Has Anyone Seen My Form?
03-24-09, 09:27 AM
#26
Banned.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Woodstock
Posts: 5,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
03-24-09, 09:34 AM
#27
Geosynchronous Falconeer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,312
Bikes: 2006 Raleigh Rush Hour, Campy Habanero Team Ti, Soma Double Cross
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I could average 600W for an hour if I'm allowed to drop the zeroes. Obviously the stress of intervals is different from a steady state effort. But you still can't compare them by just dropping the zeroes and averaging. They're just different types of efforts. Any effort to equate them will always leave out some important factor.
If you really want to track your fitness, the numbers you're comparing need to be from the same type of effort. Anyone can average a higher power for a steady effort versus intervals. That's why average power solo is higher than in a group. (included zeroes.)
So, CC, I'd say your fitness is right on track, actually a little better.
But if you really want to track it rigorously, you need to do a specific maximal test without concerns like a group or traffic. Those little variations can hide your true progress.
For example, every 6 weeks or so, I do a 20 minute maximal test. By the way, this is the single most painful part of my training plan. Anyway, if I've improved by 1 watt/week, then I would call that good news. But a 6 watt change obviously can easily be overwhelmed by external factors if you're not doing a controlled test.
Oh damn, I'm really geeking out here. Ok, that's enough.
If you really want to track your fitness, the numbers you're comparing need to be from the same type of effort. Anyone can average a higher power for a steady effort versus intervals. That's why average power solo is higher than in a group. (included zeroes.)
So, CC, I'd say your fitness is right on track, actually a little better.
But if you really want to track it rigorously, you need to do a specific maximal test without concerns like a group or traffic. Those little variations can hide your true progress.
For example, every 6 weeks or so, I do a 20 minute maximal test. By the way, this is the single most painful part of my training plan. Anyway, if I've improved by 1 watt/week, then I would call that good news. But a 6 watt change obviously can easily be overwhelmed by external factors if you're not doing a controlled test.
Oh damn, I'm really geeking out here. Ok, that's enough.
__________________
Bring the pain.
Bring the pain.
03-24-09, 09:42 AM
#29
Genetics have failed me
For example, every 6 weeks or so, I do a 20 minute maximal test. By the way, this is the single most painful part of my training plan. Anyway, if I've improved by 1 watt/week, then I would call that good news. But a 6 watt change obviously can easily be overwhelmed by external factors if you're not doing a controlled test.
__________________
Gelato aficionado.
Gelato aficionado.
03-24-09, 09:43 AM
#30
Up on the Down Side
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago(ish)
Posts: 6,334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
Not really.
Yeah, you're a regular Mama Cass there, tubby.
Gimme a break, man. We know you! You weigh about a buck 45. Fat if you're comparing to a Chinese gymnast, I guess.
Originally Posted by CC
In my case the higher weight is pure fat so negligible power effect. When someone is truly slim, weight can affect power output but I've got a long way to go
Gimme a break, man. We know you! You weigh about a buck 45. Fat if you're comparing to a Chinese gymnast, I guess.
Last edited by CyLowe97; 03-24-09 at 09:47 AM.
03-24-09, 09:53 AM
#31
samoots
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: nw suburbs, IL
Posts: 504
Bikes: Moots Vamoots
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I could average 600W for an hour if I'm allowed to drop the zeroes. Obviously the stress of intervals is different from a steady state effort. But you still can't compare them by just dropping the zeroes and averaging. They're just different types of efforts. Any effort to equate them will always leave out some important factor.
If you really want to track your fitness, the numbers you're comparing need to be from the same type of effort. Anyone can average a higher power for a steady effort versus intervals. That's why average power solo is higher than in a group. (included zeroes.)
So, CC, I'd say your fitness is right on track, actually a little better.
But if you really want to track it rigorously, you need to do a specific maximal test without concerns like a group or traffic. Those little variations can hide your true progress.
For example, every 6 weeks or so, I do a 20 minute maximal test. By the way, this is the single most painful part of my training plan. Anyway, if I've improved by 1 watt/week, then I would call that good news. But a 6 watt change obviously can easily be overwhelmed by external factors if you're not doing a controlled test.
Oh damn, I'm really geeking out here. Ok, that's enough.
If you really want to track your fitness, the numbers you're comparing need to be from the same type of effort. Anyone can average a higher power for a steady effort versus intervals. That's why average power solo is higher than in a group. (included zeroes.)
So, CC, I'd say your fitness is right on track, actually a little better.
But if you really want to track it rigorously, you need to do a specific maximal test without concerns like a group or traffic. Those little variations can hide your true progress.
For example, every 6 weeks or so, I do a 20 minute maximal test. By the way, this is the single most painful part of my training plan. Anyway, if I've improved by 1 watt/week, then I would call that good news. But a 6 watt change obviously can easily be overwhelmed by external factors if you're not doing a controlled test.
Oh damn, I'm really geeking out here. Ok, that's enough.
03-24-09, 10:12 AM
#32
3 seconds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago, NW burbs
Posts: 2,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Boy, you guys really want to peel back the onion ... OK. I can't help it, I'm an engineer. 
Actually, it's not better. If you really want to track fitness, Recursive's test is pretty good but this is better because it covers purse sprint, "surges" and functional threshold power (FTP). FTP is the whole enchilada ... oh great ... now I'm hungry.
To really track my performance I look at this and coordinate my training according to training stress score (TSS). Here is a link to get on board.
https://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles.aspx
* ignore the high 1-2 second numbers ... data errors - trust me
The dotted line is last year Sep-Oct. Clearly my performance is down, and if I did watts/kg on the left axis, like i normally do, it would look even worse.
To really track my performance I look at this and coordinate my training according to training stress score (TSS). Here is a link to get on board.
https://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles.aspx
* ignore the high 1-2 second numbers ... data errors - trust me
The dotted line is last year Sep-Oct. Clearly my performance is down, and if I did watts/kg on the left axis, like i normally do, it would look even worse.
03-24-09, 10:18 AM
#33
Geosynchronous Falconeer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,312
Bikes: 2006 Raleigh Rush Hour, Campy Habanero Team Ti, Soma Double Cross
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Ok, I'm convinced that your fitness is lower than last fall, but that's to be expected.
Do you have data from this point last year?
Do you have data from this point last year?
__________________
Bring the pain.
Bring the pain.
03-24-09, 10:32 AM
#34
3 seconds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago, NW burbs
Posts: 2,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Recursive... yea but again, this is after recovering from 5 months nearly completely off last year ... to just pure slovenliness this year. Months of March compared, small data samples. I'm better this year ... but not by a lot.
So, better than last season (well I would hope so) but well off my peak ... like you said ... some to be expected - just more of a drop than I wanted.
So, better than last season (well I would hope so) but well off my peak ... like you said ... some to be expected - just more of a drop than I wanted.
Last edited by ColorChange; 03-24-09 at 10:35 AM.
03-24-09, 10:33 AM
#35
grilled cheesus
this is the most pathetic sandbagging thread i have evar read through. well played CC. later.
__________________
03-24-09, 10:34 AM
#36
3 seconds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago, NW burbs
Posts: 2,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
03-24-09, 12:06 PM
#39
3 seconds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago, NW burbs
Posts: 2,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here is the corrected power curve comparing my few rides so far with last year. The short term gap isn't quite as bad as it appears as I haven't been trying to hit big numbers there, I have been pushing mostly 85-90+% hr to build ftp. It still shows I'm off about 20% from my peak last year.
03-24-09, 03:11 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: OTB
Posts: 700
Bikes: Canyon Ultimate, GF 29'r, Specialized Crux
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Damn! I must be really old school. No chart and graphs. No powerpoint presentation. 
Just my legs and lungs hurt -- must be spring
Just my legs and lungs hurt -- must be spring
03-24-09, 03:13 PM
#41
Banned.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Woodstock
Posts: 5,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
03-24-09, 03:48 PM
#42
samoots
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: nw suburbs, IL
Posts: 504
Bikes: Moots Vamoots
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
