and HR are pretty much all over the place. Pros train a lot. A LOT as you know.
Easy explanation for me and all-- I basically understand as it was told to me (by a good coach I had)that at a certain point of effort my body is producing more bad stuff than it can get rid of. (Lactic acid and probably other stuff too.) If I continue at that effort or above that effort with those same muscles at a certain point I will become overcome with pain and gotta stop.
Here is the thing - we always talk about 40ks and that effort. We'll yeah - I do 40ks (as most bike racers do) way over my(their) AT or whatever we want to call that point of going anaerobic.
Maybe I have forgotten some very simple fundamentals here - but that being said it is shown that in the Tour these guys time trial with power all over the place. Like huge surges and stuff - different muscles (we have terrain in Bike Races) not all like Chris Boardman used to supposdley do at constant wattage. Anyhoot - MAYBE THERE is no clear point of deflection with some athletes with the Conconi - there are other tests like the Astrand or Physical Work Capacity to get your sub max VO2Max, but the point here I am not making clearly is that we can get close to knowing what that POINT of deflection might be and therefor using a power measuring tool can train much better.

Bottom line is everyone bought HR moniters ten or so years ago and now everone is buying power meters whether economically or otherwise justified. We can't stop the wave of coach-businesses and advertisements enticing all of us consumers, SO let's use this stuff correctly if possible. You can get faster on your bike using power meters even in elementary ways - WITH your HR to moniter improvement, etc. I had to settle for Newcastle this evening. Maybe that explains my rantings a little. Dr. Doofus I have to read yours again for a third time. Cheers- Matt

[Dr. Doofus]

The Good Slow Doctor Says:

Jeukendrup and Koechli are the best sources out there for folks like you and me. The doc and I are friends, and we are also friends with some white coat-types, and after you get past Jeukendrup and that guy that Hinault doesn't think can coach, the rest is secret-agent stuff. Ceccini, the old Mapei staff, Peter Keen, and the AIS staff are the ones who are really on to what Power and lactate training for cycling are all about. Unfortunately, if you're out of that world, well....


We think that the simple bottom line is that you take the watt/LT measurement not from a Conconi protocol, but from a blood lactate sample -- often the two will share that infamous point of deflection, but sometimes they won't. Once you have your watts/LT, then you figure out the training zones.

As for what to do with those zones...Mighty Matt Knows Dats Dat...or, in non-Doc, the watts are all over the place. Real-world racing data shows that this is a power-endurance sport. The jerk will tell you that what makes a winner, apart from a lot of stuff that will make your nads dissappear and your heart stop beating, is the ability to sustain repeated massive bursts of power at key points in a race. This info is starting to makes its way down the line, thanks to publishing of coaching literature.... However, its a basic, common-sense empirical kind of point. In training, you need to identify what the real-world workload is, and then structure the program to hone and develop those physiological responses in a controlled context. Its funny how old things like motorpacing are actually very, very effective training for the real-world context of racing....


The doc always repeats himself and I have to listen to it constantly, always rattling on in my ears on long training rides and sometimes I hate that guy. But the Doc is on to one thing, I think: lactate/Watts is the index. Eventually, the Accusport and like devices are going to get *really* cheap, and you'll see ithem in bike shops, and even ex-Cat 2 white coat wannabes like the doc will be *really* fluent in the literature on how to use that data...but then again, doing the self-vampire thing is really gross, unless you're the doc and you want to spike my Extran mid-ride...god I hate that bastard....



Robert

[Too Tall]

Wife and I have made an 180 switch in our cycling goals this yr. For the past 8 yrs. we have focused entirely on Ultradistance events and I've self-coached both of us. Training for these things is nothing like what you'll find in Friel's book. Infact, I asked him to coach me and he laughed...walking away. In 2004 we both hope to race the tandem TT at Masters Nats. This is very different training and I'm out of my comfort zone...thus a new coach.

This yr. I hired a coach and got an SRM for myself and a powertap for da'wife. (Thanks to Matt).

Bottom line, now I know exactly how badly I suck. No, seriously. It is proving to be a major benefit for communication between coach and client. My coach alternately gives us HR and Watts based workouts. This is teaching us reams about efficiency as well as producing power for TTs. Coincidently, we are logging our watts/HR/cadence data into a software program which calculates avgs', peak power periods, HR's etc. etc. It is a quick and easy read for myself or coach to see what we've accomplished.

Point is, Matt and others are right. This is a tool for focused training...used otherwise it's a rich man's toy.....not that there's anything wrong with that (wink wink).

You asked for examples of training with watts. Below is a workout incorporating both:
2-4- Wed- Morning to work and evening : do 20 minutes warm-up and then get in 2 x 20 minutes with watts from 290-320. Then 10 minutes easy. Do 8 x 53:15 gearing power repeats, each is 1 minute long, seated and pushing a big gear. Don’t try to hammer, it’s more about strength on the bike!

*Presently, my threshold watts are estimated at 315...so the above drill is a standard 2 X 20 at LT based on previous data and testing putting my LT Watts at 315.

What else do you want to know?

[Matt Barkley]

Jeff, Too Tall, Dr., Jerk,
I just wanted to say the obvious - but it had to be said again I think: Keep in mind (Jeff and others and Too Tall when giving advice - you know I am sure) everyone's power output is different - and everyones power measuring device's "accuracy" is different. We all aren't supposed to or are capable of doing "intervals" at certain wattages by using others' wattages for the same intervals (just like HRs.) I know this is elemantary but you wouldn't believe how many riders who bought Taps, Computrainers ask how many watts they SHOULD be putting out for "intervals." There is no set number - and if you use different power measuring devices they will show different numbers unless you are having Uli Shrobrerer(sp?) calibrate all you SRMs for you along with Taps and computrainers. Sorry to digress on that fellas'. - Matt

[Tom]

Because I have none. Nor have I yet swallowed the $350 tag for the Polar gadget. So, am I going to stay slow and feeble if I hop on my trainer for the morning hour here in the Dark Northeast, ride for a while at my usual pace and then simply crank the SOB up to a speed some 20-25% faster than I normally go for about five minutes or so? I figure four or five of those a couple of times a week should develop some strength.

Oh yeah. Brew your own beer. All those dead yeasties are very good for you.

[Matt Barkley]

Tom,
Sure that works. How well.... is another question. What your goals are or aren't is also another question. Power meters are a training tool. Your bike also happens to be another. Personally my preferences for what I want to do on the bike changes. I have enjoyed viewing my speed and total distance with a cycle-computer. That evolved into just looking at ride time. Then Hrs and Ride time. Then power. Many periods of time I enjoyed (much more) riding with no computer or HR monitor.
For indoor workouts trainer/rollers--- whatever keeps my mind from wandering onto other things I could / would rather be doing than intervals (like the dishes) is something that I see as benificial to being faster on the bike - because it actually keeps me on the bike for more than 10 minutes. (Yes I am lazy)
You want to build power and speed?: ride your bike more. (Ulta-endurance is a little excessive there now-Too Tall.) Specificity of training alows you to continue the curve of improvement. Training with power can enable that curve to continue in an upward arc more-so than just hammering on the trianer. Though I do tend to admire those that get really fast with old school methods more than the new scientific - based craze/reality of modern sports/competition. - Matt

[dcotcamp]

Tom and Matt,

Matt, well said. It's far better to see what sort of power you can maintain now, then work on improving that, than to worry too much about how much power some other guy makes. I also agree that the accuracy and consistency of the power meters on the market varies quite a bit. I've owned powertap, SRM and ergomo, so I have some experience in that, too.

Matt, just two things: the polar is -not- a good system to buy if your primary intended use is on a trainer. It sounds as if you aren't going to get -any- power meter, but I just wanted to warn you off on that one for that use. Second, the type of 'intervals' you describe are what a lot of people think of when they consider 'serious' training. In fact, intervals in that time range train VO2Max primarily. I think most coaches will say that VO2Max work is the 'icing on the cake', and not a substitute for LT efforts, such as the 2 x 20 minute workout another poster mentioned.

Finally, I'll second the suggestion to consider hiring a coach if you want to improve on the bike, however you define 'improvement'. The important thing is to find one who understands your goals and the 'rest of your life' (family, job, etc) and is willing to help you in that context. Such people are out there, and I consider myself lucky to have found one.

Dennis

[Russ]

Originally posted by jeffg
....but HR is still key in making sure that you do not blow up in an endurance ride.

Jeff,

IMHO, if one "blows up" on an endurance ride, it is NOT an endurance ride! I do not remember ever blowing up on any endurance ride... Now, I do agree with you about this issue of using HR as an indicator of what you are doing, as far as CARDIOVASCULAR info is concerned.

Although I have used the SRM Pro and the PowerTap, I have not become a guru on this subject. But frankly, I do not think that there is, at the moment, better system than the SRM. Period.

As far as training, let's put it like my old coaches used to say: Think of HR as the RPM Meter on your car, and WATTAGE as the gears/speep/effort combination. On the bike, you can go 100 RPM/16Mph/HR 130 on a low gear, on the flats, and just generate 100 watts. Or you can also go 80PRM/16MPH/HR 178 on a climb and generate 300 watts! So, power is the energy you generate at a given effort.

I think that for us recreational riders training with Power Output is not an easy task unless we are trying to achieve a very specific goal, such as increasing your strength or winning local races/group rides. It can also be costly. For instance, the SRM systems start at about $1800. PowerTap is not cheap either.

Chris Carmichael has great articles/books on this subject. I think there was a good article on the lastest Cycle Sport mag. But once again, he mentions that you should use a race as a test. Check it out!

[jeffg]

Posted by Russ: IMHO, if one "blows up" on an endurance ride, it is NOT an endurance ride! I do not remember ever blowing up on any endurance ride... Now, I do agree with you about this issue of using HR as an indicator of what you are doing, as far as CARDIOVASCULAR info is concerned.


Russ --

Agreed. This might seem obvious, but on a very long ride such as a cyclosportive, double century, etc. it happens that people do blow up. I witnessed a cruel example during the Dolomite Marathon where folks just started walking up the Passo Giau. (People also blew up on Skaggs Springs on this year's Terrible Two in Santa Rosa, Ca but it was 118 degrees). Now, the Giau (or Skaggs) is indeed a tough nut to crack (10km at 9%) when you already have 10,000 feet in your legs, but pacing plays a role as well.

Also, towards the end of a ride HR starts to be a very poor indicator of exertion (as Matt noted, I believe).
If I check my Polar 710 readings for climbs at mile 150 and beyond, my HR is very low no matter how tough they are since I am reaching my limit. However, I have done relatively well on these climbs (for me) so I wouldn't be surpsrised if my watt output had not faded that extremely. I need to figure out how I can gauge my effort so that I go as hard as I can on such a ride without blowing up on the final climbs as many folks do. It is disheartening to get passed after 10+ hours in the saddle by folks you dropped early on. My problem, though, tends to be the opposite. I end up catching some folks later on or pulling away from my group, which makes me think I should not have ridden as conservatively or that while I have it in me for efforts from 30-45 minutes on a climb, I just don't put out enough sustained watts over a long day. One could say I ride slowly enough so that I don't get passed later :)

Well, excuse my rambling (we don't all live in sunny FL or CA). What I am taking from this is that I really need some coaching to make the most of my winter training (my wife is not going to be pleased and may veto). At least I have some options with my new Cardgirus trainer. Maybe I'll be ready for the TdFL!

best,

Jeff

BTW, how do you quote just part of a previous post?

[Russ]

Originally posted by jeffg
BTW, how do you quote just part of a previous post?

Hey Jeff,

Understood about what you said as far as endurance ride... But I would call those rides you quote here "endurance tests" or "endurance competition".

You may not be racing anyone, but you certainly are competing against yourself, right? In any case, I see that many people blow up in these events, not so much because of fitness, but because they run out of "juice". I mean, they get glycogen depleted, etc.

Anyway, to quote a part of a message, just like I did, click on the small "quote" button on the lower right of the message, next to the edit button. When you see the quoted text, edit the part you want, but be careful NOT to delete the HTML references, the "[B/]" looking things that show up, before and after the text.

[Matt Barkley]

Dcotcamp,
What do you think of the ergomo? Compared to SRM? Just curious. (I used for 3 years SRM Pro and Tacx - am currently installing an ergomo - not on my bike) -Matt

[dcotcamp]

Matt,

I didn't have very good luck with the Ergomo. For me, it seriously under-reported power (compared to either an SRM or PT). The Ergomo support folks thought that was because I had a leg strength difference, and the Ergomo only measures power generated by the left leg, then doubles it. I was able to change the setting on the ergomo software so it gave me the same numbers as my PT, but I wasn't confident that that 'correction' would remain the proper one.

As someone else mentioned, consistency of measurement is important if you're going to use it to judge progress. For that reason, I've settled on the Powertap, except for my TT bike, which has an SRM Pro. I have the slope of the SRM adjusted so it gives readings the same as the PT, again so as to be able to compare numbers from the two systems.

I suppose the other disadvantage of the Ergomo is that it pretty much needs to be dedicated to one bike. Changing out the BB is too much trouble compared to changeing the crankset with the SRM or the wheel with the PT.

I sold the Ergomo. I must say in their defense that the sales and technical support people from Ergomo were very easy to work with.

Dennis