TSS and training hours???

peterpen

I think you're right on the money there. I've only been using a PM for a bit over a month, but to me it's just another tool. I already had a trainer and a plan before I got it and it just gives me more data in addition to HR/RPE. I pay attention to it during intervals to make sure I'm in my target zone, I love looking at my numbers after the rides, and I'll be curious to see how TSS tracks over longer periods of time. To keep this somewhat on topic, for the past month I've averaged 12-15 hours/week, which is about how many hours/ week I did for the last year (barring tapers) and right now it's equating to 800-1000 TSS/ week.

However, I can't really imagine designing rides to hit a certain TSS or IF - to me that's putting the cart before the horse. I have a larger plan that is designed for me by someone with 20+ years of experience working with pro cyclists and I've already seen big dividends - +30watts at LT, vastly improved climbing ability, 3 - 5 mph faster sprint, etc since 5/05. (I was using Friel before that for 1 yr, and riding w/no structure but lots of miles before that, so I was probably at a 'semi-trained' state.

erm, what was my point? ... oh yeah - it's just one tool. I'll probably use my PT for early season and non-target races, but I doubt I'll pay too much attention to it during the actual race. I did 20 road races last year, I can't really imagine any situation where knowing my current watts would have earned me a better result.

I like my PT and Cycling Peaks b/c they help me quantify my training load. I have no plans for basing my actual training plan around them, however. I love me some data, but I love riding and racing my bike more.

RapDaddyo

TTs are the obvious application of precise, specific, real-time power information. But, I think there are application opportunities in mass-start races as well. Let me illustrate my point with a race scenario. There are 5 miles to go in a RR. You are in the lead group with 10 other cyclists. Your max NP for the race duration is 300w. The pace has not been too brisk and your NP at this point in the race is 270w. You know that your max NP for the remainder of the race is 340w, subject to the constraint of NP=300w for the total duration. A 1 mile climb is around the corner, so you decide to attack and try to make a break at the beginning of the climb. You make this decision on the assumption that you don't think the group will get sufficiently organized to mount a 340w chase. If a strong rider goes with you, so much the better because you can work together and increase the pace. If he won't work with you, then you just drag him along anyway and figure out how to win the sprint. This is real-time decision making, with power information (don't ask me how to get all that data, just assume its availability).

Didn't intend to hijack the thread. This will be my last post off-thread.

beerco's alias

What you're really asking is: "what would someone who's already got it all figured out have to gain?" and the answer is nothing.

The question coaches and athletes have to ask themselves is: do I have it all figured out? Will a powermeter help me figure it out?

Dini77

[QUOTE=beerco's alias]What you're really asking is: "what would someone who's already got it all figured out have to gain?" and the answer is nothing.
QUOTE]

No, not really.

I don't think for a second that I have it all figured out (reading one of Andy's posts makes it quite clear how much i don't know ). But, my current training/coaching/racing program is getting me results and i'm improving towards my goals. There'll come a time (as with everyone) where the rate of improvement will decrease/plateau - i haven't reached that point yet. At that time, i'll need to figure out how to keep improving. Maybe it's at these times when you're trying to eek out small improvements for big efforts that a PM really comes into it's own - that's probably why all the pro's are using them. They provide more definitive data and detail that were previously not known and armed with this, they're able to revise their training/racing program so that they can keep improving.

I guess the question really becomes: Do you need a PM to get you to your goals?

For me, i'm goign to invest in a PM because i feel that 1) i will need one (maybe not right now) to enable me to reach my goals 2) i'm just plain curious 3) what the hell else is there to spend $$ on than bikes

I apologise for taking this thread off it's initial course.

RapDaddyo

I think that is an excellent question and I think I can state categorically that the answer is No. To reach your goals, you need to do the training, which means subjecting your body to the stress levels required to induce the desired adaptations and get the necessary rest. Your body doesn't know or care what approach you used to create the stress level -- it will respond in the same way whether you used a PM, a HRM, RPE or speed (e.g., on a climb).

That being said, I can make a very compelling argument for training with a PM. I firmly believe I can push myself closer to my limits with detailed and specific knowledge of power. I can plan a 3 hr ride that results in not only a target number of high-intensity (interval) minutes at each level but also a total ride NP. I can push this total ride NP to within 5w of my capacity. Frankly, I don't know how I would do that without a PM. What's the value of that ability? I think it is efficiency. If I have 3 hrs available for a ride, I can milk every minute out of that available block of time.

Racing is a whole other story. Even though I believe current PMs provide a pitifully small amount of useful information for power management in a race, that information is nonetheless orders of magnitude better than having no power data at all.

frenchyge

If you have specific, measureable, achieveable goals, no. But how many people can really claim that? Sure, we all have goals to "Win the _____ Championship Race" but how do we translate that to our training and track progress towards it? Also, what happens when some stud shows up and kicks our butt? Does that mean we failed to meet our training goals?

Power gives you a whole 'nuther vocabulary for measuring performance in race or training, and even translating between the two. If I get my butt kicked in the "_____ Championship Race" while still managing a personal best 1-hr power by 3%, well then I'll just have to congratulate the guy and hope he Cat's up before next year. It's possible I made a tactical error, but it's not a training failure on my part.

As was mentioned before, if your coach has all that stuff figured out, then that's great and you may not get as much benefit from your PM as some of us are claiming.

beerco

I think that yes, I do. I think that having a PM accelerated my learning curve by two or three years. I think I'm able to be faster on less time than those without.

Could my goals be achieved otherwise? Yes, but, firstly I probably would fail more often before achieving the goal and secondly I'd need more time to make up for not having a PM.

Dini77

I agree with this and your other comments

Don't get me wrong, I definitely see the value of having a PM (again subject to what your goals are). As for level of improvement - i hope i can get similar levels as you guys have. That would be awesome!

What you're describing sounds more like you getting more specific about your training and better understanding the adaptations being induced by various training - not really dependent upon a PM.

Not sure i agree. See RD's last post particularly the sentence "...you need to do the training, which means subjecting your body to the stress levels required to induce the desired adaptations..."

IMO, understanding the basics of training, what adaptations various training is supposed to induce and how to factor this into your goals is the critical factor. Without this, a HRM, PM (or any other device) become about as useful as a flyscreen door on a submarine.

In any case, i guess each person does what's right for them and who am i to argue otherwise. That's enough out of me - time to actually ride my bike.

frenchyge

It sure is. Because PM data is a direct measure of duration-specific fitness and is more consistent than HR, those adaptations become much more visible, as do the areas that still need attention. A power-based training plan can be tweaked every few weeks if needed, to ensure progress is being made toward specific goals.

You'll see, enjoy your PM when it comes.

beerco

Absolutely incorrect. You write:



Without a powermeter, how do you know what training you're doing? Without one, it takes years and years to figure out what kind of training you're really doing. It takes years to calibrate your sense of PE and very astute observation/perception to know what kind of dose you're truly providing. And this is assuming you don't shoot your sense of PE out the window with an HRM.

Training without a powermeter is like cooking without measuring utensils and not being allowed to taste the dish until it's done.

Sure, you can get by that way but how many dishes will come out too salty or undercooked etc. How would you follow a recipe? The advanced stuff like baking would be impossible without something to measure with. How long would it take and how many mistakes would you make before you started to figure out what works and what doesn't.

The sooner in one's training career one gets a powermeter, the sooner you get to taste the dish before it's done.

acoggan

I've never been coached by anybody but myself. OTOH, I started riding in 1974, racing in 1975, and studying exercise physiology in 1977. I've also been training extensively on ergometers since the early/mid-1980's. Thus, I would say that I would qualify as someone who was "a reasonable way up their personal development curve" before I started using an on-bike powermeter regularly in 1999 (I borrowed an SRM for a few months in 1996, but really only enough to whet my appetite for one of my own). Despite this, I feel that the things I have learned by using a PT and now an SRM out on the road have been invaluable, and my performance has improved as a direct result.

Dini77

i think you've missed my point or i guess i haven't made it clearly enough. I never disputed the benefits of a PM and as a way to measure what is truly happening when training/racing etc it's the best method we have currently.

My point is that there's 2 components: (1) what specific training you need to do to reach your goals and (2) how to do this most effectively and efficiently. The decision to get one really depends on the answer to both of these components - ie a PM is not necessary for everyone

I stand by my view that (1) does not require a PM. Without knowing what you're trying to achieve, why you are doing specific training drills and what these drills are supposed to induce, what real use is a HRM, PM, etc other than interest value? Do i need a PM to tell me that doing 20min L4 intervals is targeted at increasing FT???

I think your comments relate more to point (2) on doing whatever it is you're doing more effectively/efficiently and thereby being able to modify/adapt/better plan (1) - on this point, i agree and is in fact why i'm getting a PM!

Anyway, bottom line is....i'll need one, i want one and i'm getting one

BTW - i'm a terrible cook so wouldn't matter what utensils/recipe i had, it always tastes crap.

Dini77

I'm looking forward to getting mine and hope to get the same value as others have. I could open a can of worms by asking which you'd prefer/recommend out of PT and SRM.....but i won't

beerco

What I'm saying is that without a PM, you can only say in general what training you need to reach your goals.