What does all this mean to me? I could conceivably get another bike. :)

Right. Many people can see that if they have more than one power meter they need a way to compare one with the other; self-consistency isn't enough. When you're dealing with a coach, the coach (almost surely) has more than one client so he or she will need to know how you're doing against objective standards in order to give you the best advice about how to improve. For example, some coaches will have you do certain kinds of tests to identify your strengths and determine your potential. Those tests require a lot more than just consistency or repeatability.

Even if you don't work with a coach, at some point most users of a power meter will do a performance that's surprising (either better or worse than they'd expected) and they'll want to know whether that was real or if their meter was off. In that situation you can save a lot of time if you have a way to check the accuracy of your power meter.

Junior got a letter asking why he was not posting power. So, reading between the lines he's riding with a PT meter more. He/we (the coach I pay) still do hardly anything with it (pages posted on that in this thread) other than record. This is primarily as his training is max zone III stuff and an odd sprint here or there. So while some are putting out high 300 numbers, he turns in mid-low 250 numbers, and we do nothing with it. It is a training method choice and those choosing that method, get little from a meter. It does of course become an issue when those that look at numbers want numbers. We may have to cross that bridge later.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is and I can't say that I really understand riding with a power meter but never doing anything much with the information. Obviously however do what is working for you.

When I am referring to "training with a power meter," I mean training using power targets. If you're doing that, you want accurate data. If you're training with HR targets, you want accurate HR data too. Ditto pulse ox, if that's your target, you want your pulse ox to be accurate.

What kind of target is best- power vs HR vs pulse ox (or some combo of all three)- is beyond the scope of my comment.
@shovelhd, who certainly knows more about training than I do, was making the point that accurate data is important if you race. I was really making the counterpoint that accurate data is important if you train systematically, racing or not. That's all.

Your quote was this: "Anyone who is going to the extent of working with a coach or systematically training with power"
I re-read your quote and I should not have quoted you without parsing it. Sorry for the confusion.
Totally agree if one is systematically training with power - they need an accurate power meter. I was not disagreeing with you there although my quote appeared I was.

It is the "going to the extent of working with a coach" [not using power training] where precision does not matter a whole bunch.

His coach may be warehousing the data for later use. Back when power meters first started getting used in the mid-1980s, there weren't yet any "training with power" guidelines. Even in the late 1990's, there were few guidelines. Andy Coggan (famously?) spent his first many months of power meter usage just recording data, without changing anything about the way he trained. But those months of data came in handy so he could see what his historical baseline was. I tried to do the same thing when I first started using a PM.

I keep the data going back years. But unlike in the past the 3 years new training method have him mostly under zone III, so it is noodle data. I can't see what would be done with that. His highest recorded power is a couple years old.
I was asked for a power file by a power coach (guy who wrote some of the WKO algorithms) so I'm taking some old stuff and some current and we will see if he finds the new stuff useful. I doubt it.

It's only "noodle data" if you think the only thing that matters is high values.

I don't know. I do / did think that you need high values/near max values to compare to. My statement was for someone NOT using any systematic power program that I didn't think the accuracy of the power meter was all that important.

It would be like reporting you lifted 50lbs, 10 times when you don't know your max weight or max reps, but you think both max weight and max reps are around double that - then you find the weights were off and you really lifted 55lbs. Back to the power meter - How would power data from someone tooling along the Pacific Coast Hwy 50-60 miles on a 70 degree sunny day (which is what is being collected right now) be useful? And how/why would it matter if the PT (being used) was off by 10%?

Max Ave HR:
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=504930
Max 20 min power:
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=504931

I don't know your coach so I don't know what he or she intended or intends to do with your kid's data. However, there are many (many) more things one can do with power data than simply looking at MMP curves.

Some of the stuff I've been fiddling with, including drag measurements, reserve capacities, fatigue recovery, quality vs. quantity trade-offs, equipment choice, sensitivity to altitude and temperature, and a couple of more arcane things, don't use maximal efforts. These kinds of analyses look at relationships in the data over a range of submaximal output. Because of the known relationship between speed and power (part of which is linear and part of which is nonlinear) a 10% error in power at low speed or power and a 10% error in power at high speed and power don't affect that relationship the same way. Just as an example, (though it sounds like your kid's coach isn't having your kid do this) you may be familiar with ramp tests to estimate VO2Max. In that particular kind of protocol, the ramps have to have the same "step size" or else the estimate will be off. It turns out there are other measurements that have similar requirements that power be accurate across the range of testing.

Even if your kid's coach isn't doing that stuff now, warehousing the data means he or she can go back and analyze the data anytime in the future. Every once in a while I pull out a data file from a dozen or so years ago to see whether something I'm measuring with current data looks the same as it did back then. I've had several different power meters in the intervening years so I wouldn't even try that if I couldn't rely on the accuracy of a long-ago meter.

It appeared the things you mentioned required someone to at least pay attention to power / have the display turned on. Can you do those things you mentioned without the rider having the head unit display available and riding in Zone III?
I totally agree you can train to power. I agree it works well for many and I have used it for testing equipment.

VO2max we did a couple times in a testing place and that is another number I don't know what to do with.
I've had this PT about 5-6 years and before that a few others. this one seems precise, although no idea about accuracy. So much changed in the rider from 2009 to 2016 that that old data is something I could not see using - maybe I'll pull out his racing age 10 year power numbers and put them in the family album.

Most of these "newer" measurements are things that are calculated post-ride and sometimes require comparisons against at least some historical data. So what you need is the downloaded data from the ride (and sometimes, past rides). Perhaps sometime in the future these kinds of metrics will become available within a head unit so you can track them during a ride but at the moment I don't know of any head unit that does.

Which doesn't mean your kid's coach is actually looking at the data. I'm just saying that if you don't warehouse the data then you'll never get a chance to examine the data later at all.

He does have a PT on his training wheel. For clarification - again...This was a small part of the quote I was saying did not apply:

"...Anyone who is going to the extent of working with a coach ... should care about the accuracy ..."

We don't know how accurate the PT is. We do know it is repeatable and as we've used the same one over half a decade, we can compare some things like aero wheels, position etc. I just didn't consider that training and it did not involve those outside the family. For working with a coach it is not used and the accuracy does not matter to us or the coaches we work with.

Perhaps you've hired a coach who doesn't know how to use power data. Many good coaches don't. (Worse, many coaches think they do but they don't).

There are ways to check the accuracy of your PT, but since you don't seem interested in that it's probably not something you need to know.

Well I suppose that is true on both accounts. I think the trainer is very good and does not know how to use power. But that was by choice. I've known this guy (and seeing him tonight) last 7 years Dave Jordaan Cyber Cycle Coach and he was a math guy for WKO. I chose to go the non power training route and use an older body builder turned cyclist as a trainer using weights and other things for cardio with less bike time. From time to time we do get good power numbers recorded because I manage to sneak a PT wheel on in a group ride and something happens. At a later date as an adult we may switch to a more power based training approach.

Edit Add: Dave is an excellent power coach and we go to him to learn how to get more power. But we don't use a power meter for that. Sounds weird, I know. The goal is to win races, power just helps.

So I don't cross post this is what we do: http://www.bikeforums.net/33-road-bi...l#post18541833

So I'm pretty confused at where to go from here. I started training seriously in June and have since built up to a CTL of 110. I went through 15hr+ base weeks that really ramped up my CTL and seemed to improve my endurance greatly. I have improved my FTP consistently and it seems to not have platuead (sp?). In the past few weeks I have started adding in more vo2 max work, which is definitely a weakness. My questions are:

1.) Is a CTL of 110 overdoing it this early in the season?

2.) Now that I've been doing more intensity and less volume, I've noticed my CTL has been teetering between 100 and 110. Am I still going to see improvements even if my CTL is stagnat?

3.) Piggy backing off the last question: Instead of letting my CTL teeter totter, would it be smarter to take a few weeks easy and drop it down to the 80's or so and build it back up for the end of the season?

More background: I'm 20 and thanks to night classes I have 15hrs+ to train. I take 2-3 days easy per week, and know how valuable rest is. I also know most of these numbers don't mean a whole lot, but it's the only way I know how to communicate the context of my training over the internet. I usually do 3 weeks of 850tss followed by 1 week of 400tss to unload. From now until August I will be racing pretty much every weekend, and being a cat 4, I don't really taper for 'A' races. My goal is to just continually build fitness throughout the season. I'm built like a climber, and generally do better in very long hilly road races, so I try to train with a high volume.

My current 'build' style weeks consist of Mon: off or easy spin, Tues: Threshold work with some vo2 if feeling well (200tss 3.5hr), Wed: 2hrs endurance (100tss) or easy if tired, Thurs: Endurance and vo2 track work (~200tss) Fri: Easy spin (<40Tss), Sat: Road race or similar workout (3hrs+ 200+tss), Sun: Crit or track workout (high intensity 100+tss).

I'd like to hear any criticisms or suggestions to my training. I'm a bit lost on where to go from here, but can't afford a coach. Main concern is 10-20min power. Really appreciate any help!

Also, here's a link to my PMC chart: Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet You can clearly see the CTL stagnation starting in January when I started adding in intervals.

@petereps
my opinion - 1) no 2) yes 3) no

I started last season with about 110 ctl, it hovered between 100 and 110 most of the year and I did fine in re:fatigue. I personally find it way more taxing to build at 800+ tss/week than to maintain 700/week. An extra 100+ tss workout/week is a lot. It's 1 day more of load vs. 1 day of rest. 3 easy days kept me way fresher than weeks where I only squeezed in 2.

Either way that's a lot of training and you will have to prioritize sleep and diet.

Thanks for the help. I've always been indecisive about that third day of rest. What are your opinions on 5 days of training vs 4? I know I'd be fresher during races if I did 4, but not sure how much potential fitness I'd lose by dropping a day. Do you notice significant long-term performance gain/loss from 5 vs 4 days?

Yea I'm starting to think that the skew towards volume is a major flaw in the chart. For example, yesterday I did 2 hours of mostly z2 with a little SST. 110tss and felt pretty easy. Today I did 6x3' vo2 intervals on a trainer and 30' z2, which game me 70tss. I was gassed and walking back up the stairs to my apartment was a struggle. I think the PMC really doesnt add much to training, as someone who does strict but short interval sessions would probably top out at 80 CTL but kick my ass in shorter races where endurance doesn't mean much.

The thing is you did vo2 the day after you did a little tempo, and you did it on the trainer. The PMC is not gospel, but it is a valuable tool. How you are actually feeling should override the chart. I find CTL to be a great tool for keeping track of long term progress along with TSS. As I've progressed as a rider the CTL I can hold has come up steadily, as has my ability to do high TSS rides day after day. It's not perfect but IMO it's better than the pen and paper journal I used to keep.

long-term you will be strongest if you train in a way that is sustainable and not so taxing that you say f-it and take 8 weeks off the bike. I joke that I've been on a 10-year build, but no joke I'm in year 7 of riding "seriously" and still see season-to-season improvements in the raw numbers (at age 36 now).

There's a lot of guys who like to take a month or two totally off, but I've found guys who maintain a similar kind of all-year level of fitness. There are many roads to Rome - I'm only talking about the one I'm on.

This is my CTL for the past 4 years. I was coming off a clavicle break in 2011 and the significant dips here are another clavicle, my honeymoon, a trip to taiwan, and a recent crash where I broke my ass. I used to do lots of volume which I think is over-represented in the 120+ CTL I had in 2014 because my climbing rides are overstated in TSS vs. flat/fast rides with less time at threshold climbing and more time at super-threshold bursts with recovery mixed in. Despite changing to a flatter training profile and more z6/z7, when I went to do hillclimbs last October I'd gained about 20 watts on my climbing threshold (ctl had declined during race season but threshold still crept up).

http://i.imgur.com/EXWMQUe.png

Good point, didn't consider the fact that I'm fatigued and how that relates to tss and difficulty. I agree about CTL being useful, I just don't really know how to use it from here on out. Like Ygduf's PMC, I think my CTL will remain stagnat for quite some time, but I guess I can still keep an eye on it to make sure I'm not detraining/over doing it.

Thanks for all the help. My PMC will probably look more and more like yours from 2014-2015. Nice to hear that even though CTL didnt really change, fitness was still improving. My main worry is that by no longer increasing CTL, adaptions will stop as your body is used to the day-to-day efforts. But
I guess I was just over-analyzing the chart.

from jan14 to about aug16, your CTL never dipped below 100?

CTL is just training load. Think of it in terms of %. You do X hours at 50%, Y hours at 100% and x,y,z hours at every zone in between. As you do your intervals or workouts, you do them at % of FTP. Every 6-8 weeks you retest and adjust your FTP, then you go back and do the same workouts at the same % of your new FTP. Rinse, repeat. CTL stays pretty constant and FTP changes in response to the training load.

being dedicated is the goal. Cycling is a dumb, dangerous sport. I'm not going to go out there and risk life and limb and be half-assed in my preparation!

That makes a looooooot more sense, never thought of it that way.