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.

I think every one of them went home thinking, "Hell, if he can do it, I can do it." It'll be interesting to see their progress over the next several months.
Cool, so they all underestimated the dedication and determination Tyson has shown in his training and amazing progress. Interesting, indeed. I'm anxious to hear how many of them really can do it.

Finds a rapier to fend off the impending whining... ;)

One thing that few newbies are aware of is that the way PowerTaps calculate power actually contributes to (or even causes) the fluctuations in displayed power. An SRM averages torque for each crank revolution and then multiplies by wheel speed to compute power. As long as pedalling is constant, power is constant. By contrast, a PT averages torque for 1.26 seconds (or longer, depending on settings) and then multiplies by wheel speed to compute power. The problem is that, depending on cadence, some 1.26sec periods include portions of an additional downstroke, or maybe 3 downstrokes instead of 2, etc. which means that even though pedalling is constant, computed/displayed power will jump around depending on how the periods fall. You can observe it on your trainer by pedalling around 60-80 rpm as smoothly as you can and watching power jump around drastically. Then, raise cadence to 95 rpm and watch it magically smooth out. At 95.2 rpm cadence, the crank makes exactly 2 revs every 1.26 seconds, so each 1.26sec window looks the same as the others. When you download the file, you'll see a big difference in the smoothness as well.

Just some PT trivia for you. Some people see this as a fault in their pedalling style, even though it's largely a function of the PM.No whining, I say right to the gallows!

Seriously though, I had read this piece you mentioned about how the PT calculates power vs. SRM (in the Hunter/Coggan book of course). The latter was entirely out of my budget, thus not an option.

Back to the power calculation - it is one thing to read it, quite another to experience it. From WKO I can see most of my cadence falls in the 80-100 range - but even on the trainer the display fluctuates. I may try what you suggested - around 95 rpms - just for comparison purposes. On the road I imagine wild fluctuations are to be expected.

Cool, so they all underestimated the dedication and determination Tyson has shown in his training and amazing progress. Interesting, indeed. I'm anxious to hear how many of them really can do it.
Indeed!

You know, it reminds me of that saying about expensives bikes....at the end of the day you still have to pedal the thing.....and that's just it, whether you are 20 or 40, you still have to do the work, put in the effort, and stick with it. Assuming you have a decent or sensible training plan, the latter points are what matter.

No whining, I say right to the gallows!Whiners be walkin' the plank on my ship.... arrr!

On the road I imagine wild fluctuations are to be expected. Yes, and ignored. Just pedal. ;)

Cool, so they all underestimated the dedication and determination Tyson has shown in his training and amazing progress. Interesting, indeed. I'm anxious to hear how many of them really can do it.I think it's just that they hear about the benefit of targeted adaptations and, without a case study example, it's sort of a dimensionless potential. When they see the progress an individual non-professional athlete has made, it becomes a dimensioned potential. Clearly, after referencing Tyson's progress, their ears opened noticeably wider.:D

I think it's just that they hear about the benefit of targeted adaptations and, without a case study example, it's sort of a dimensionless potential. When they see the progress an individual non-professional athlete has made, it becomes a dimensioned potential. Clearly, after referencing Tyson's progress, their ears opened noticeably wider.:D
Sure, people perk right up when they hear big results, but do how often do they consider what's been keeping them from seeing those results themselves? Hopefully, it's a smart program, like you say, and not the fact that for some reason they haven't been out there busting their hump like Tyson did. Most diets guarantee great results - if followed. ;)

Did they understand the expert-level online coaching that his program utilized? :)

Sure, people perk right up when they hear big results, but do how often do they consider what's been keeping them from seeing those results themselves? Hopefully, it's a smart program, like you say, and not the fact that for some reason they haven't been out there busting their hump like Tyson did. Most diets guarantee great results - if followed. ;) I think few recreational cyclists (there are only a few of us in my club who race) have ever seen performance quantified. They know there are others who climb faster than they do (and some assume it is due to "technique") and they know there are some whose wheel they have a hard time hanging onto, but most have never seen performance quantified. When they do see it quantified and then see that performance can be increased substantially with a structured training program, it begins to take on real meaning. Then, when I give them a case study in the form of an athlete who is older than they, spends a very reasonable amount of time on the bike per week, trains in a gym and who is not a member of a racing team, they start to realize they are looking at themselves in the mirror. After the light bulb goes off, their attention to more info on how one goes about increasing his power for use on either weekend rides or centuries or just beating your riding buddy up the hill really skyrockets. I think I could pause at that point and say, "Okay, it'll cost you $100 to find out how to do that," I think they would have all reached for their wallets.:D

Did they understand the expert-level online coaching that his program utilized? :)Oh, I didn't share with them who advised my mystery athlete, just that he had rigorously followed a structured targeted adaptation program.:D

I think few recreational cyclists (there are only a few of us in my club who race) have ever seen performance quantified. They know there are others who climb faster than they do (and some assume it is due to "technique") and they know there are some whose wheel they have a hard time hanging onto, but most have never seen performance quantified. When they do see it quantified and then see that performance can be increased substantially with a structured training program, it begins to take on real meaning.
No argument there. It's funny the perception that 'intervals' or 'structured training' fit squarely in the realm of 'racers' or 'serious riders'. I've recently got my dad into cycling, and I'm struggling with all those perceptions. Just trying to get him into a jersey was a challenge because he's not a 'serious rider'. :rolleyes:

Oh, I didn't share with them who advised my mystery athlete, just that he had rigorously followed a structured targeted adaptation program.:D
Aha! So that's when they'll be reaching for their wallets... :D

Aha! So that's when they'll be reaching for their wallets... :DThat's when I tell them about Hunter and Ric.;)

Tyson, you have served a useful purpose in my club. Last night I gave my second "Training Chalk Talk" (really more of a PowerPoint presentation) and when I got to the part about one's potential improvement by targeting specific adaptations I used you as my example. The room was filled with people in their 20s to 40s and you should have seen the look on their faces when I shared your FTP progress in less than a year. It served its purpose. I think every one of them went home thinking, "Hell, if he can do it, I can do it." It'll be interesting to see their progress over the next several months. So, thanks for being my role model.:DLOL there RD. I have no one to compare figures with, so have absolutely no idea how much progress one can reasonably expect to make in 9 months. All I did was jump on the bike and do what you told me to do - no big deal there!

Actually, I tell a lie, when I thought you were being a little conservative, I ignored what you suggested I do. I always remember you saying "You'd be better of sticking with 140 Watts for a few weeks". I was hungry so I moved on up to 160W. And when you said you might be able to do 200 Watts by the 15th May, that fired me up even more. In fact on April 19 did 2x15 @ 200W, and the next day did 1x30 @ 200W and 1x10 @ 200W.;)

And then 3 weeks later on the 7th May the freakiest day of all - 1x20 @ 250W followed by 1x10 @ 250W and 1x7 @ 240W without a rest between the last 2.

Thinking about it, I haven't really made much progress since that eventful day.:(

I'm considering taking up stamp collecting as an alternative to cycling.
I wonder if eating too many donuts affects your stamp collecting ability.:D

I think it's just that they hear about the benefit of targeted adaptations and, without a case study example, it's sort of a dimensionless potential. When they see the progress an individual non-professional athlete has made, it becomes a dimensioned potential. Clearly, after referencing Tyson's progress, their ears opened noticeably wider.:D
True statement. I am a new, recreational cyclist, who really wanted to improve. SO, I bought Friel's Training Bible, but then decided it was too complicated and was written for someone with much more time than I had to dedicate to cycling. So, I was going back to just riding the roads with no plan or purpose. However, after reading this thread (and Tyson's story)- I have come up with a structured/workable plan. In only four weeks the improvements have been phenomenal. I can't wait until spring!

Funny thing is that I wish I would have kept Freil's book as I think I will probably be ready for it in another year or so.

Seriously though, I had read this piece you mentioned about how the PT calculates power vs. SRM (in the Hunter/Coggan book of course). The latter was entirely out of my budget, thus not an option. Don't be concerned with the "aliasing" effect as descibed, while real, it won't impact your overall power data, not how you will train/race with it - and if your CPU has some smoothing applied to the power readings, you may not even notice it. SRM is a fantastic tool but comes with its own idiosyncrasies, like the need to zero offset frequently on rides, slope calibration etc. User needs to be on top of those things to verify it operates as intended, which is no big drama but some find it a challenge and don't bother meaning their data may lose some validity. All the PMs have their own "personalities" to which we are forced to adapt!

I'll have to see what battery the hub takes and where I can get them - suggestions always welcomed!Well I had a look as I have a pro hub for my track wheel - they were Energizer LR1 - it takes two batteries. They look like AAA batteries but about 2/3rds the length. Pharmacies, camera/photo shops would have them. The CPU uses the standard 2032 coin shaped battery.

Now after going to look, I realised I've taken my own advice a bit to heart and discovered I have 4 of the LR1s, 4 x 2032s and 6 x the 303/357s that the SL hub uses (different, much smaller, batteries to the Pro hub). I obviously see them, think - I'll pick a couple up "just in case" completely forgetting I already have plenty!:eek:

As a tip - on the day you do change batteries, make a comment in that day's WKO entry. Then when you notice unusual behaviour in the power readings/operation of the CPU (which is often a sign batteries are on the way out), you can search "battery" in athlete calendar to check to see how long since you changed them.

You though, would probably have a far better idea of what, say, X number of watts 'feels' like. Speaking of feel, I like the study you did about aero drag (CdA) w/power meters. Seems like a good way to find some 'free watts' in a sense. Doing it on a velodrome was the perfect method, short of a wind tunnel which is many things, but cheap isn't among them! Now if only we had a velodrome here :)Maybe - but if I was sans PM - I would definitely ride by feel and be darn close to riding overall at the intensity I intended. Teaching good pacing for longer intervals is often a challenge - most people go way too hard early on, only to fade in the latter part of their effort and don't end up with the intended benefit.

The aero drag testing sheet was fun to work out but much thanks to Dr Coggan who was very helpful as I fixed my mistakes along the way. Taking something descibed in a book and then applying it is quite satisfying and stretches our understanding of the technology and its applications.

Turns out quite a few have used it (although some laugh at it but do I care;)). I will use it again myself as I am planning to upgrade my track bike frame in next month (so I better get an improved number :eek: ). You can do it on flat roads with your road/TT bike as long as there isn't much wind disturbance. There's a new sticky thread on biketechreview forum about protocols.

Anyway - isn't this the "killing me" thread?

....after analyzing last night's L4 power files, I did my first quadrant analysis. 2 x 20 isn't exactly a lot to go off, but it was a neat little graph. Pedal velocity is good but pedal force is low, yet another thing to work on http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gifNow tell me you did this just for fun, right;) ? I did. And frenchyge is right - just pedal, power is what matters*. You'll start another cadence thread if you're not careful.....:D

* Not that QA isn't useful, it is.....

So when are you planning your first race and what will you do - a TT perhaps?

Don't be concerned with the "aliasing" effect as descibed, while real, it won't impact your overall power data, not how you will train/race with it - and if your CPU has some smoothing applied to the power readings, you may not even notice it. SRM is a fantastic tool but comes with its own idiosyncrasies, like the need to zero offset frequently on rides, slope calibration etc. User needs to be on top of those things to verify it operates as intended, which is no big drama but some find it a challenge and don't bother meaning their data may lose some validity. All the PMs have their own "personalities" to which we are forced to adapt! Right. I think you and frenchy have basically said the same thing - don't worry too much about it, just ride!

As far as fluctuations, I'll share my approach. Tyson for instance, often writes that he did 20 min @ say, 250 or what have you. I can't and don't really try to keep my power at one specific number. Instead I have an FTP estimate and just try to keep the power between 88-105% of it during those L4 intervals. I don't know really know of another way...

What you said about the SRM reminded me of the need to 'zero-it' for every ride and such. Indeed, pro's and con's to all of these devices.

Oh and thanks for the tips on batteries. I will need to go look for some extras, absolutely dreading the thought of being without! Noting it in WKO seems like a simple but prudent thing to do as well.


Now tell me you did this just for fun, right;) ? I did. And frenchyge is right - just pedal, power is what matters*. You'll start another cadence thread if you're not careful.....:D

* Not that QA isn't useful, it is.....

So when are you planning your first race and what will you do - a TT perhaps?Heh....QA - purely for fun! The tools related to and for power training are so vast and extensive. One can learn quite a bit about their own style, tendencies, etc.

No, no, definitely not a cadence thread. I was so affected by that one thread, now whenever I hear someone say cadence, I instinctively blurt out 'red herring' http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

And yes, this is the 'its killing me thread' - I'm sure our savvy protagonist will write again soon http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Ah, first race, well, given that we here in America are now in fall and headed towards winter, nothing is planned. Which, given my level of fitness (lack thereof!), is fortunte as it spares me many a blush were I to enter a race now. I'd like to do an uphill TT next year ( this one: http://www.bicyclerace.com/about.htm ), I tend to gravitate towards those types of events.

I looked at the results for last year, category 4, and have figured out what kind of power numbers I would need to have a respectable finish. So for me, that means MP120 >= 200, which I am nowhere near now!

Right. I think you and frenchy have basically said the same thing - don't worry too much about it, just ride!

As far as fluctuations, I'll share my approach. Tyson for instance, often writes that he did 20 min @ say, 250 or what have you. I can't and don't really try to keep my power at one specific number. Instead I have an FTP estimate and just try to keep the power between 88-105% of it during those L4 intervals. I don't know really know of another way...

What you said about the SRM reminded me of the need to 'zero-it' for every ride and such. Indeed, pro's and con's to all of these devices.

Oh and thanks for the tips on batteries. I will need to go look for some extras, absolutely dreading the thought of being without! Noting it in WKO seems like a simple but prudent thing to do as well.


Heh....QA - purely for fun! The tools related to and for power training are so vast and extensive. One can learn quite a bit about their own style, tendencies, etc.

No, no, definitely not a cadence thread. I was so affected by that one thread, now whenever I hear someone say cadence, I instinctively blurt out 'red herring' http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

And yes, this is the 'its killing me thread' - I'm sure our savvy protagonist will write again soon http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Ah, first race, well, given that we here in America are now in fall and headed towards winter, nothing is planned. Which, given my level of fitness (lack thereof!), is fortunte as it spares me many a blush were I to enter a race now. I'd like to do an uphill TT next year ( this one: http://www.bicyclerace.com/about.htm ), I tend to gravitate towards those types of events.

I looked at the results for last year, category 4, and have figured out what kind of power numbers I would need to have a respectable finish. So for me, that means MP120 >= 200, which I am nowhere near now!
Ehh? I'm sure I posted on the last page. I think the pages are moving too fast - can't keep up eh Lucy.;) You'll just have to increase your FTP.:p

As a tip - on the day you do change batteries, make a comment in that day's WKO entry. Then when you notice unusual behaviour in the power readings/operation of the CPU (which is often a sign batteries are on the way out), you can search "battery" in athlete calendar to check to see how long since you changed them.Good suggestion. You might want to add to the comment the total miles on the PT hub at the time of the battery replacement. You can get this number by scrolling through the bottom row of the computer screen. I think the best predictor of battery replacement is total hours, but miles can be a reasonable proxy for hours. FWIW, my experience is that I get the flashing transmission icon (signal to replace the battery) about every 2500 miles. I'm not sure how many miles I could ride after I get the flashing icon because I have always changed it the day that I got the flashing icon.

Ehh? I'm sure I posted on the last page. I think the pages are moving too fast - can't keep up eh Lucy.;) You'll just have to increase your FTP.:pHeh...yes you did post last page!

Nope, I can't keep up, not even close. Just imagine yourself being back in, oh Feb. - that's where I am http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

As far as fluctuations, I'll share my approach. Tyson for instance, often writes that he did 20 min @ say, 250 or what have you. I can't and don't really try to keep my power at one specific number. Instead I have an FTP estimate and just try to keep the power between 88-105% of it during those L4 intervals. I don't know really know of another way...That's a pretty large range. You will eventually want to become a little better at managing power during a ride. It's pretty easy on a trainer and much, much more difficult on the road, but can be done in both environments. I use cadence to manage power. On the trainer, I bring my power up to the general vicinity of my target (e.g., +/- 10W), then change gears if necessary to get my preferred cadence, then I basically manage my cadence. I tend to ride in the range 90-100 most of the time, so each rpm translates to ~1% of my target power. If, for example, my target power is 300W and I am at 295W, then I know that I need to increase cadence by ~2rpm. Once I settle in on the right cadence, I just maintain it and I know that, by definition, I am keeping power within a narrow range.

For training purposes, it's no big deal to have your power vary through a range as broad as 88-105%. But, you would want to be able to manage power in a much tighter range in a TT. I try to manage power to +/- 5W in a TT. This requires continual practice, so I ride my solo training rides with the same discipline even though I would attain the same physiological adaptations with a much more loose pacing plan.

That's a pretty large range. You will eventually want to become a little better at managing power during a ride. It's pretty easy on a trainer and much, much more difficult on the road, but can be done in both environments. I use cadence to manage power. On the trainer, I bring my power up to the general vicinity of my target (e.g., +/- 10W), then change gears if necessary to get my preferred cadence, then I basically manage my cadence. I tend to ride in the range 90-100 most of the time, so each rpm translates to ~1% of my target power. If, for example, my target power is 300W and I am at 295W, then I know that I need to increase cadence by ~2rpm. Once I settle in on the right cadence, I just maintain it and I know that, by definition, I am keeping power within a narrow range.

For training purposes, it's no big deal to have your power vary through a range as broad as 88-105%. But, you would want to be able to manage power in a much tighter range in a TT. I try to manage power to +/- 5W in a TT. This requires continual practice, so I ride my solo training rides with the same discipline even though I would attain the same physiological adaptations with a much more loose pacing plan.Hey RD - another set of 2 x 20's are in the books - so now I can respond http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Hmmm, you must have great awareness and ability to zero-in on a power range. Not something I have, at least yet. I opted to work with the 88-105% range as it coincides with the sweet-spot to top of L4 zone. My thought being well, it is the right zone to be in for increasing FTP, even if I am lacking in ability to keep the power band +/- 10W. So you know, even when my cadence remains steady and with me in the same gear, I am seeing the power go up and down by about 30-40 watts. The longest I have seen the same number for watts, on the display that is, is perhaps 3-4 seconds. Also, you mentioned smoothing - I have my data recording set at 1-second - are you referring to smoothing on the cpu display itself though??? Should I switch the wattage display rolling average from 1 second to something higher - say 3?

Thank you for chiming in with useful advice, as always.