hhnngg1

As said, I'm finding this is not true at all, unless you intentionally compare drastically different elevation profile rides but even if you do, you can correct for it if you know the elevation profile.

If I know the elevation profile, I can predict my ride average speed with very good accuracy since I usually have a similar elevation ride to compare it to. I was able to estimate my avg speed in my last 56 mile half ironman down to the 0.5mph even before I saw the actual speed once I knew the elevation profile. And it doesn't have to be dead-on elevation - within 1000ft of climbing elevation similarity, the avg speed fluctuation is similar to the power fluctuation over a 25-50mile ride.

I do agree that now that I have a PM, I don't train on avg speed at all - I train only with power, so you're right on that front. My point though, is that just because the power is better than avg speed, doesn't mean avg speed is useless for those without PMs. And in looking at my prior data, both from PM and from before PM, that avg speed was pretty darn good, even in instances where I thought it wouldn't be. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's been remarkably consistent in my rides. The main area where the avg speed data got more variable was with heavy drafting rides - then the avg speed opened up more than 1mph, but for nondrafting, it's solid. Solid enough that I'd say to someone that if they're tracking their progress, as long as they know the elevation profile, they can track with avg speed pretty well even on new courses, and if they're doing same or similar courses, with very high objectivity.


If you want to talk about a truly useless number for me, I'll pick CADENCE . Has had no correlation with improvement or worsening, both before or after powermeter, no matter what the terrain. If you're going to say avg speed is useless, I could point to many power variables including Normalized power, TSS, and total work performed that all can be said are similarly useless if incorrectly used and look just as bad as avg speed if used in isolation.

Bob Dopolina 

Cadence is useful for new riders but once you find it it does become a non issue.

I understand that your are now working with power as you principal training metric but what is it you think ave spd is telling you? Nothing. You can use it to guess how long a ride should take but it isn't useful for training. Just because you can guess what your average will be for a given ride doesn't mean anything, tell you anything or give you any kind of useful tool for your training.

It is a BYPRODUCT of training, not a goal. Let it go.

hhnngg1

My 319 watts that day was pretty good for the group of mediocre triathletes that participated, true - I admit I felt like 'da man' when I blew by pretty much everyone in the group, including some that had started over 6 minutes ahead of me.

But it's pretty routine stuff for any Cat3 rider in California - in fact, it would probably end up in the bottom 20% of the field against Cat3s and probably barely make the upper third of Cat4s if I randomly took a group of 20 of such riders in CA and raced them on the same course TT style.

hhnngg1

I'm not letting it go - I have the data showing that it's good stuff.

I also have data showing that it can be easy to look at powermeter data such as NP, avg power, TSS, and IF, and be completely misled - I have this very data on my rides, which led me to a deeper investigation of them since there are very clear circumstances (which are actually easier to get misled than by following avg speed) where you can look at them and get the wrong idea of your workout or even training load. (I thought TSS was bulletproof but I have rides where the total kJ performed is much lower on one ride yet the TSS is similar since there are accelerations and there is NO way those were equal training loads.)

I know you're going to say now that you should only use "time spent in power" but, honestly, that's very similar to "time spent in avg speed".

You can believe what you want and I'm not going to change your mind, and I'll believe what I want, but for sure, when you look at my rides and see how consistent the avg speed is and how well it tracks with my improving performance, there's no way you can point to it and say its useless. It was a primary performance tracking metric for me before the PM, and after the PM, it's still the first number I look at when I download my data to GC, even if it's nice to have the NP,avg power, TSS to verify it.


I'll stick to calling metrics useless when they truly are useless, like cadence for me.

Bob Dopolina 

You are very funny.

I don't think you understand what you are dong at all. Suggesting that your perception of your effort over a ride is more reliable than what your PM is telling you is some pretty funny stuff

Again, what do you think your ave spd I'd telling you and how can you use it to train? Not how can you look back at a ride and draw some VERY GENERAL conclusions but how can you use your ave spd before a ride to set your training goals for the day?

Ave speed is a sledge hammer and a PM is a scalpel. Which do you think is the most precise tool?

hhnngg1

I don't disagree that training by power is more precise. Never said it wasn't. And you're putting words in my mouth saying my perception is more reliable than my PM.

This doesn't mean training by avg speed is useless, not by a long shot.

Furthermore, you have to be very disciplined about power training to really do it 'by the power' outdoors. Doing something like 4 x 10mins @ FTP or 110% FTP is in practical terms, much harder to do outdoors in reality unless you're very disciplined. For sure some do it, but I consider myself pretty serious about training and I have a hard time doing that on myoutdoor rides since it means I'd have to find a stretch of road and willingly ride it over and over again since otherwise, rolling hills or stops will interfere with the intervals.

I do, however, target power on my weekday trainer rides using Trainerroad.com. (Although avg speed happens to be a totally legit measure there as well - in fact, TR uses 'virtualpower' which is entirely based off speed and which for training purposes is every good as the powermeter power even if it's not accurate. It's very precise for good trainers, which is good enough for training.)

You don't need a scalpel for every workout, or even a minority of them. And I wouldn't use sledgehammer as the analogy - it's much better than that when you're landing within 0.1-0.4mph of your prior rides or estimates on race day with the elevation profile.

Bob Dopolina 

Your words. Your perception vs the data.

Again, how can you use ave spd to PLAN A TRAINING RIDE?

What does this metric tell you? How can you factor in ALL the variables to create something more than a very vague measurement?

Sledge hamer.

achoo

Geez, I must know a lot of "really disciplined" cyclists.

Or it's really not that hard - IF you REALLY want to train with power.

If "rolling hills or stops will interfere with the intervals" when you're training with power, they'll interfere with your average speed, too.

Campag4life

Hear ya. Lots of fast guys on TT bikes around.
Speaking of watts as it relates to aero profile, I found this interesting tid bit:

Watts as a function of rider position:

Required output to maintain 45 kph (28 mph) on a:


Standard road bike, hands on hoods = 465 Watts
Same bike, hands down on the drops = 406 watts
Same bike with aero bars = 369 Watts
Same bike, triathlon position (5.5 cm lower bar, saddle forwards)= 360 Watts
Same bike, as above, with 2 tri spoke wheels = 345 Watts
Cervelo TT bike with 2 tri spoke wheels = 328 Watts
Cervelo TT bike with tri spoke front & disk rear = 320 Watts
Cervelo TT bike, tri spoke front & disk rear + aero helmet = 317 Watts
Cervelo TT bike, same as above + skin suit = 307 Watts
Cervelo TT bike, same as above, with saddle pushed back 3cm = 293 Watts

From 465 to 293 watts!! That's obviously a reduction of 172 Watts just fromaero stuff!!


Bike and set up really change the landscape when it comes to watts versus speed.

achoo

Seems as if he thinks he's made some discovery about training with average speed.

He's got all this new information since he got a power meter and he doesn't know what to do with all of it.

jrobe

I think this is correct. No one would tout average speed if they really knew how to use power data.

hhnngg1

Apparently I do, as I'm significantly faster than I was just last Sep, with a combination of both Trainerroad.com power-based training as well as continued weekend long rides. I'm pretty happy with my results from training in the past 5 months, and I do know exactly what to do with the numbers from powermeter and what they mean, as well as their caveats.

Bob Dopolina 

You are doing structured training so as a newer rider you should be seeing improvement and you should be happy with those results.

Down the line it gets much harder to make progress. The rate of improvement slows. Once you get to that point you will really find out if you understand what AND WHY you are doing what you are doing.

If you continue to focus on ave spd it will lead you down the road to mediocrity. Let it go.

hhnngg1

I'm newer to riding, but not so new that I wasn't plateau'd out - was plateau'd out before last year for almost 2 years after a fast improvement in my prior 2 years thanks to 25 years of running racing background. (I ran over 80miles per week for most of a year at one point, which is more than most folks on this forum BIKE in a week.)

I know exactly what I'm doing with the power. Again, I never said I'm training by avg speed and ignoring the powermeter. My post was just to deny that avg speed is as terrible and useless as you make it out to be. That does not in any way mean I'm worshiping it and not training by power. Rather than making empty comments about how I have no idea how to train with power or what it means, why don't you point out EXACTLY what I'm misunderstanding about power, and the variables associated with it.

I'd argue that I'm actually training with power BETTER than most people with powermeters. When you do Trainerroad.com, you're really doing the power-based intervals correctly, with all the complicating terrain and conditions variables removed. A 2 x 20 @ FTP is in fact, 2 x 20@ FTP - no stops, no excuses, just hammer it out. And yes, there's an FTP test to determine your FTP before your start. This is one main factor (of a few I've identified) that have resulted me in breaking past my prior plateau.

gregf83 

On numerous occasions you have praised the benefits of the structured training you did on Trainer Road. Was avg speed or avg power a useful metric for you when performing those workouts? Of course not. Training outdoors is no different than indoors.

If you were to do the bulk of your structured training outdoors you would find avg power as useless as avg speed in guiding your workouts.

Your comments on being misled by TSS, NP etc are mainly due to you not maintaining an up to date FTP. Without a reasonably accurate FTP, TSS and IF are meaningless numbers.

In your case with a newborn and time constrained training it likely doesn't matter if your FTP is off as you are not at risk of overtraining. If you have more time to train and care about peaking for events and managing your training load, TSS would become more useful.

achoo

That just means you weren't training right for two years.

What makes you think average speed helps you train right now?

Historical results?

No, you don't.

Or you wouldn't have posted the comments you did about TSS. Because you don't understand how and why rides that feel different can have the same TSS.

How can you possibly know that? You have a sample size of one - yourself.

No, "complicating terrain and conditions" do NOT really impact training at a specific power level outside as much as you seem to think. You can either hold your power levels or you can't - all you have to do is avoid stops.

That's true whether you're indoors on a trainer or riding outside.

It's more than a little revealing that you think you have to post the fact you did an FTP test.

What makes you think you've discovered something new?

hhnngg1

@ greg: I have two recents rides only 2 weeks apart where the NP, TSS, and IF suggest a significantly harder ride, yet it wasn't the case (even objectively verified by total kJ). My FTP was absolutely not the issue in this situation. And with a good FTP test, you're pretty solid for awhile - I'm far past the 'jump 20 watts in a month' phase.

And the avg speed on Trainerroad is exactly the same as avg virtualpower in Trainerroad. NOT a useless metric. Not the be all end all, but you go faster on avg on the trainer, you're putting in more work. Speed (or avg speed) on a trainer is a VERY useful metric for Trainerroad if you don't have a powermeter. I started TR without a powermeter just using virtualpower, and my workout quality is NO different since getting the powermeter. (The absolute values of the FTP are different but that makes no difference in quality of training since it all depends on % FTP.)

I'm not at risk of overtraining at my volume true, but I'm not exactly slacking. A normal week for me is a 280 TSS (3-4hr) solid effort ride on Sat followed on Sunday by a 2hr45 minute run with 2500 feet of elevation, and then training a minimum of 90 minutes all the other days of the week. I ramp that up to 2-2.5hrs on the weekdays in the month before the race. THe powermeter is still useful for me even with me not at risk of overtraining.

Again, you're missing my point. I'm not saying avg speed is some great metric that should guide your training entirely (no metric does this, including all of the power based metrics) or be the end all of all your answers. I'm simply saying that it is NOT a garbage data point, particularly if you don't own a powermeter and otherwise have no other metric contrary to what people are saying. Just because you acquire a powermeter and then no longer look at avg speed, doesn't mean that it's a useless metric by any means.

hhnngg1

@achoo - Ok , please point out exactly where I have some huge misunderstanding of power or the variables associated with it since it's pretty clear to you that I've got some huge errors in my power-based thinking and understanding. I'm all ears. And contrary to what you're saying I am NOT training based upon avg speed.

jsutkeepspining

total kj burn is not the way to verify if a ride is hard or not. 4 hours and 3600 kjs (ap and np are the same) and im at a decent endurance ride. 4 hours and 3000 kj's but a np of 320 and im tired the next day and can't do the endurance ride i first mentioned (where as i would do two of those in a row at the end of my training week. a bit under 200 tss). Also i wouldn't say you train by power better than most, sounds like you're a bit average, or worse than the average power meter user. power is more than just np, kj, ftp, and tss). also bump your ftp, you cant have an ftp of 250 and do 320 watts for 30 minutes. go out one day and do an ftp test outdoors. then you have two ftp's the indoors and the outdoors to have a more accurate tss estimation for every ride, rather than a major overestimation for outdoor rides.

achoo

Right here's one:

Do you understand why there are different power zones? Do you know where they come from?

Hell, I don't know anywhere near enough to come up with a good training plan on my own - but I know enough to know I don't know enough...

Then what's the heck is this for:

You're contradicting yourself - you say you don't use it for training, but you claim it's "good stuff".

If you're not using it, it's useless and irrelevant.

hhnngg1

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's useless and irrelevant. If you don't have a powermeter you don't train with power, yet clearly power is not useless and irrelevant. I also don't train by 'total time' but that also doesn't mean it's useless and irrelevant. (Cadence, however, is something that for me is pretty much truly irrelevant - you have to make extreme cases like intentionally pedaling at sub 40rpm or 150+rpm or some other bizarro situation for me to even notice its effect on my training.)

Yes, I understand power zones and why there are differences in threshold, subthreshold, aerobic endurance, and most of the other variations in them, and how they affect both TSS, NP and IF. Until you can actually point to something where I'm misunderstanding it, you're just making false accusations.

achoo

Yeah, no kidding. Total kj tells you pretty much nothing about how hard a ride is - much less "objectively".

I've done a few hour-long rides where I've probably burned about 500 kj that left me HURTING. And average speed for those rides was probably about 10-12 mph.

jsutkeepspining

any variable workout and the average speed is useless. i might do threshold intervals in the middle of a 2 hour ride that averages 230 watts, but the np is well over 300, and the average speed is a solid 14 mph, or i could go do a uch easier z2 workout and average 22 mph. (i do like total kj burned for long endurace rides just as a measure of how many calories i burned. it's realtivly accurate when the ap and np are very similar, but for a race....it's useless).

hhnngg1

I'm still not buying your argument that I don't know what I'm doing with power. Subjectively that ride I was talking about was SUBSTANTIALLY easier (I did it with a group that I'm faster than), and while NP was only 20 watts different and TSS only different by 30, the total kJ was almost half. I say objectively because I know you're going to dismiss anything I say as subjectively easier - but the kJ was over 1000 LESS on the easier ride - a few sprinkled sprints don't necessarily make a short ride as hard or same training load as a long one, contrary to what TSS or NP can sometimes suggest.

achoo

If you take a measurement and don't use it, it is - by definition - useless.

And if you don't use it, it's also irrelevant. Again - by definition.

Horrible analogy. Power is an input - whether your measure it or not. Not a result. If you measure a result and don't use it - it's by definition useless.

Not really relevant.

If you really do understand that, you never would have done something like claiming total kj "objectively" determines how hard a ride is.

See previous sentence.