It's killing me but..........

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Are you still here RD with your connundrum? We've moved on to more exciting things.:DHave at it. I'm up to my eyeballs in pointers, blanks and nulls (problems that only a few people can relate to, but those who can relate appreciate the problems).

Have at it. I'm up to my eyeballs in pointers, blanks and nulls (problems that only a few people can relate to, but those who can relate appreciate the problems).Don't forget to derefrence those pointers RD.... :rolleyes:

Don't forget to derefrence those pointers RD.... :rolleyes:Ah, if only it were that simple. It's more like, "Are you really a zero or were you born as a blank or null." :D

To follow on with tbowren's answer .... you divide by .25 to reflect the roughly 25 percent efficiency in generating the additional power on the bike?.
not quite.

hint: physiological response/stress follows a 4th order relationship...;)

Geez it's getting crowded in here with all these mathematicians. I'm off to Mister Donuts till the problem has been solved. What donuts do you like Lucy, I'll get you one? :D TYSON

not quite.

hint: physiological response/stress follows a 4th order relationship...;)Aha! An answer lurks.:D

Geez it's getting crowded in here with all these mathematicians. I'm off to Mister Donuts till the problem has been solved. What donuts do you like Lucy, I'll get you one? :D TYSONNo kidding there~! My little head spins and spins like a top on the wrong axis. Wait that's more physics...

French Cruellers of course :D

P.S. I haven't had a donut in years~ !;)

No kidding there~! My little head spins and spins like a top on the wrong axis. Wait that's more physics...

French Cruellers of course :D

P.S. I haven't had a donut in years~ !;)
Sorry, too late I've already gone.:D

Sorry, too late I've already gone.:DFine, fine, be that way - you drive a hard bargain monsieur.

Vanilla latte and a Boston Creme. How's that?

Aha! An answer lurks.:D
i'm a late chimer on this thread so will let the honor of providing the answer go to someone more deserving. But that's a big hint i've given....

i'm a late chimer on this thread so will let the honor of providing the answer go to someone more deserving. But that's a big hint i've given....Yes, a huge hint. I gave a slightly more oblique hint a few posts back.:D

Yes, a huge hint. I gave a slightly more oblique hint a few posts back.:D
yeah i saw that and your hint was a lot more subtle than i could ever hope to be. I guess we've cheated (in a way) since we've got the benefit of reading Andy's literature on it....i remember the 'brick between the eye's' feeling when i first read just how much each effort/increase above threshold requires from a physiological perspective. That's why this thread is such a good one - the advice you're giving is helping people understand 1) why it's important to raise threshold power and 2) how to do it

i remember the 'brick between the eye's' feeling when i first read just how much each effort/increase above threshold requires from a physiological perspective.Boy, isn't that the truth! I still have dreams of that brick coming at me. One develops a much greater appreciation of increasing power by even a few watts when the real relationship is understood.:D

Boy, isn't that the truth! I still have dreams of that brick coming at me. One develops a much greater appreciation of increasing power by even a few watts when the real relationship is understood.:D
darn straight - the paragraph below put it all into perspective for me. A quote from "The Man" if i may:

"...Finally, yet another application of the IF/NP algorithm/score is as a teaching tool, as it helps demonstrate why, even when power is highly variable, it is still an individual’s “metabolic fitness” (i.e., LT) that is important in determining performance. That is, by illustrating (via a 4th order relationship – greater even than the 3rd order relationship between power and wind resistance!) how physiologically “costly” every sustained burst above LT truly is, the IF algorithm may 1) help less experienced riders understand why it is important to learn how to modulate their effort during mass start races, so that they don’t fatigue themselves unnecessarily, and 2) help even experienced riders understand how appropriate training aimed at raising threshold power can improve performance even in events seemingly much different from a TT (e.g., a criterium)..." (Andy Coggan, Training and racing using a power meter: an introduction)

Have just got back from a peaceful hour at Mister Donuts, and what has happened whilst I was away - there are bricks flying everywhere.;)

OK RD you win, my appetite has been whet. So if I go back to the beginning of this thread and absorb all advice given including links to Andy's book, will I glean all the info I need to fully understand the argot?

Give me a week and I'll get back to you.:D

It was easier in the days of get on the bike and just pedal. Oh, the nostagia!:rolleyes:

OK RD you win, my appetite has been whet. So if I go back to the beginning of this thread and absorb all advice given including links to Andy's book, will I glean all the info I need to fully understand the argot?You'd be better off reading the Allen/Coggan book, Training and Racing with a Power Meter. I think I recommended this to you about 500 posts ago. If you then reread this thread, you will learn new things. There is a nexus to many of the questions that have arisen in this thread, and that nexus is the underlying physiology involved in training. You have not necessarily wanted or needed to know why certain recommendations were made, but only what to do to achieve your immediate objective. But, let me assure you that you have been the beneficiary of several of us who have spent many hours studying these materials so that we can understand the why as well as the what.:D

darn straight - the paragraph below put it all into perspective for me. A quote from "The Man" if i may:

"...Finally, yet another application of the IF/NP algorithm/score is as a teaching tool, as it helps demonstrate why, even when power is highly variable, it is still an individual’s “metabolic fitness” (i.e., LT) that is important in determining performance. That is, by illustrating (via a 4th order relationship – greater even than the 3rd order relationship between power and wind resistance!) how physiologically “costly” every sustained burst above LT truly is, the IF algorithm may 1) help less experienced riders understand why it is important to learn how to modulate their effort during mass start races, so that they don’t fatigue themselves unnecessarily, and 2) help even experienced riders understand how appropriate training aimed at raising threshold power can improve performance even in events seemingly much different from a TT (e.g., a criterium)..." (Andy Coggan, Training and racing using a power meter: an introduction)
Thanks for the quote Dini - especially as my book, according to UPS, is set to arrive today.

So minus the book, I have to say the above is no small insight.

I know that wind resistance increases exponentially with speed (and I think of speed as nothing but a function of power, with say drag, Rr throw in too). Here though, we are saying that strain increases at an even higher rate with intensity.

That tells me, especially as a newbie, that my matchbook belongs in one place and one place only....my pocket :D

Also, I would infer it argues for L4 training as an ideal vehicle to raise FTP - the biggest bang for your physiological buck.

Well that's what I made of it, back to my granola now :cool:

Also, I would infer it argues for L4 training as an ideal vehicle to raise FTP - the biggest bang for your physiological buck.FTP is a function of both LT and VO2MAX. These are interrelated. Your VO2MAX determines your ultimate aerobic ceiling and is best targeted with L5 efforts. LT determines the percentage of your ultimate aerobic ceiling that you can sustain and is best targeted with L4 efforts. As a relatively untrained cyclist, you might want to start by targeting LT with L4 efforts. You will eventually want to target VO2MAX, but IMO this can come later. This may sound illogical, as in "Why not raise my ceiling first?" or "If I raise my ceiling, won't I raise my FTP as well?" The answer lies in part in the fact that VO2MAX responds more quickly to training and maxes out more quickly. LT responds more slowly and increasing FTP with L4 efforts is a long-term process (as in years). You can make huge progress in FTP with no work on VO2MAX whatsoever. So, back to your original statement, yes, L4 training is an ideal vehicle to raise FTP. You probably don't need to worry about L5, L6 or L7 efforts until, say, next spring. Isn't it nice that life is so simple?:D

darn straight - the paragraph below put it all into perspective for me. A quote from "The Man" if i may:

"...Finally, yet another application of the IF/NP algorithm/score is as a teaching tool, as it helps demonstrate why, even when power is highly variable, it is still an individual’s “metabolic fitness” (i.e., LT) that is important in determining performance. That is, by illustrating (via a 4th order relationship – greater even than the 3rd order relationship between power and wind resistance!) how physiologically “costly” every sustained burst above LT truly is, the IF algorithm may 1) help less experienced riders understand why it is important to learn how to modulate their effort during mass start races, so that they don’t fatigue themselves unnecessarily, and 2) help even experienced riders understand how appropriate training aimed at raising threshold power can improve performance even in events seemingly much different from a TT (e.g., a criterium)..." (Andy Coggan, Training and racing using a power meter: an introduction)

WHile my budget will never allow it, this paragraph seems to further point to the importance of using a power meter.

FTP is a function of both LT and VO2MAX. These are interrelated. Your VO2MAX determines your ultimate aerobic ceiling and is best targeted with L5 efforts. LT determines the percentage of your ultimate aerobic ceiling that you can sustain and is best targeted with L4 efforts. As a relatively untrained cyclist, you might want to start by targeting LT with L4 efforts. You will eventually want to target VO2MAX, but IMO this can come later. This may sound illogical, as in "Why not raise my ceiling first?" or "If I raise my ceiling, won't I raise my FTP as well?" The answer lies in part in the fact that VO2MAX responds more quickly to training and maxes out more quickly. LT responds more slowly and increasing FTP with L4 efforts is a long-term process (as in years). You can make huge progress in FTP with no work on VO2MAX whatsoever. So, back to your original statement, yes, L4 training is an ideal vehicle to raise FTP. You probably don't need to worry about L5, L6 or L7 efforts until, say, next spring. Isn't it nice that life is so simple?:D
RD, I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. You are saying that VO2Max is your utlimate ceiling, but that it can be improved? Surely the term ceiling implies an immoveable limit?
Not trying to be smart here - just trying to understand!