# stages power meter for sram



## cobb05 (Mar 5, 2014)

I've been pondering the idea of which power meter to get but have a question I can't seem to find online that has been answered. I'm looking into training heavily this year with the local bike guys. Already been doing some riding with one guy who rides with them and he has a power meter and can pace himself much better than I can on long climbs. I have a cannondale Caad10 outfitted with sram force. Really love the bike! However the question is would I notice any difference in the crank arms while peddling as the sram arms are carbon but the stages power meter is rival (Not carbon!) I have narrowed it down to getting either a powertap or stages. I already have a garmin edge 510 unit so all I need is the Hub or crank arm. I like the Idea of stages better as putting on a hub means that wheel has to always be working whereas the crank arm can be taken on and off with ease. Do I need to worry about having carbon on one side and not the other?


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

You won't notice a difference between carbon and aluminium crank arms.

You do not need a power meter to pace yourself on climbs.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

ericm979 said:


> You won't notice a difference between carbon and aluminium crank arms.
> 
> *You do not need a power meter to pace yourself on climbs.*


Seriously...for that kind of cash I'd figure it out by feel. Especially if I wasn't doing any racing. But hey, it's his cash.


----------



## cobb05 (Mar 5, 2014)

I'm really into breaking down and analyzing numbers after my rides. I really want to become better this year and want a power meter to assist me in that. Just didn't know if the differences in the arms would cause any problems. My buddy uses powertap and really likes it, but thought stages may be a better way to go until i realized they don't come in carbon.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

If he paces himself so well, why not sit on his wheel and then take off near the top (if you're really trying to hit it hard)? 

A powermeter should not be used for pacing unless you're doing a time trial. In a race or group ride, the only pace that matters is the one set by the fastest person. And you can either hang with that pace or you can't. If you can't, you'd better start upping your training instead of starting at a powermeter. 

If you're so worried about mismatched cranks, get a powertap. You can get one for the same price as a stages. Why do you want to take a crank arm on and off? That's no easier than taking a rear wheel on and off. 

I wouldn't have mismatched cranks, but it's your bike. I'd just get a quarq or a powertap if I were you. Or even a power2max.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

your bike has a bb30 BB crank so a rival left crank isn't going to work. You'd have to replace the entire crank. Get a powertap instead. I'd also first do some reading (Allen/Coggan Training and Racing with a Powermeter) to see exactly what the benefits will be (you'll also probably want to buy WKO software, though there's some free stuff around).


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

cobb05 said:


> I've been pondering the idea of which power meter to get but have a question I can't seem to find online that has been answered. I'm looking into training heavily this year with the local bike guys. Already been doing some riding with one guy who rides with them and he has a power meter and can pace himself much better than I can on long climbs. I have a cannondale Caad10 outfitted with sram force. Really love the bike! However the question is would I notice any difference in the crank arms while peddling as the sram arms are carbon but the stages power meter is rival (Not carbon!) I have narrowed it down to getting either a powertap or stages. I already have a garmin edge 510 unit so all I need is the Hub or crank arm. I like the Idea of stages better as putting on a hub means that wheel has to always be working whereas the crank arm can be taken on and off with ease. Do I need to worry about having carbon on one side and not the other?


Carbon on one side and aluminum on the other? I don't think it will make any difference. It's not like it's balanced anyway. Just think, you'll always have the majority of the crank (spider, chainrings) on the drive side. And swapping chainrings doesn't make any difference.

Do you need a powermeter to pace yourself on climbs? Maybe, maybe not. I don't have a PM and did a number of reps on a 3.5 mile climb the other day. My garmin shows that they were just 13 second between the slowest and fastest.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

+1 to reading the Allen/Coggan book first. It takes some work and understanding to use the data from a PM. Not everyone wants to do that, which is ok. But if you don't then you're not getting your money's worth from the PM.

GoldenCheetah is excellent free power analysis software. 

Pacing on long climbs does matter in group rides and races. I often catch and drop riders who go too hard at the bottom.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Get a powertap laced to a HED rim or Pacenti SL23 rim. Done.
you can find HED/powertap combo on fleabay a lot of time; rear wheel is all you really need.

I have both the powertap G3 and the Stages, and both give very close power numbers to one another. I like them both equally. If you go with powertap, make sure go for the G3, not the older ones.

As for pacing. Well you don't really need a PM in all honesty. But if you have the money, and if you're an analysis/number oriented type of guy, you can spend hours breaking down and fine tuning your routines (which can be a fun thing in itself). You read Coggan's book like mentioned above, then train like a robot, and yes you will see improvement! On fast and flat club rides, a pm won't matter much as you'll just suck wheels and pray there's no crosswinds. But on a long climb (eg, over 4 miles) at steep gradient (over 5% avg), I find that a PM to be helpful, especially if you don't know the terrrain like where is the steepest parts, where is a lesser steep parts, this is when a pm can assist you in refraining from blowing up (assuming you have enough gears). Also, to me, a pm will also let me associate my wattage to my "perceived effort" and heartrate, which is sort of interesting way to understand your body when pushed to near limit. I also find that with a pm, I become more robotic on my rides, like I don't hammer into a headwind like I used to love doing lol. Anh oh yeah, if you get a pm, you might as well start looking for a used trainer too, because most guys who get a pm will eventually get a trainer because training with a trainer, while boring, can allow you the discipline and consistency that you can't get on the road (unless you have access to pristine no-lights no-stops no-cars no-smog-infested roads!)


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> your bike has a bb30 BB crank so a rival left crank isn't going to work. You'd have to replace the entire crank. Get a powertap instead. I'd also first do some reading (Allen/Coggan Training and Racing with a Powermeter) to see exactly what the benefits will be (you'll also probably want to buy WKO software, though there's some free stuff around).


It may or may not be BB30, like mine. I run my Force crankset with GXP insert. It works well. 

There's good and bad to both Stages and PT. I like the minimal weight and user replaceable battery for the Stages.


----------



## JackDaniels (Oct 4, 2011)

Just get a sisl2 stages and you will have (I think) the lightest PM on the market and it will look great on your caad10.

And while you may not 'need' a powermeter to pace, it certainly can be helpful. You can be sure Cancellara knows the wattage he will put out on the Paterberg and Froome knows the wattage of his attacks with 5k to go on a big climb.


----------



## cobb05 (Mar 5, 2014)

I live in West Virginia so anywhere I go there is going to be hills..... LOTS of climbing! If I ride with other people I usually end up going to places I've never been and really run the risk of blowing up later in the ride because I pushed to hard and didn't realize what was left. A power meter I believe would help me know my number that I can sustain and not get over that. Then I can work at raising that number and visually see my progress. Just not sure which way to go. Wheel based or crank. I like the crank option and hear good things about stages, but powertap has been around for a while. If I did get a power tap, I don't have the funds to get a wheel prebuilt. I would have to take my wheel to the local shop and have them do it for me.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

JackDaniels said:


> And while you may not 'need' a powermeter to pace, it certainly can be helpful. You can be sure Cancellara knows the wattage he will put out on the Paterberg and Froome knows the wattage of his attacks with 5k to go on a big climb.


And you can be absolutely certain that Cancellara doesn't give a damn what wattage he's putting out; all he cares about is whether or not he's dropping someone, holding on, or getting dropped. Because that's what matters in his type of racing. 

Froome may be a fair example because he's ocd about that and a three week stage race is three weeks long. Though if it comes right down to it and the TdF title is riding away, I'm fairly certain he'll go, max watts or no. 

Cancellara on the other hand? Bad example.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

cobb05 said:


> I live in West Virginia so anywhere I go there is going to be hills..... LOTS of climbing! If I ride with other people I usually end up going to places I've never been and really run the risk of blowing up later in the ride because I pushed to hard and didn't realize what was left. A power meter I believe would help me know my number that I can sustain and not get over that.


Thus the aptly named "analysis paralysis". 

Training is for pushing the limits. Racing is breaking them down. Staring at your powermeter? Man, do that on your solo rides or something. Looking down at your powermeter while people are riding away from you, though, just doesn't ever sound like a good idea to me. If you have the legs you go, if you don't, you don't. The numbers displayed on the screen shouldn't impact, that, though.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

like I said above, you need to check if you have a bb30 crank. If you do, you can't just get a left crank arm. 

I started racing/training with a heart monitor in 1980 (my first HRM was wired) and started with power about 7 years ago. There is very little on the bike you can do with power that you can't do with heart rate training (pacing short intervals is one). The main benefit of power is that it quantifies workload in a way that allows you to train with a different set of principles (training stress score, chronic training load, acute training load, etc). 

Threshold power or threshold heart rate are both adequate for the sort of pacing issue you're concerned with. If you've never trained with heart rate, you could get a cheap one and start there (you can find a polar brand one at Target for under $50). 



cobb05 said:


> I live in West Virginia so anywhere I go there is going to be hills..... LOTS of climbing! If I ride with other people I usually end up going to places I've never been and really run the risk of blowing up later in the ride because I pushed to hard and didn't realize what was left. A power meter I believe would help me know my number that I can sustain and not get over that. Then I can work at raising that number and visually see my progress. Just not sure which way to go. Wheel based or crank. I like the crank option and hear good things about stages, but powertap has been around for a while. If I did get a power tap, I don't have the funds to get a wheel prebuilt. I would have to take my wheel to the local shop and have them do it for me.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

cobb05 said:


> If I did get a power tap, I don't have the funds to get a wheel prebuilt. I would have to take my wheel to the local shop and have them do it for me.


That would likely be more expensive. Shops don't build wheels for cheap. That's why the prebuilt wheels are so popular.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

stevesbike said:


> There is very little on the bike you can do with power that you can't do with heart rate training (pacing short intervals is one).


That's just inaccurate. 

HR varies daily depending on a number of factors. Very well rested? Your hr will be high. Very fatigued? Your hr will be low. Hot and humid? Very high hr. Stressed out? Could be high or low. Not enough fuel? Very low. Your hr will likely be lower at the start of a ride than it will later one. Ride twice and your second ride will be at a lower hr for the same effort. 

Wattage, however, is wattage. 300 watts is 300 watts whether it's your first ride of a training cycle or your 5th day of intervals. Whether it's 95 degrees or 25 degrees. Whether you've been riding for 5 minutes or 5 hours. 

Can't even begin to compare the two. HR was what we used when we had nothing better to use. Now we have something much better. HR is inferior across the board.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

what ACL said...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

If you have only 1 bike, then go with the Stages. If you have multiple bikes, then a Powertap allows the possiblity of swapping the powertap wheels to different bikes (assuming drivetrain compatibility).

One more thing about the Stages vs. Powertap. Powertap gives power at the hub (which is almost like "wheel wattage"). Purist will tell you that power measured at the wheel is true power, while power measured at the crank is not true power. Wheel power runs a bit lower than crank, and I find this to be the case. Stages would always give a bit higher reading. All this is not important if you're using it to train, as precision is more important than actual accuracy. But if you're into comparing your W/kg to another guy (and you will once you get your FTP), lol you'll want to know if the other guy's horsepower is from the crank or wheel!  Just another fun "my weenie is bigger than yours" metric


----------



## JackDaniels (Oct 4, 2011)

runabike said:


> And you can be absolutely certain that Cancellara doesn't give a damn what wattage he's putting out; all he cares about is whether or not he's dropping someone, holding on, or getting dropped..


Sorry, you are wrong.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

runabike said:


> That's just inaccurate.
> 
> HR varies daily depending on a number of factors. Very well rested? Your hr will be high. Very fatigued? Your hr will be low. Hot and humid? Very high hr. Stressed out? Could be high or low. Not enough fuel? Very low. Your hr will likely be lower at the start of a ride than it will later one. Ride twice and your second ride will be at a lower hr for the same effort.
> 
> ...


Assuming that (for whatever reason) there is deviation between the HR and watts...

Is it better to do the intervals at the target heart rate or the target watts? 

Why is one more beneficial than the other? For example, if the HR is running high because a person is not well rested, why would it be better to this under-rested person do intervals at the same watts they would do when fully rested?


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Assuming that (for whatever reason) there is deviation between the HR and watts...
> 
> Is it better to do the intervals at the target heart rate or the target watts?
> 
> Why is one more beneficial than the other? For example, if the HR is running high because a person is not well rested, why would it be better to this under-rested person do intervals at the same watts they would do when fully rested?


You are better off using target watts for intervals than HR regardless of your immediate state of rest / fitness. Watts show up immediately, where HR is a trailing measure. The time lag using HR for any short interval make it pretty much useless, might as well use perceived effort. Even longer efforts the time delay for response makes it very difficult to ensure you stay on track unless you are on a trainer where hills, wind, etc don't influence the interval. 

As far as the OP question, Stages vs PT - I'd think the only difference you'd see in crank arms is weight which certainly won't be noticeable riding. There's pros and cons to either choice - Stages is not instantaneously responsive like the PT wheel. There is lag going from coasting to pedaling of a few seconds before the Stages will start reporting power. Stages also doesn't have the time tested reliability behind it like PT hubs yet. Stages obviously has the advantage of being to use different wheels on a bike without additional expense. 

I don't swap wheels around really because I'm a recreational rider so I have a PT wheel on my normal road bike (Zipp 101s), PT Wheel on the bike on the trainer, and Stages on my Winter/Rain Bike which has disc brakes - I went with the stages for the rain bike because the PT Wheels for Disc have a substantial weight penalty AND I don't want to take a nice wheel out in crappy winter / wet conditions.

As far as affordability - you can get a nice used PT Wheel for much less than a Stages PM so I wouldn't let that enter the equation too much.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

JackDaniels said:


> Sorry, you are wrong.


Haha, whatever you need to tell yourself.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> Assuming that (for whatever reason) there is deviation between the HR and watts...
> 
> Is it better to do the intervals at the target heart rate or the target watts?
> 
> Why is one more beneficial than the other? For example, if the HR is running high because a person is not well rested, why would it be better to this under-rested person do intervals at the same watts they would do when fully rested?


Watts are superior for all of the reasons I listed above. 

You can't use hr for shorter efforts, and you really can't use it for longer ones. 

Example: You start out with a 20 min threshold interval. You start with watts and you keep it at that level the entire time. But your heart rate? Your hr will start low and slowly climb over the course of that interval, likely not hitting threshold towards the latter third, if at all (when I'm a bit tired, my hr will never even get to threshold on such an interval).

If you were trying to do that with heart rate, you'd have to guess at how hard to go until your hr was close to threshold. And if you wanted hr up quickly, you'd have to go too hard and then start reducing effort throughout the interval.


----------



## JackDaniels (Oct 4, 2011)

runabike said:


> Haha, whatever you need to tell yourself.


No. I know coaches who work with professional bike racers. Pros (at least their coaches) are well aware of their 60 sec, 90 sec, 2 min, 10 min, etc, power. They know their W/Kg. They can relate this data to critical sections (climbs) of races based on the length and gradient. If you think pros are using SRMs for sponsorship or bragging rights after the race then feel free 'tell yourself' that.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I don't want to hijack this thread, but your assertions aren't correct. First, the same physiological variables that effect heart rate also effect power. In fact, one guideline for interval training with power is to discontinue a series when you're no longer able to sustain target power due to fatigue. I said heart rate was not useful for suprathreshold intervals, but the OP was asking about threshold/tempo levels.

Many people dogmatically make the sort of claims you make - if you actually do some regressions, you'll typically find a strong linear relationship between power and heart rate. I've tried some response functions to account for the heart rate response (or smoothing) binned data according to training levels, etc. and it's typically been a very robust relationship. Here's a figure from cyclinganalytics showing the same thing (with an R^2 of .83).

The strength of power lies in the sort of information it provides (it quantifies work), which provides useful metrics for training that heart doesn't, but if the question is how to pace on a climb, heart rate is useful as well (then there's the use of power/HR decoupling to measure fitness, which depends on this relationship...). 













runabike said:


> Watts are superior for all of the reasons I listed above.
> 
> You can't use hr for shorter efforts, and you really can't use it for longer ones.
> 
> ...


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

JackDaniels said:


> No. I know coaches who work with professional bike racers. Pros (at least their coaches) are well aware of their 60 sec, 90 sec, 2 min, 10 min, etc, power. They know their W/Kg. They can relate this data to critical sections (climbs) of races based on the length and gradient. If you think pros are using SRMs for sponsorship or bragging rights after the race then feel free 'tell yourself' that.


I don't think that at all. That's just something you seem to be making up. 

And first it was pros, but now it's their coaches?

What does it matter if they know or don't know? Fact is, a pro (or any elite racer) is NOT worried about their watts/kg when the race is going up the road. All that matters is sticking that wheel. You either can or you can't, big watts, little watts, or no watt. That's how racing works, see.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

stevesbike said:


> I don't want to hijack this thread, but your assertions aren't correct. First, the same physiological variables that effect heart rate also effect power. In fact, one guideline for interval training with power is to discontinue a series when you're no longer able to sustain target power due to fatigue. I said heart rate was not useful for suprathreshold intervals, but the OP was asking about threshold/tempo levels.
> 
> Many people dogmatically make the sort of claims you make - if you actually do some regressions, you'll typically find a strong linear relationship between power and heart rate. I've tried some response functions to account for the heart rate response (or smoothing) binned data according to training levels, etc. and it's typically been a very robust relationship. Here's a figure from cyclinganalytics showing the same thing (with an R^2 of .83).
> 
> The strength of power lies in the sort of information it provides (it quantifies work), which provides useful metrics for training that heart doesn't, but if the question is how to pace on a climb, heart rate is useful as well (then there's the use of power/HR decoupling to measure fitness, which depends on this relationship...).


My assertions are spot on. And there are loads of files to prove it. 

Like I said, hr is crazy variable for a number of reasons. And no, it's not even good for longer efforts compared to a pm unless you account for the lag and can make an educated guess based off past experience whether it will be depressed or elevated or not.

I did a 20 min threshold interval today at about 98% ftp. Do you know when my hr got close to threshold? It didn't. Got right up below it towards the end, but never got to it. 

Now why is that? It's because I did a harder ride yesterday. It's also probably because I was a bit low on glycogen. 

Now I trained with hr exclusively for 8 years, all the way up through the ranks so I know pretty well what my hr is doing on any particular day, but there's still guesswork. And if there's still guesswork for someone who's used it for as long as I have, then it's probably safe to say there's a lot more guesswork for someone who hasn't. 

There is no guess work with the powermeter. I hit the watts or I don't. If I don't, I stop. If I do, I continue. HR, however, has zero impact on that workout.

Now I don't want to give the impression that hr is useless. Obviously it's not. Obviously you can train very effectively with it. Obviously you can train very effectively without hr OR power. 

But I maintain my contention that power is superior across the board. If all you have is hr, then make the most of it. But if you have power, hr is just an extra data point that may or not be relevant depending on your ability to understand what it's saying. And the vast majority of people I've seen posting on hr clearly lack that understanding.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

in other words, you've never struggled to maintain a target power output because power is not influenced by the physiological parameters (like fatigue) that effect heart rate? That's obviously not true. While you report an anecdote, I also noted plenty of work showing that in practice heart rate and power are strongly correlated. In fact, changes in their correlation is itself telling, such as heart rate/power decoupling. Heart rate wouldn't be useful if the variance was some stochastic mystery, but it isn't. You yourself noted that your struggle to raise your heart rate indicated you were fatigued (which if true could have led to altering your training session....). 

You also don't seem to realize that the quantification of power into training scores is itself based on a modified method from heart rate (TRIMP models). Since runners don't have power meters, TRIMP models continue to be used to quantify workload in that discipline. The suffer score STRAVA computes is a TRIMP model - mine is typically within ten points of my power-based TSS...

FWIW, I'm not arguing that a powermeter isn't a good training tool - I'm just pointing out that the idea that people think it's necessary to train, including recreational cyclists, is pretty silly. 





runabike said:


> My assertions are spot on. And there are loads of files to prove it.
> 
> Like I said, hr is crazy variable for a number of reasons. And no, it's not even good for longer efforts compared to a pm unless you account for the lag and can make an educated guess based off past experience whether it will be depressed or elevated or not.
> 
> ...


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

stevesbike said:


> in other words, you've never struggled to maintain a target power output because power is not influenced by the physiological parameters (like fatigue) that effect heart rate? That's obviously not true.


Please clue me in on to how you came up with this? Because I genuinely have no idea where the above came from. Or even what it has to do with?!



stevesbike said:


> While you report an anecdote, I also noted plenty of work showing that in practice heart rate and power are strongly correlated. In fact, changes in their correlation is itself telling, such as heart rate/power decoupling. Heart rate wouldn't be useful if the variance was some stochastic mystery, but it isn't. You yourself noted that your struggle to raise your heart rate indicated you were fatigued (which if true could have led to altering your training session....).
> 
> You also don't seem to realize that the quantification of power into training scores is itself based on a modified method from heart rate (TRIMP models). Since runners don't have power meters, TRIMP models continue to be used to quantify workload in that discipline. The suffer score STRAVA computes is a TRIMP model - mine is typically within ten points of my power-based TSS...
> 
> FWIW, I'm not arguing that a powermeter isn't a good training tool - I'm just pointing out that the idea that people think it's necessary to train, including recreational cyclists, is pretty silly.


I noted that I struggled to raise my hr but I still hit my target workout. If I had tried to do that workout with hr, I would have either gone much too hard (watts would have had to have been much higher to hit hr), or I would have tanked the workout and given up. In either case I would have messed up my training for that day, though the former would have been worse than the latter. 

With power, however, I can still nail the workout, dial in the amount of stress I want to place on myself, and do it. 

And while that isn't such a big deal for a ride taken in solidarity, it does gain importance in the context of the training cycle. 

No, you NEVER see hr or TRIMP in elite runners. You hardly see hr in running because pace is so much better. And pace isn't even that super due to external factors (though you can generally figure it out with practice). It's just that hr is just so inferior for run training. 

You can calculate TSS with running by using functional threshold pace. WKO+ has this incorporated and I used it for ~1.5 year and a half. Seems to work pretty well. 

I'm pretty sure I stated emphatically that one can train very effectively with heart rate or without heart rate or power. You absolutely can. But if you're seeking out the most effective....well, there's a reason power is all the rage.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

stevesbike said:


> The strength of power lies in the sort of information it provides (it quantifies work), which provides useful metrics for training that heart doesn't, but if the question is how to pace on a climb, heart rate is useful as well


I can't say I have ever found HR useful in a climb really other than telling me I'm toast. The PM will tell me long before the HR Monitor that I am anaerobic with enough time to react before I pop. How would you recommend a person use the HR data on a typical climb with varying inclines? Not arguing the point, genuinely interested.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

runabike said:


> My assertions are spot on. And there are loads of files to prove it.
> 
> Like I said, hr is crazy variable for a number of reasons. And no, it's not even good for longer efforts compared to a pm unless you account for the lag and can make an educated guess based off past experience whether it will be depressed or elevated or not.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but I may not have been clear with my question. First, let me accept that HR is a trailing metric, it takes a few moments for HR to come up to speed. 

That said, can you explain why training with power is better for the body than training HR? 

You said that today you rode an interval at 98% FTP watts according to your PM but it did not come up to HR threshold. Can you explain why the effort you did today was better for your body than a (more intence) effort at HR threshold?

And that's not an argument that "more intense is better"! The reverse could have been true. What if you had set out to do your workout at FTP according to your PM but your HR was off the charts. Can you explain why doing the effort at FTP according to your PM when your HR is skyrocketing is superior to doing that effort at HR threshold?


Again, I don't have a dog in the fight. I train by feel. If someone gave me a PM I would certainly use it.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> I'm sorry but I may not have been clear with my question. First, let me accept that HR is a trailing metric, it takes a few moments for HR to come up to speed.
> 
> That said, can you explain why training with power is better for the body than training HR?
> 
> ...


Because training is not done in a day, or even in a week, or even in a month. It is a cumulative effect that takes time. I hit certain watts on a certain day in training so that I can go out again and hit certain watts on another day in training. I ride my easy rides under a certain wattage because I know if I don't I won't be able to hit those higher wattages when I need to.

If I'm routinely going over prescribed workout wattages without much duress then I can ascertain that I have improved and can either increase the zones or formally test if I really wanted. But we don't need to ride at 100% to get a very, very similar training stimulus.

If you start doing more intense workouts all the time because you think you can, then you will hit a point where you can't. And then you have to back up and rebuild. That's just wasted time. An interesting training tenet popularized by Dr. Jack Daniels is that you do the least amount of work that will illicit the response you need. I don't always follow that maxim, but the underlying notion of a sustainable workload is a good one to follow. Just because you can go out and slay it every week for a while doesn't necessarily mean you should (if racing is your goal, then usually that's when you'd want to go out and really lay it down). It's big picture training load that needs to be looked at.

As for hr, it's not a measure of the work I'm doing. It is a reflection that may or may not be accurate. There are a number of factors that can affect that accuracy. 

Power qualifies and quantifies the work I'm doing. Along with that I can know my energy expenditure and I can get a good idea of the stress of the workout. Used day in and day out, I have a good picture of the stress my body is under. HR isn't going to show me that.

If I set out to do my workout at FTP and my hr was off the charts, I wouldn't have even known it unless I could physically feel it (which I may have, I don't know). I don't look at hr in an interval at all. It's only looked at post-ride (if I even wear the strap).


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

So after typing all that out I'm kinda like...wtf. 

Honestly, for 99% of the people on here just getting out and riding their bikes and making sure they're not riding themselves into the ground on every ride is going to result in improvement. 

If you've put tens of thousands of miles in your legs and had all the coaches and done all the workouts and are looking for that last little bit, then the stuff I wrote about really dialing in the training stress might be worth pursuing. Otherwise it's just over-complicating a very simple reality; going fast is fun. Have fun, go fast. Just don't try to do it every day or you'll wear yourself down and you'll have go to slow until you can recover.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Training with power and training with a HRM both require using perceived exertion. It's pretty typical to have power-based workouts (just like your example with HR) where one struggles to hit target power numbers because the exact same physiological variables that influence HR also influence power, such as fatigue. Many coaches I know (including ones like Roy Knickman) complain that a drawback of power meters is that riders become slaves to the numbers and don't listen to their bodies via perceived exertion. 

If you were training only with HR and you struggled to reach a target HR, perceived exertion would tell you that there's an underlying physiological reason for it. Again, it's not as though heart rate variability is intrinsically stochastic (at least on the scale relevant to training levels) - the variability relates to underlying physiological states that are meaningful for training. And beyond your n=1 anecdote, there are robust correlations between heart rate and power (R^2 > .8), especially for steady state efforts (such as the climbs the OP was interested in).

I'm not debating that power isn't useful (I've been using a power meter since early powertaps came out). But this thread was started by a cyclist who just wants to ride faster - no indication that he is going to race or even is aware that power isn't primarily about pacing efforts. His reason to get one was for that reason. As I also noted, he didn't seem aware of what kind of crank he had, so there's a large learning curve riders like him should undertake before investing in an expensive training tool like a powermeter. 



runabike said:


> Please clue me in on to how you came up with this? Because I genuinely have no idea where the above came from. Or even what it has to do with?!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## heyyall (Mar 2, 2014)

Cancellara lost his ant+ in stage 1 of the Dubai Tour.
Dubai kicks off with Merckx-style TT | Trek Factory Racing

He didn't make excuses but from the quote in the link above, I think it is safe to say he is normally keenly aware of the numbers--power and HR.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> there are robust correlations between heart rate and power (R^2 > .8), especially for steady state efforts (such as the climbs the OP was interested in).


What sort of accuracy are we talking about for HR vs. power? If HR is less than 90% correlated to power that's a pretty big difference. Meaning if you target HR for FTP and are actually doing 110% FTP you'll only be able maintain that power for 8 minutes or so. If you do a lot of climbing I could easily justify getting a PM just for pacing those climbs (it's incredibly useful IMO.) I also find it a bit ironic that somebody with several PM's is lecturing others that they don't need a PM. You can get a PM for $700-800 these days which significantly changes the landscape versus 2+ years ago when these things cost much more.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

First of all, my first post was to recommend the OP get a copy of Coggan/Allen to learn what training with a powermeter involves because its use as a pacing device is a small aspect of its use - it that was the only thing it did or was used for, it would be a big investment for something that can be done adequately with HR. The R^2 I indicated above shows a very robust relationship between HR and power - most of the variance is due to the lag of heart rate relative to power (which is by definition instantaneous). It's certainly good enough to pace on a climb with it - and a cyclist with either HR or power both needs to pay attention to perceived exertion and not be a slave to a number. 

Most of the value of a powermeter lies in tracking fitness over time, quantifying and adjusting workload using TSS, CLT and ATL, and using it to taper for key races. Most power meters cost in excess of $1000 ( an $800 powertap requires a wheel), the OP would have to buy an entire crank if he wanted a stages, and that's a major investment. Not sure why a recreational cyclist would need one, but if they are going to make the investment, they should know what its uses are and whether that's worth it to them - the growing idea that it's needed to get better is silly.



Dunbar said:


> What sort of accuracy are we talking about for HR vs. power? If HR is less than 90% correlated to power that's a pretty big difference. Meaning if you target HR for FTP and are actually doing 110% FTP you'll only be able maintain that power for 8 minutes or so. If you do a lot of climbing I could easily justify getting a PM just for pacing those climbs (it's incredibly useful IMO.) I also find it a bit ironic that somebody with several PM's is lecturing others that they don't need a PM. You can get a PM for $700-800 these days which significantly changes the landscape versus 2+ years ago when these things cost much more.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> Most of the value of a powermeter lies in tracking fitness over time, quantifying and adjusting workload using TSS, CLT and ATL, and using it to taper for key races. Most power meters cost in excess of $1000 ( an $800 powertap requires a wheel), the OP would have to buy an entire crank if he wanted a stages, and that's a major investment. Not sure why a recreational cyclist would need one, but if they are going to make the investment, they should know what its uses are and whether that's worth it to them - the growing idea that it's needed to get better is silly.


First off, the whole concept that you need to race to justify buying a power meter is a tad bit patronizing to cyclists who don't race. That may have been true when they cost $2k but I don't think that's necessarily the case anymore. If you're not picky you can buy a Powertap wheel set for around $700. Most wheel builders charge a $700 up charge for a Powertap G3 hub. Hoops Wheels, for example, sells Powertap rear wheels starting at $900. Cycling is a hobby which means that it involves *all* discretionary purchases. Most of us don't "need" anything other than a $700 aluminum bike with Tiagra and yet we choose to spend more for marginal gains (some of us spend MUCH more than that.) You race so I'm willing to bet you have something like $5-10k+ tied up in bikes, wheel sets, clothing etc. and you don't see the irony in telling someone they don't _need_ to buy a $700 power meter to train with?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

my first post in this thread was to let the OP know that he could not simply buy a left crank (because unknown to him his bike has a BB30 crank). I then suggested he get a powertap instead. I also told him I thought it was a good idea to first read the Coggan/Allen book (which is titled Training and RACING with a power meter because much of its use is for racers). 

If you read some of the OP's posts in this thread, you'd see the part where he says he doesn't have the funds to get a wheel built up if he bought a powertap and would have to take in his existing wheel to get it built up. So, here's a guy who is pretty new to riding, wants to get better, doesn't really know much about power-based training, and has a limited budget, and new enough to cycling that he doesn't know the difference between a GXP and BB30 crank or what the cost of getting a powertap built into his existing wheel vs. a prebuilt wheel (also that he doesn't know that the only thing that could be used from his existing wheel is the rim and he could get a new rim for $50-75). 

SO, given that, I told him he could achieve a lot of what he wants at his stage with a heart monitor, which he could buy for $50. Seems like OK advice to me. 



Dunbar said:


> First off, the whole concept that you need to race to justify buying a power meter is a tad bit patronizing to cyclists who don't race. That may have been true when they cost $2k but I don't think that's necessarily the case anymore. If you're not picky you can buy a Powertap wheel set for around $700. Most wheel builders charge a $700 up charge for a Powertap G3 hub. Hoops Wheels, for example, sells Powertap rear wheels starting at $900. Cycling is a hobby which means that it involves *all* discretionary purchases. Most of us don't "need" anything other than a $700 aluminum bike with Tiagra and yet we choose to spend more for marginal gains (some of us spend MUCH more than that.) You race so I'm willing to bet you have something like $5-10k+ tied up in bikes, wheel sets, clothing etc. and you don't see the irony in telling someone they don't _need_ to buy a $700 power meter to train with?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

runabike said:


> Because training is not done in a day, or even in a week, or even in a month. It is a cumulative effect that takes time. I hit certain watts on a certain day in training so that I can go out again and hit certain watts on another day in training. I ride my easy rides under a certain wattage because I know if I don't I won't be able to hit those higher wattages when I need to.
> 
> If I'm routinely going over prescribed workout wattages without much duress then I can ascertain that I have improved and can either increase the zones or formally test if I really wanted. But we don't need to ride at 100% to get a very, very similar training stimulus.
> 
> ...


I think we agree on almost everything save for one aspect: You have not expressed why training a HR FTP is superior to training a wattage FTP, save for the trailing delay of HR. And when you write that a small fudge factor is no big deal (eg _we don't need to ride at 100% to get a very, very similar training stimulus_) I think it is actually a point in the favor of HR and PM being about equal.



runabike said:


> Honestly, for 99% of the people on here just getting out and riding their bikes and making sure they're not riding themselves into the ground on every ride is going to result in improvement.


Yes for sure. Ride hard, rest hard, and listen to the body. No PM needed. 

That is an argument I have made several times over. I've gone so far as to say that the only people who really need a PM are being given PMs by their teams.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

heyyall said:


> Cancellara lost his ant+ in stage 1 of the Dubai Tour.
> Dubai kicks off with Merckx-style TT | Trek Factory Racing
> 
> He didn't make excuses but from the quote in the link above, I think it is safe to say he is normally keenly aware of the numbers--power and HR.



Really? Because this is the part that stuck out to me:

"s*o I don’t have the overview at the end of the day.*"

That overview of feedback from the PM, especially from early season races like this, are used to gauge fitness and set benchmarks. Gives a great idea of where they're at and they can devise a plan to get them where they need to be. 

Which is precisely what he alludes to with the next sentence:

"*But I am okay with that, for me the result is not what counts, and there is not much you can even take out of 10K. I am still missing three weeks of training from being sick and the crash I had a few weeks ago.*”"

And as I keep repeating, in the middle of a road race, numbers are irrelevant. Cancellara and those guys can either cover the move or they can't. 

What one guys is postulating is akin to saying that good racers are staring at their powermeters while someone attacks and hoping against hope that they can stick to the wheel without eclipsing whatever wattage they've predetermined that they can hit. 

But that's not how racing works. And that's not what PMs are for.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> I think we agree on almost everything save for one aspect: You have not expressed why training a HR FTP is superior to training a wattage FTP, save for the trailing delay of HR. And when you write that a small fudge factor is no big deal (eg _we don't need to ride at 100% to get a very, very similar training stimulus_) I think it is actually a point in the favor of HR and PM being about equal.


I've spelled it out for you in pretty detailed information. I don't know how much more I can write about it, but I'll try one more example.

How do you train hr ftp? By riding in that zone, right? So what happens on day 1 when riding in that zone requires 300 watts, but on day 5 when I have a week of training it requires 320? Did my fitness improve 7% in five days? Of course not. 

But now here's what happens. Instead of doing 40 minutes of z4 training at 300 watts like I should, I crank out 15-20 minutes at 320 watts chasing a hr number that will hardly rise to threshold. Of course I'm killing myself and totally gassed so I can't complete the workout. Now I'm no longer getting in a workout at threshold, nor am I getting anywhere the time needed to maximize adaptation. 

I keep trying to do that over and over and I start failing more and more workouts. 

Bad on the psyche, not so great on the legs, overall just isn't as beneficial. 

Exactly what I used to go through training with hr. November and December I'd be all well and good, riding 45-60 mins of work at 5 bpm below threshold, moving up to threshold. Then by Jan and Feb it would become almost impossible to ride at threshold due to cumulative fatigue so I'd tank the workouts and get super frustrated. 

Now, however, hr doesn't matter and I can still get in those workouts whether or not my hr is hitting threshold or it's 10-15 beats below. 

Can't explain it any other way. If that doesn't make sense then you probably don't have that experience to relate to so this is all kind of pointless anyway.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> Yes for sure. Ride hard, rest hard, and listen to the body. No PM needed.
> 
> That is an argument I have made several times over. I've gone so far as to say that the only people who really need a PM are being given PMs by their teams.


Well, I don't actually agree with you there. 

It's not simply ride hard, rest hard, and listen to the body at all. That's how people overreach and overtrain. That's how people stagnate and stop improving. That's how people get frustrated and quit if their results don't match their ambitions. If you're a newer rider or just dropping into the Cat 5s, then basically anything will help you improve. But that doesn't mean you can't overdo it, either. 

That's why coaches are so popular (and necessary). I didn't have a powermeter but I had a coach who pulled in the reins when necessary. 

99% of cyclists aren't going to get much further than the 4s (if they even race), so it doesn't matter all that much for such a group.

But for anyone with aspirations, it absolutely matters, especially if they want to progress up the ranks as quickly as possible. If you're a cat 4 itching to get to cat 2, then you probably will not get there on a "ride hard, rest hard" mentality unless you're quite talented and/or patient or have a couple of years to devote some serious training time.

So if you aren't quite talented and/or patient, then maximizing that quality will be to your benefit.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> If you read some of the OP's posts in this thread, you'd see the part where he says he doesn't have the funds to get a wheel built up if he bought a powertap and would have to take in his existing wheel to get it built up.


Actually this thread turned into a much broader discussion about the merits of purchasing a power meter. I'm willing to bet someone who can afford a $700 Stages PM can afford a $900 Powertap rear wheel but there are cheaper Powertap options out there if $700 is a hard budget. I do get a kick out of guys with a small fleet of power meters telling others, thinking of buying one, that you don't need a power meter to train effectively. The other thing I don't get is notion that MUST race to justify buying one. So all else being the same, but this guys says he's going to sign up for a cat5 race or TT, and now you're going to give him the green light to buy a PM?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

runabike said:


> That's why coaches are so popular (and necessary).


 Completely disagree. 


> 99% of cyclists aren't going to get much further than the 4s (if they even race), so it doesn't matter all that much for such a group.
> 
> But for anyone with aspirations, it absolutely matters, especially if they want to progress up the ranks as quickly as possible. If you're a cat 4 itching to get to cat 2, then you probably will not get there on a "ride hard, rest hard" mentality unless you're quite talented and/or patient or have a couple of years to devote some serious training time.


The majority of Cat 4 are not going to make it to Cat 2 even with a power meter.

I argue that the body has good days and bad days. Given that the body has ups and downs, why would slavishly following a power meter's numbers be the best method? If one says, "Sometimes I can't hit the numbers so I abandon the workout" -- what is it that tells them to abandon the workout? If there is something else, why not just train by that something else and skip the powermeter?

When HR and watts decouple, one what basis do you claim that one is superior to the other for a specific training session?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Dunbar said:


> Actually this thread turned into a much broader discussion about the merits of purchasing a power meter. I'm willing to bet someone who can afford a $700 Stages PM can afford a $900 Powertap rear wheel but there are cheaper Powertap options out there if $700 is a hard budget. I do get a kick out of guys with a small fleet of power meters telling others, thinking of buying one, that you don't need a power meter to train effectively. The other thing I don't get is notion that MUST race to justify buying one. So all else being the same, but this guys says he's going to sign up for a cat5 race or TT, and now you're going to give him the green light to buy a PM?


I know that post was nnot directed at me but I'll take a stab at the last question: 

If someone is going to feel better about life or enjoy riding more with a power meter they should get one. It's their purchase and their money. But I argue that nobody really needs one -- the guys who really need them are given them by their teams. I think training with power is a great way to go about it but there are other ways of getting results.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

runabike said:


> And as I keep repeating, in the middle of a road race, numbers are irrelevant. Cancellara and those guys can either cover the move or they can't.


I'd bet they are staring down at their power meters in a TT. I know that triathletes are obsessed with their power meters in a race. They know what sort of power to target and it's just them against the clock so they don't have to be as aware of their surroundings. That and maybe climbing are the two situations where I bet the pros regularly look at power numbers in a race. I would agree that in flatter parts of stage races most pros don't look at power very often. Especially if they're spending significant amounts of time sitting in the pack and drafting at 60-70% of FTP which would barely be breaking a sweat for these guys.


----------



## carlosflanders (Nov 23, 2008)

I've been training with a PM since 2007, but tbh, I find HR to be more useful to me now. Tells me more about my fitness and ability to repeatedly surge. Power is great to track your abilities and improvements over time and gives wonderful post-race data. I find that HR tells me more about my weaknesses. After a few years of training you can develop your PE and don't need to train to a wattage number.

HR recovery rate tells me a lot.

For steady state stuff, my HR is much more useful. In a TT, like many others, I'll use a PM to limit my power in the first couple of minutes then switch to HR. The power that I put out is the power I put out but HR tells me if I'm in danger of blowing myself up or not.

I cannot believe that Cancellara looks at his PM on any hill. He's too good of a racer. He'll probably glance at his HR occasionally when soloing away on the flats though. He'll check his files later to see what he did actually put out.

The posters make valid points, but HRs start at $20 and are underrated.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

carlosflanders said:


> I cannot believe that Cancellara looks at his PM on any hill. He's too good of a racer. He'll probably glance at his HR occasionally when soloing away on the flats though. He'll check his files later to see what he did actually put out.


Cancellara often gets dropped in the hills in stage races so he may not look at his power output when climbing. He probably just tries to survive without hitting the time cutoff. The GC and good climbers probably do look down at their power meters. Perceived effort on climbs can be very deceiving IME. It is true that power can hold you back in a crit or road race so there is something to be said for taping over the display in those situations.

HR with power is a much different situation than having just HR alone. If you don't find power useful than why not sell your PM and ride without one?


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> Completely disagree.
> The majority of Cat 4 are not going to make it to Cat 2 even with a power meter.
> 
> I argue that the body has good days and bad days. Given that the body has ups and downs, why would slavishly following a power meter's numbers be the best method? If one says, "Sometimes I can't hit the numbers so I abandon the workout" -- what is it that tells them to abandon the workout? If there is something else, why not just train by that something else and skip the powermeter?
> ...


You completely disagree about the importance and necessity of a coach? Have you ever had one? Are you speaking from experience? Do you know anyone that has or has had a good coach? There's a reason why virtually all elite and pro teams have coaches. In virtually every sport. 

The watts. If you can't hit the watts, you abandon the workout. 

I've spelled it out for you as clearly as I can. If you have no experience with training by such metrics and aren't content to read the examples, there's really nothing more to say. 

And the majority of cat 4s are trying to design their own training around ~10 hours of training a week. And for the majority that's woefully inadequate if they wish to progress. It's not that they couldn't get to a Cat 2, they just don't have the knowledge or commitment to do so. 

A pm may very well help them do so. And a coach even more until they learn some methodology.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> If someone is going to feel better about life or enjoy riding more with a power meter they should get one. It's their purchase and their money. *But I argue that nobody really needs one -- the guys who really need them are given them by their teams.* I think training with power is a great way to go about it but there are other ways of getting results.



To be perfectly frank, you've illustrated throughout this thread that you really don't understand power (or coaching) in any function. What you think about training with power comes purely from your imagination and that's reflected in you continually asking the same thing over and over again and then making posts like the above. 

I'm not sure why you're adamant about asserting your opinion that apparently isn't based on any actual first-hand knowledge.



Local Hero said:


> Again, I don't have a dog in the fight. *I train by feel.* If someone gave me a PM I would certainly use it.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Now you're attacking me personally and making this an argument about me and how I train? 

Rather than make this personal, answer this question with a scientific study to back it up: 

When HR and watts decouple, on what basis do you claim that one is superior to the other for a specific training session?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

read the thread - I never told the OP not to get one. I told him to learn about what they do so he can make an informed choice. And, I actually gave him the only useful advice in the entire thread, namely, not to order a stages because it would not work on his current crank. If you want to propagate the myth that the only way to improve your riding is with a power meter and that everyone needs one, then go ahead. If someone is on a limited budget, is a recreational rider, hasn't systematically trained before, I'll continue to tell them that they can achieve a lot without a power meter and that it's not the new necessity. 




Dunbar said:


> Actually this thread turned into a much broader discussion about the merits of purchasing a power meter. I'm willing to bet someone who can afford a $700 Stages PM can afford a $900 Powertap rear wheel but there are cheaper Powertap options out there if $700 is a hard budget. I do get a kick out of guys with a small fleet of power meters telling others, thinking of buying one, that you don't need a power meter to train effectively. The other thing I don't get is notion that MUST race to justify buying one. So all else being the same, but this guys says he's going to sign up for a cat5 race or TT, and now you're going to give him the green light to buy a PM?


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

Intriguing discussion. Just want to add this perspective to the mix as well. Like him or not, he's done some prominent work in the field.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> If you want to propagate the myth that the only way to improve your riding is with a power meter and that everyone needs one, then go ahead. If someone is on a limited budget, is a recreational rider, hasn't systematically trained before, I'll continue to tell them that they can achieve a lot without a power meter and that it's not the new necessity.


And that's the rub. Many drink the PowerMeter koolaid. Stevesbike and I both argue that power meters are unnecessary. On one hand Steve is being attacked because he owns power meters. On the other hand I am being attacked because I train on perceived exertion rate. 

Hilarious. 

As is this:


krisdrum said:


> Intriguing discussion. Just want to add this perspective to the mix as well. Like him or not, he's done some prominent work in the field.


Yes. Perceived Exertion | Finding Power Without the Meter | Competitive Cyclist

That is a balanced approach. It's the same thing we hear from Carmichal in The Time Crunched Cyclist. It's touched on and quickly dismissed in the bible of power meter training manuals. 

Unfortunately training by feel does not sell gizmos. And a coach cannot feel your perceived exertion (power meters make a coach's job much, much easier). So we hear from many authorities--the people selling stuff and those coaching riders--that power meters are a training panacea. We also hear a strong confirmation bias from those justifying their purchases: In this thread we heard that a rider can't get from Cat 4 to Cat 2 without a power meter and coach.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> If you want to propagate the myth that the only way to improve your riding is with a power meter and that everyone needs one, then go ahead.


You may not have told him not to buy one but you spent a good chunk of your responses arguing that HR training can be just as effective. Nobody here is saying you have to buy a power meter to get faster on a bike. Nobody here is claiming everybody needs a power meter. At the same time, when somebody starts a thread asking about purchasing one I don't know there are always posters trying to convince them it's not necessary. Hello, most of what we spend money on in this hobby is completely unnecessary.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Dunbar said:


> You may not have told him not to buy one but you spent a good chunk of your responses arguing that HR training can be just as effective. Nobody here is saying you have to buy a power meter to get faster on a bike. Nobody here is claiming everybody needs a power meter. At the same time, when somebody starts a thread asking about purchasing one I don't know there are always posters trying to convince them it's not necessary. Hello, most of what we spend money on in this hobby is completely unnecessary.


Many questions about power meters have an embedded assumption, eg, "I'm trying to ride faster, which powermeter is best?" It's fair to address the assumption that a power meter is required to make someone faster.


----------



## carlosflanders (Nov 23, 2008)

Dunbar said:


> HR with power is a much different situation than having just HR alone. If you don't find power useful than why not sell your PM and ride without one?


fwiw, it's a 2007 wired powertap. Not worth much. I still find power interesting, but I don't train to it. It's good for tracking improvements. HR, I find, is more useful to me now to figure out my training. My results certainly have improved, and I enjoy the experience more.

That said, I do at least half of my rides completely naked now - without any kind of computer or HR monitor.


----------



## heyyall (Mar 2, 2014)

This has grown into an interesting discussion. I agree with the idea of going by feel and it is so refreshing to go out blind on occasion. And then in some cases (like group rides), it doesn't really matter what the numbers say- it is keep up or get dropped. Then if you are dropped, it becomes about pacing. 

I've been training with power on an indoor trainer for over a year. I also use a HRM. I see the power meter advantages more with intervals and not going too hard too early. I realized once I saw the power curves that I was doing intervals wrong. I'm learning to be more sensitive to RPE, but that required calibration to some extent. While no substitution for coaching, the expense of a power meter is offset by some information that can be used to get better (I can see value in that).

In that sense, I think a power meter is more like a governor and it helps you stick with a plan. On the open road, this will likely hold you back, but there is a place for it. 

For me, my heart rate really doesn't mean anything. I've come to conclude that it is a combination of diet (lower with low carb, higher with more carbs), no caffeine (lower heart rate), work stress (higher heart rate), lack of sleep (higher), and 10,000 other physiological and environmental parameters (who knows what effect). Before today's trainer ride after dinner I wasn't "feeling it". I felt a bit flat but my HR was 67 so I felt I would give it a go. I never really got my HR above 160 with a pretty hard work out. My HR was also a bit insensitive to the intervals. (See figure below). On some other days, my HR tracks the power band like clockwork. I haven't figured out the particular circumstances that cause one or the other. It could be the reasons mentioned above or just the price of tea in china. 

But in the end, I see value in the pacing and additional data points. Perhaps because I'm a statistician in real life. Who knows. Like virtually everything else in cycling, "need" is rarely in the discussion. It is a hobby, sport and money pit. Best of all, it is a way to enjoy life so who really has the time to sweat the small stuff.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> Now you're attacking me personally and making this an argument about me and how I train?
> 
> Rather than make this personal, answer this question with a scientific study to back it up:
> 
> When HR and watts decouple, on what basis do you claim that one is superior to the other for a specific training session?


No, not at all. 

I'm just reaffirming that you don't use power or coaching yet you're taking a staunch position about those two things without any actual experience. And that lack of experience should be noted.

You seem to have quite an agenda since you refuse to read what's been written and instead regurgitate the same old tripe over and over again while ignoring the answers to your questions. 

I've seen people do this before and it's generally those who simply can't accept that they may not be training as well as they could be so they set out to denigrate the things they don't fully understand to reaffirm to themselves that they're doing enough.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> And that's the rub. Many drink the PowerMeter koolaid. Stevesbike and I both argue that power meters are unnecessary. On one hand Steve is being attacked because he owns power meters. On the other hand I am being attacked because I train on perceived exertion rate.


You're not being attacked. Quit with the persecution complex.

Nor has anyone said that a powermeter is necessary to train. 

Now you're just being dishonest. 

What has been pointed out, however, is that YOU don't know what you're talking about in regards to power as YOU do not train with it (even though earlier you admitted you would if you could). 

So before you go off on another disingenuous tirade lamenting how people are just being mean to you, step back and think about what you're saying and how it relates to this thread. 

And for the sake of transparency, stop making up things you think other people are saying.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> Many questions about power meters have an embedded assumption, eg, "I'm trying to ride faster, which powermeter is best?" It's fair to address the assumption that a power meter is required to make someone faster.


Dunbar is spot on.

And your "assumptions" are a farce. No one is saying that. 

I went from a cat 4 to a 1 in three seasons before I'd ever even heard of a powermeter. So have tens (hundreds?) of thousands of others, and with far greater success than I've ever had. 

What I'd really like to know is what your agenda is and why you're so adamant about arguing something you clearly lack experience with? Seriously.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> In this thread we heard that a rider can't get from Cat 4 to Cat 2 without a power meter and coach.


So Local Hero, please copy and paste that quote or admit you are a liar and not a very good one at that. 

Thanks.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

krisdrum said:


> Intriguing discussion. Just want to add this perspective to the mix as well. Like him or not, he's done some prominent work in the field.





> Even if not as accurate as something like power output, big picture, less accurate but consistent data is always more valuable than more accurate inconsistent data.


Sounds like he agrees that if you want accurate data, power output is the way to go. 

But of course we already knew that. Just like we know there are some that need that accuracy to maximize their training and some that don't. But don't tell some of the people on this thread, that. Because they'll make up something different and use it as a focal point of their fallacious arguments.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

We've accepted that HR is a trailing metric. The fact is that watts are trailing too. 

Power output is a trailing metric for the body's fitness. When a rider cannot "hit the watts" for their prescribed workout then they have prescribed the wrong workout for the day. Maybe the rider is tired/over trained or the workout is just too hard. There's nothing wrong with the power meter or any other metric, it's user error. 

People training with power and those training by PRE or HR can make mistakes. Making excuses for failing to hit the power because, "I did not drink enough electrolytes" or "I went hard earlier in the week" ignores the fact that people can take other factors into account even without a power meter. 

Conversely, it's not incredibly difficult to train smart using PRE, HR, or power. Riding by perceived exertion is perfectly viable. 

There is nothing inherent in a powermeter that prevents someone from ignoring the telltale signs of overtraining. On the other side of the coin, no software can tell a rider that their workouts are too easy. And it sounds like even the biggest proponents of power meters make mistakes. It's easy to go overboard; it doesn't matter how much koolaid you drink.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

runabike said:


> There's a reason why virtually all elite and pro teams have coaches.


Yes, coaches make it easy for all riders to be on the same page. They can provide big picture training for a season. Power meters make a coach's job much, much easier. Also, in this very thread I said that those who really *need* power meters are given them. So why are we comparing pros to amateurs when there's more than one way to skin a cat? 

Fine, let's talk about coaches. My very good friend coaches a prominent development team. He also privately coaches a number of local racers. I've seen what he prescribes for riders and read his blog. A few of my friends have been coached by the guy and plainly said that the real benefit is that having him makes it so they don't have to think about their workouts. They also appreciate that they are accountable to someone. 

One went so far as to say that much of the coach prescribed could be found with his WKO program, so why not just follow the WKO? 

I'm not convinced that coaches have any special skills or knowledge that a relatively intelligent person cannot pick up with a few books; cycling training is not rocket surgery. And some grownups do not need a cheerleader. 

So what can a coach offer? 


> The watts. If you can't hit the watts, you abandon the workout.


This actually proves my point: Even with a power meter there is trial and error. There is nothing inherent in a power meter that prevents a coach or athlete from doing the *wrong* workout. So much for precision! 

So those using powermeters can do the *wrong* workout. 


> And the majority of cat 4s are trying to design their own training around ~10 hours of training a week. And for the majority that's woefully inadequate if they wish to progress. It's not that they couldn't get to a Cat 2, they just don't have the knowledge or commitment to do so.


I do not think anyone has done a survey on this so we'll have to take your word on what the majority of cat 4s are doing, how much time they have, their level of commitment or what they know/don't know.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

you're actually wrong about this. Few pro cycling teams have coaches that prescribe detailed training plans for the team. Pro cyclists typically hire their own coach and pay them out of pocket (there's a nice spat over on cyclingnews between Landis and Lim over the fact that Landis paid him $80,000, which Lim initially denied). Lim worked with Landis after the positive and Floyd's hip replacement and presumably paid him out of pocket again - I rode with them a few times during Floyd's attempted comeback. Having their own coach provides training continuity when riders switch teams. 

Some pro riders don't have a coach. I know a Garmin rider who has never had a coach. Teams will have riders send them power files and so to see that they are on track, but their training isn't typically orchestrated by the team coach. This is one reason why Sky is different.

Besides, you keep talking about pros and coaches, which has nothing to do with the OP of this thread or the ridiculous claim that such riders need a power meter to get faster. 






runabike said:


> You completely disagree about the importance and necessity of a coach? Have you ever had one? Are you speaking from experience? Do you know anyone that has or has had a good coach? There's a reason why virtually all elite and pro teams have coaches. In virtually every sport.
> 
> The watts. If you can't hit the watts, you abandon the workout.
> 
> ...


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> In this thread we heard that a rider can't get from Cat 4 to Cat 2 without a power meter and coach.


So Local Hero, please copy and paste that quote or admit you are a liar and not a very good one at that. 

Thanks.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

stevesbike said:


> you're actually wrong about this. Few pro cycling teams have coaches that prescribe detailed training plans for the team. Pro cyclists typically hire their own coach and pay them out of pocket (there's a nice spat over on cyclingnews between Landis and Lim over the fact that Landis paid him $80,000, which Lim initially denied). Lim worked with Landis after the positive and Floyd's hip replacement and presumably paid him out of pocket again - I rode with them a few times during Floyd's attempted comeback. Having their own coach provides training continuity when riders switch teams.
> 
> Some pro riders don't have a coach. I know a Garmin rider who has never had a coach. Teams will have riders send them power files and so to see that they are on track, but their training isn't typically orchestrated by the team coach. This is one reason why Sky is different.
> 
> Besides, you keep talking about pros and coaches, which has nothing to do with the OP of this thread or the ridiculous claim that such riders need a power meter to get faster.


There's a reason why virtually all elite and pro teams have coaches. *In virtually every sport.*

How is what I said negated by anything you said? There are personal coaches and team doctors/coaches. Whether or not a rider uses one or another does not, in any way whatsoever, disprove my very salient point that there *is a coach.* And that's not a cycling thing. That's a *sports* thing. Ergo, coaches are *absolutely* important. Which was the whole point. 

I spoke about it in a couple of posts because I was specifically referring to the posts of a poster that isn't you. So if you don't like the tangent, feel free to not participate in it. Especially since you seem to be having a very real problem comprehending what I write. If you're that confused, just ignore it.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

stevesbike said:


> or the ridiculous claim that such riders need a power meter to get faster.


Please copy and paste that quote in its entirety. Looks like you're following Local Heros "tactics" of just brazenly lying.

It's bad enough that you guys argue about things you clearly lack knowledge about without stooping to simply making up random crap you think you can argue against.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

This is obviously is a very emotional topic.


runabike said:


> That's just inaccurate.
> 
> HR varies daily depending on a number of factors. Very well rested? Your hr will be high. Very fatigued? Your hr will be low. Hot and humid? Very high hr. Stressed out? Could be high or low. Not enough fuel? Very low. Your hr will likely be lower at the start of a ride than it will later one. Ride twice and your second ride will be at a lower hr for the same effort.
> 
> ...


I'm going to repeat a question that goes to the heart of my argument: 

While we all agree that 300 watts is 300 watts regardless of the circumstances, on what basis can we say that an effort at 300 watts is best for the body given X, Y, or Z circumstances? 


Let's try to answer it with a scientific study. And without personal attacks.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

So Local Hero is essentially a liar since he's repeatedly claimed things that have not actually been written. 

Gotcha. 

Thanks for playing, sport. Better luck next time. Hopefully you'll actually have a little knowledge about the subject you wish to debate...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Now it's clear you don't understand the role of a DS in cycling. A DS does not micromanage a rider's training the way a coach does. Jonathan Vaughters, for example, periodically checks in with his riders regarding their form and progression, but the rider is left up to his own to manage his own training, which he does on his own and away from the team. Some have coaches - like Landis. But the majority of US domestic pros, for example, do not (they are barely earning enough to live). Vaughters complains about Sky because they have 2x the budget he has and can afford more systematic coaching at the team level and something like a central training area (extended training camps) which few teams have. It's not like football that has a training facility and an inhouse coaching staff. As for elite amateurs, again, most don't have coaches who micromanage their program. They may belong to a team that has a coach involved, but they don't manage each rider's training program. More masters do, but that's because they have the discretionary income for a coach. 



runabike said:


> There's a reason why virtually all elite and pro teams have coaches. *In virtually every sport.*
> 
> How is what I said negated by anything you said? There are personal coaches and team doctors/coaches. Whether or not a rider uses one or another does not, in any way whatsoever, disprove my very salient point that there *is a coach.* And that's not a cycling thing. That's a *sports* thing. Ergo, coaches are *absolutely* important. Which was the whole point.
> 
> I spoke about it in a couple of posts because I was specifically referring to the posts of a poster that isn't you. So if you don't like the tangent, feel free to not participate in it. Especially since you seem to be having a very real problem comprehending what I write. If you're that confused, just ignore it.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

stevesbike said:


> Now it's clear you don't understand the role of a DS in cycling.


Please copy and paste where I said anything about a DS. Just go ahead and quote my words so that what you're saying is somehow, some way relevant to what I wrote. Please.

You guys are a trip. Are you really so desperate to sound like you have a clue that your only hope is to continually misconstrue or just flat out make something up?

It's a joke. 

If there's one thing we've established, it's that you and local hero have no clue how to actually take a post and respond to what's actually written in it.

You are both constantly just replying to things you're making up in your heads. It is absolutely pointless to continue even responding to you because it's an absolute waste of time when you are incapable of actually reading the reply. 

Good day to you both. I salute the brazen way you sacrifice any intellectual dignity you may have in your fallacious attempts at making a rebuttal.

P.S. I've actually raced a number of Vaughter's guys back when it was the TIAA-Cref team. Even talked to him. I am very well aware of what a DS does as I have raced numerous pro events and met a number of team directors. None of that has any bearing, however, because I haven't mentioned anything about a DS prior to this post. Oh, and as an elite amateur rider, I don't think you know much about the coaching aspect that guys like me utilize. But thanks for your made-up opinions.


----------



## carlosflanders (Nov 23, 2008)

Your visceral reactions to the discussion on this topic I find disturbing.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

carlosflanders said:


> Your visceral reactions to the discussion on this topic I find disturbing.


And you are are referring to...?

The quote function can be useful in situations like these.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

save the sophomoric misdirection. If you actually knew as much as you think you do, you'd know that pro cycling does not use the term 'coach.' it is DS or sporting director in the US (it's not just the head guy; there are multiple DS's on a team). 

By the way, you continue to misuse the term fallacious. 



runabike said:


> Please copy and paste where I said anything about a DS. Just go ahead and quote my words so that what you're saying is somehow, some way relevant to what I wrote. Please.
> 
> You guys are a trip. Are you really so desperate to sound like you have a clue that your only hope is to continually misconstrue or just flat out make something up?
> 
> ...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

runabike said:


> You seem to have quite an agenda
> ...
> I've seen people do this before and it's generally those who simply can't accept that they may not be training as well as they could be so they set out to denigrate the things they don't fully understand to reaffirm to themselves that they're doing enough.





runabike said:


> what your agenda?





runabike said:


> you are a liar





runabike said:


> Quit with the persecution complex.





runabike said:


> you're just being dishonest.





runabike said:


> before you go off on another disingenuous tirade lamenting how people are just being mean to you...
> And for the sake of transparency, stop making up things you think other people are saying.





runabike said:


> you are a liar





runabike said:


> Local Hero is essentially a liar since he's repeatedly claimed things that have not actually been written.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> Thanks for playing, sport. Better luck next time. Hopefully you'll actually have a little knowledge about the subject you wish to debate...





runabike said:


> you and local hero have no clue how to actually take a post and respond to what's actually written in it.


Without any further personal attacks or insults, can you answer my questions about training with power? 

It's the same question I have asked a few times over, but I have asked it from different angles:

While we all agree that 300 watts is 300 watts regardless of the circumstances, on what basis can we say that an effort at 300 watts is best for the body given X, Y, or Z circumstances? 

Or, if a rider sets out for 3 X 20 minutes at FTP watts but cannot maintain it and has to abandon the workout, would it not have been better to do 3 X 20 minutes at what the rider perceived to be an FTP exertion and completed the workout? Why or why not? (Or substitute having "good legs" instead of bad legs and answer it, the 3 X 20 PRE workout might be HIGHER than the power meter workout.)


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> While we all agree that 300 watts is 300 watts regardless of the circumstances, on what basis can we say that an effort at 300 watts is best for the body given X, Y, or Z circumstances?


You can read a book or hire a coach and they will prescribe certain plan. Some training plans are available for free on the internet. The convention is pretty simple, you ride X percentage of FTP for a certain time. So - as far as _who_ says it's best for you - the coaches and "experts" say it's best for you.



> Or, if a rider sets out for 3 X 20 minutes at FTP watts but cannot maintain it and has to abandon the workout, would it not have been better to do 3 X 20 minutes at what the rider perceived to be an FTP exertion and completed the workout? Why or why not? (Or substitute having "good legs" instead of bad legs and answer it, the 3 X 20 PRE workout might be HIGHER than the power meter workout.)


2x20 is the standard interval for raising FTP. 3x20 would be a HARD ride (a 2x20 is bad enough.) The problem with perceived exertion is that you tend to overdo it for the first part, and underdo it for the second part. It also means you could blow up before hit the end of the interval. That means you're not getting the full benefit of the training which is designed to put a certain amount of stress on your body to force adaptations. That doesn't mean training based on perceived exertion won't improve fitness. It just means that it might not produce the same results as training with power. I suppose you could "train" your perceived effort on something that estimates power like a Computrainer or Wahoo Kicker. But I would say that's training with power if you're regularly checking your power output even if you don't technically own a power meter.

I should also mention that you shouldn't regularly be failing to hit your power numbers during intervals. Everyone has a bad day every once in a while, but if you regularly have to abandon intervals, something is wrong and you need to figure out what that is. FTP tends to be self correcting in this sense meaning that if you think your FTP is 250 and it's really 225 you'll find out pretty quick when you try a 2x20 at 250 watts. That's the beauty of power - watts don't lie.


----------



## heyyall (Mar 2, 2014)

Dunbar, thank you


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

This thread is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

First, let me say thanks for your answer.


Dunbar said:


> You can read a book or hire a coach and they will prescribe certain plan. Some training plans are available for free on the internet. The convention is pretty simple, you ride X percentage of FTP for a certain time. So - as far as _who_ says it's best for you - the coaches and "experts" say it's best for you.


Yes, coaches or individual athletes (going by books or even the interweb) can design training plans. 

What I am saying is that there is a lot that goes into the current level of fatigue or fitness of an athlete. There are several factors that influence how hard an effort should be on any given day. We've talked about them in the thread. 

Let's say I just did a 400mi, four day training camp. The supercompensation following overload will not really take effect for 10-14 days, until then my power will be down. Now is not the time to crank out 2X20, 3X20, 3X3.5mi or any type of FTP intervals. It doesn't take a power meter to tell me that I need to go easy while I build back up. So if I do any type of climbing while recovering from the camp, it should be at ??%FTP? 

Without a powermeter I use "not too hard" on my PRE scale for those question marks. 


> 2x20 is the standard interval for raising FTP. 3x20 would be a HARD ride (a 2x20 is bad enough.)


Yes, either 2X20 or 3X30 (or my intervals of convenience, three reps up a 3.5mi climb) is immaterial for my example. 


> The problem with perceived exertion is that you tend to overdo it for the first part, and underdo it for the second part. It also means you could blow up before hit the end of the interval. That means you're not getting the full benefit of the training which is designed to put a certain amount of stress on your body to force adaptations. That doesn't mean training based on perceived exertion won't improve fitness. It just means that it might not produce the same results as training with power.


Or it could produce very similar results, if the athlete is disciplined and capable of moderating their own pace. 


As I said I do reps on a 3.5 mi climb. I also have 2.5, 3.0, and 3.2 mile climbs near me. I have been able to divide up these climbs by landmarks and know how long it takes to get to each point. I can also use the clock and speedometer on my garmin showing mph. But the truth is that after having done the climbs enough I don't need to focus on time checks, I can just ride by feel. And by riding on PRE I am able to get three reps within a few seconds of each other. 

Is that so hard? 

Hopefully this isn't me expecting too much from everyone else. Maybe it's a special skill that I have and just expect others to have. I call it the ability to go hard but not so hard that you blow up. 

On that note I have a confession. Long before I got into cycling I was a high school and then collegiate runner. Just as cycling as [email protected], running has tempo workouts. I did these for almost a decade. During that time I learned to listen to my body, my breathing, and run by feel. I might just be in better touch with my limits than the average cyclist who needs a powermeter to tell them how hard to ride. 

So I say to those who can't seem to lay down even power up a climb, don't bother listening to your body just get that gadget. It *will* make you a better cyclist!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Part of the problem with such discussions about use of power meters is that most attention is often given to the _least demanding application of the data_ - i.e. guiding intensity of effort.

But the paradigm of how to use power data effectively for performance improvement is far far broader and deeper.

Still, if that's your one and only use for power data, then in some instances it's more helpful than other forms of intensity guidance (HR, PE, speed), but it's not necessary in order to improve performance (it's training which does that).

As for arguments about whether one should hit a specific power number during efforts, well that's just an example of training _by_ power and not training _with_ power. Having a power meter doesn't give one an instant IQ jump.

A power meter is a tool, not artificial intelligence device. Used wisely it can be very rewarding, but remember that irrespective of whether you have some form of cyclo-computer device on your bike or not, the data on what you do is stored where it matters most - in your legs.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> So I say to those who can't seem to lay down even power up a climb, don't bother listening to your body just get that gadget. It *will* make you a better cyclist!



I just moved from a completely flat area where I rode for a few years to a place right next to the mountains. 

I learned to pace myself on the flats (no power meter) but riding up mountains I would go to hard and not realize it (the first minute at 300-400w doesn't feel so bad) but thats not maintainable for a climb of an hour or more. I have found a power meter to be very helpful in pacing myself. I ride with some strong guys that throw down 300+w and sure I could stay with them for a while but I know I will blow up. So I stick to a power I know is sustainable for the duration of the climb. With a power meter I don't have to put myself in the red to figure out I can't stay with a group, my power meter will let me know in a few seconds if the pace is to fast for me and I can back off. 

If I learned to ride on mountains to begin with I am sure I would have a better handle of pacing and in a few years I will probably have a better handle on it and not rely on my power meter but right now it does help, thats for sure.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Part of the problem with such discussions about use of power meters is that most attention is often given to the _least demanding application of the data_ - i.e. guiding intensity of effort.
> 
> But the paradigm of how to use power data effectively for performance improvement is far far broader and deeper.


I agree with your last sentence. Training properly is a lot more than 20 minute intervals. 


jmorgan said:


> I just moved from a completely flat area where I rode for a few years to a place right next to the mountains.
> 
> I learned to pace myself on the flats (no power meter) but riding up mountains I would go to hard and not realize it (the first minute at 300-400w doesn't feel so bad) but thats not maintainable for a climb of an hour or more. I have found a power meter to be very helpful in pacing myself. I ride with some strong guys that throw down 300+w and sure I could stay with them for a while but I know I will blow up. So I stick to a power I know is sustainable for the duration of the climb. With a power meter I don't have to put myself in the red to figure out I can't stay with a group, my power meter will let me know in a few seconds if the pace is to fast for me and I can back off.
> 
> If I learned to ride on mountains to begin with I am sure I would have a better handle of pacing and in a few years I will probably have a better handle on it and not rely on my power meter but right now it does help, thats for sure.


That's funny. I have more trouble pacing myself on the flats than I do on hills.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Let's say I just did a 400mi, four day training camp. The supercompensation following overload will not really take effect for 10-14 days, until then my power will be down. Now is not the time to crank out 2X20, 3X20, 3X3.5mi or any type of FTP intervals. It doesn't take a power meter to tell me that I need to go easy while I build back up. So if I do any type of climbing while recovering from the camp, it should be at ??%FTP?


A good training plan will take into account hard days and make sure you get enough time to recover by doing enough easy days. Yes, you have a target power or zone that should not exceed on your easy days (i.e., zone 1/2, do not exceed 55% of FTP etc.) That's the idea behind tracking training stress score (TSS) and/or chronic training load (CTL) / acute training load (ATL) or whatever terminology your software uses. It gives you an objective measure of how much stress you're putting on your body. You are instructed to do your harder efforts (intervals) on days when you are adequately rested. Doing them in a fatigued state is conterproductive.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

This thread is full of a lot of dogmas - doing hard days when fatigued, for example, is not counter-productive. In fact, block training has been shown to be more effective than the traditional linear periodization you're suggesting (e.g., "Effects of 12 weeks of block periodization on performance and performance indices in well-trained cyclists"). 

Alex Simmons makes a great point about the difference between training by power and training with power. Also, a tool is only as good as the training principles guiding its use...



Dunbar said:


> A good training plan will take into account hard days and make sure you get enough time to recover by doing enough easy days. Yes, you have a target power or zone that should not exceed on your easy days (i.e., zone 1/2, do not exceed 55% of FTP etc.) That's the idea behind tracking training stress score (TSS) and/or chronic training load (CTL) / acute training load (ATL) or whatever terminology your software uses. It gives you an objective measure of how much stress you're putting on your body. You are instructed to do your harder efforts (intervals) on days when you are adequately rested. Doing them in a fatigued state is conterproductive.


----------



## heyyall (Mar 2, 2014)

Now that the peeing on the fire hydrants has slowed down to a trickle, I thought I would share this. 

I actually appreciate the narration in this video. The information may not be perfect but it does help illustrate how a power meter could be used in the course of every day riding.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

heyyall said:


> Now that the peeing on the fire hydrants has slowed down to a trickle, I thought I would share this.
> 
> I actually appreciate the narration in this video. The information may not be perfect but it does help illustrate how a power meter could be used in the course of every day riding.


That's an interesting video. I'm not exactly sure how power plays into it because Durian Rider does not use dashware. It would be nice to see what he is putting out. Also, if even power is the key to climbing fast why does he resort to chicanery at the end? 

Contrast that with the POV of this Cat 4 rider dealing with repeated attacks: 




He cracks at the 10 minute mark.


----------



## heyyall (Mar 2, 2014)

Banana boy has a public strava page. He mentions a date quickly and I think it is Nov 30, 2013. This might be the ride
Bike Ride Profile | Norton x 5 near Rostrevor | Times and Records | Strava

Looks like he did 5 repeats on the hill. His power was pretty flat over many of the repeats. 

As for the attacks, he makes comments on them. Basically don't sweat them and ride your own race. He knew what they could and couldn't sustain. He stuck to the plan and out rode them. Of course, he has the 7th fastest time on the climb, so perhaps he know it was his "race" to lose. Listen to his tip at 9:20ish in.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> This thread is full of a lot of dogmas - doing hard days when fatigued, for example, is not counter-productive. In fact, block training has been shown to be more effective than the traditional linear periodization you're suggesting (e.g., "Effects of 12 weeks of block periodization on performance and performance indices in well-trained cyclists").


I was responding to the question of "how do I know how hard to go today" which a good training plan lays out. AFAIK even block periodization specifies easy days. It doesn't strike me as all that shocking that the highly trained cyclists (those that have been training for years) have little to gain from doing lots of intervals. At that point you've made most of the gains in power and have little to benefit from trying to force more adaptations. I've heard that professional cyclists spend a TON of their training rides in Z1/Z2 and very little at/near FTP.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

it's not about doing less intervals - block training does as many HIT sessions as traditional linear periodization, but it does 5 session of HIT per week every 4th week with the other weeks having 1 HIT session/week vs. traditional 2x HIT/week. FWIW, each HIT session had a total of 30 minutes at VO2max. 



Dunbar said:


> I was responding to the question of "how do I know how hard to go today" which a good training plan lays out. AFAIK even block periodization specifies easy days. It doesn't strike me as all that shocking that the highly trained cyclists (those that have been training for years) have little to gain from doing lots of intervals. At that point you've made most of the gains in power and have little to benefit from trying to force more adaptations. I've heard that professional cyclists spend a TON of their training rides in Z1/Z2 and very little at/near FTP.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> As for arguments about whether one should hit a specific power number during efforts, well that's just an example of training _by_ power and not training _with_ power. Having a power meter doesn't give one an instant IQ jump.
> 
> A power meter is a tool, not artificial intelligence device. Used wisely it can be very rewarding, but remember that irrespective of whether you have some form of cyclo-computer device on your bike or not, the data on what you do is stored where it matters most - in your legs.


The example I gave was comparing how a powermeter actually gave you the workload you were doing instead of trying to guess at it with a hrm. In my extensive experience with hr and with discussions and viewing hr files of others, I've found that it is quite easy to overshoot workouts to a much greater degree when relying on hr due to the cumulative effect of training stress (depressed hr requiring higher efforts to reach hrs, done repeatedly, digs a very deep hole).

And in those situations where there is a specific degree of overreaching, relying on hr to guide planned workouts leaves a much greater opportunity for overdoing it. 

With all that said, of course power is simply a tool and the knowledge it takes to make the most out of that tool can take quite a while to figure out and needs to be used in conjunction with personal experience. 

Not using today what you need tomorrow is a key component of a sustainable, high-reaching training plan.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> Without any further personal attacks or insults, can you answer my questions about training with power?



Local Hero, my calling you a liar is not meant as a personal attack. A personal attack would be me calling you a liar for no reason whatsoever. 

Instead, I did so hoping you would own up to the fact that you were/are making up things and then posting them as something I've said. Or at the very least would stop doing it. That's why I expressly asked you to quote what you were alleging was said. You never did that because those quotes didn't exist. Because you made them up. 

I have answered your questions multiple times on the previous few pages. You not only refuse to acknowledge those posts, but you also then make up things that I have not said in any way. This is brazenly dishonest. 

Since you can't keep on topic and instead have to make up these things, there's nothing more that can be said to you regarding this topic. 

Apologies if any offense was taken, but there really is no point in regressing to a point of simply making things up.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Dunbar said:


> I was responding to the question of "how do I know how hard to go today" which a good training plan lays out. AFAIK even block periodization specifies easy days. It doesn't strike me as all that shocking that the highly trained cyclists (those that have been training for years) have little to gain from doing lots of intervals. At that point you've made most of the gains in power and have little to benefit from trying to force more adaptations. I've heard that professional cyclists spend a TON of their training rides in Z1/Z2 and very little at/near FTP.


Great point.

The more work you do, the more polarized your work becomes. 

Elite riders do so much training in z1/z2 simply because they're doing so much training, period. 

When I did weeks of 20-25 hours, I would have a ton of easy riding. Over 80%. 

When I do weeks of 10 hours, I do far more harder riding with no planned z1 training at all and high-end z2/low z3 training for filler days in between workouts. 

And I've said this before in one thread or another, but road racing is really not about ftp. It is about going crazy, crazy hard, recovering, then going crazy, crazy hard again. Over and over again. 

Especially in the higher categories, even getting in a break requires lots of efforts until the right combination is away. And then you might be killing it for a while to establish the break, riding high tempo in the draft and pulling through far, far harder than ftp. And then of course there's still the finish to get to. 

That's why you can have cat 1s with comparatively low ftps (myself included) who can still race well. And that's why you can have triathletes and stuff with raging ftps get dropped on the first climb or acceleration. 

There's a specificity that must be trained for and simply doling out ftp workouts will not cut it unless your ftp is so staggeringly high that you can ride everyone off your wheel (which at some point will cease to happen once you upgrade high enough).


----------



## 41ants (Jul 24, 2007)

JackDaniels said:


> Sorry, you are wrong.





cobb05 said:


> I've been pondering the idea of which power meter to get but have a question I can't seem to find online that has been answered. I'm looking into training heavily this year with the local bike guys. Already been doing some riding with one guy who rides with them and he has a power meter and can pace himself much better than I can on long climbs. I have a cannondale Caad10 outfitted with sram force. Really love the bike! However the question is would I notice any difference in the crank arms while peddling as the sram arms are carbon but the stages power meter is rival (Not carbon!) I have narrowed it down to getting either a powertap or stages. I already have a garmin edge 510 unit so all I need is the Hub or crank arm. I like the Idea of stages better as putting on a hub means that wheel has to always be working whereas the crank arm can be taken on and off with ease. Do I need to worry about having carbon on one side and not the other?


The Q Factor is probably going to be different. I checked it out for running the stages rival arm with my red crankset and it was over 1mm differential. You have to adjust your cleat (if possible), unless you don't care.


----------

