Results 1 to 31 of 31
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,411

    Group ride whore

    So this winter I built a real good base. A good solid 4 months of steady large volume riding, with the traditional strength, tempo, threshold progression.

    Now that it's the end of March, the local group rides are starting. Last week I did:
    -Sunday, 3 hour road group ride, steady and not hammered
    -Monday - off
    -Tuesday, 1 hour road group hammerfest
    -Tuesday night, 2 hour road group ride, Zone 2ish ride (I was group ride leader for slower riders)
    -Wednesday, 1 hour aerobic spin with some spin-ups
    -Thursday, 1 hour road group hammerfest, with another hour of zone 2 on top
    -Friday, 3.5 hour Zone 2 with a few 10 second sprints
    -Saturday, 1 hour Zone 1-2
    -Sunday, 2 hour MTB group hammerfest
    -Monday, off
    -Tuesday, 1 hour road group hammerfest, with 1 hour zone 2 afterwards

    Any of you guys group riding this much?? I tell you what, I'm just lovin it.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pop_martian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,657
    I wish! What's a group ride!? None of my friends can get their man parts out off their wife's purse long enough to go on a ride with me so I usually end up going solo all the time.
    "Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?"

  3. #3
    CB2
    CB2 is offline
    Jam Econo
    Reputation: CB2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,214
    No.
    During the week I get most of my riding in commuting, and on the weekend occasionally I'll hookup with some friends for a ride but more often than not ride solo.
    I really prefer riding on the road alone because I'm kind of funny about stop lights; I obey them.

  4. #4
    Brant-C.
    Reputation: bcaronongan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,056
    not that much.
    saturday - group road ride.
    sunday - group mtb ride.
    monday - rest.
    wednesday - group road ride or group mtb night ride.
    thursday - group mtb night ride.
    otherwise, i'm solo.

    night rides will be gone soon and will become afternoon rides.

    i also got a huge base (for me) this year. started it in december. doing lots of trainer sessions 5 to 6 days per week. i used the spinervals base builder dvd collection. this past sunday there was an mtb ride and the hills are where i saw my return on investment! it felt great! i start my build phase in april.
    I just like riding my mountain bike.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,961
    12.5 hrs is a good average week.
    Try to be good.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,411
    Quote Originally Posted by pop_martian
    I wish! What's a group ride!? None of my friends can get their man parts out off their wife's purse long enough to go on a ride with me so I usually end up going solo all the time.
    Too bad you don't live in O-town. All those group rides were either club rides or shop rides.

    They have their designated day and time (and route), and just see who shows up. No membership required.
    Last edited by Poncharelli; 03-23-2011 at 06:04 PM.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,929
    What do you define "Zone 2" as? Would that be "Endurance" according to the Coggan power zones?

    http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articl...ew-coggan.aspx

    From your power data how much time did you spend in the "Active Recovery" and "Endurance" power zones for the complete week? What was the TSS for the complete week?

    Unless they're structured as a chain gang or explicitly going to be a hard ride then the quality of group rides can be very variable. Lots of group riding may add volume but won't offer a great deal of training benefit if you're sitting in the group and not trying very hard, even if the average speed is fairly high.

    What you might want to do for the steady road rides is to take your mountain bike instead of the road bike and try to stay on the front so you have to put more effort in.

    Mountain bike club rides in particular can be very stop start with a lot of stationary time stood around chatting. They're often social rides rather than training rides - not much use for improving fitness. Road club rides aren't always much better. A steady road club ride can end up being little more than active recovery with the occasional hill thrown in.

    The picture below is a power data extract from a road club run. The first section of the graph is where I was sitting in the group following wheels and chatting, the green highlighted section is the difference in effort when I rotated through to being on the front of the group. Sitting in was little more than "junk miles" as it took no effort to keep up. It was only when I went onto the front that it started to get harder.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Group ride whore-power_club_run_slipstreaming_and_on_front.jpg  


  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    287
    I'm kinda with WR304 on this one (as much as I can understand autism ). Unless your group rides knock your d*$k in the dirt or have you constantly on the verge of being dropped, it's not the most strategic use of training time.

    Unless of course you ride with faster cyclists, in which case it can be like a race simulation. Those kind of group rides are pure gold.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,411
    [QUOTE=WR304]What do you define "Zone 2" as? Would that be "Endurance" according to the Coggan power zones?[QUOTE=WR304]

    Yes, Endurance power zone. Zone 2 which is 150- 200Watts. I target 170-180 ideally.

    From your power data how much time did you spend in the "Active Recovery" and "Endurance" power zones for the complete week? What was the TSS for the complete week?

    I have poweragent, and can't easily get that info. But a large part of that riding would be in the Endurance and active recovery power zones. On Thursday my TSS was 106. Tuesday (2 road group rides) was 162. On the Friday Zone 2 ride, it was 117. Wednesday and Saturday was probably well under 100 (easy riding MTB on flat dirt road)

    Unless they're structured as a chain gang or explicitly going to be a hard ride then the quality of group rides can be very variable. Lots of group riding may add volume but won't offer a great deal of training benefit if you're sitting in the group and not trying very hard, even if the average speed is fairly high.

    What you might want to do for the steady road rides is to take your mountain bike instead of the road bike and try to stay on the front so you have to put more effort in.

    Mountain bike club rides in particular can be very stop start with a lot of stationary time stood around chatting. They're often social rides rather than training rides - not much use for improving fitness. Road club rides aren't always much better. A steady road club ride can end up being little more than active recovery with the occasional hill thrown in.

    When I use the term hammerfest, it is organized as a hammerfest. For example, the Tuesday-Thursday ride is a lunch time ride, 1 hour total. The club leader has it organized as a 10 minute warm-up, 40 minute hammerfest (crit pace, but over rollers and hills), 10 minute cool down. On this lunch time ride the intensity factor is just under 1.0 for the 40 minutes, for me. When the ride group is stacked, the NP will exceed 300W, which sucks when my FTP is around 270 (and I'm mostly drafting). So it's just a matter of time before I get dropped, at those power requirements.

    That Thursday I had listed above was an easier day(NP=252), and I had to push the pace. Here's the power distribution per PowerAgent for the 40 minutes:
    Zero Watts 8.99%
    Recovery 16.15%
    Endurance 34.43%
    Threshold 10.77%
    Race Pace 9.80%
    Max 6.40%
    Supra Max 13.46%

    Here's how PowerAgent defined the zones per my FTP (it's a strange distribution):

    Recovery 0 123
    Endurance 124 247
    Threshold 248 280
    Race Pace 281 314
    Max 315 347
    Supra Max 348 2500

    It's hard to believe I spent that much time above 350W. I guess that's why it hurt like freakin' hell.

    Once I finish these rides (10min WU, 40 minute HF, 10min CD), I ride home targeting Zone 2, 170-180W.

    For the Sunday MTB ride, I don't have a PM on the MTB. But it had a similar feel and purpose as the hammerfest rides. We line up in ability order (in which, I'm not first), and hammer to a designated meeting point. We wait for everyone, then hammer to the next meeting point. It was about 20-25 minutes per hammerfest. But you're right, the MTB ride does have more idle time.
    Last edited by Poncharelli; 03-23-2011 at 04:21 PM.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,411
    Quote Originally Posted by lassiar
    I'm kinda with WR304 on this one (as much as I can understand autism ). Unless your group rides knock your d*$k in the dirt or have you constantly on the verge of being dropped, it's not the most strategic use of training time.

    Unless of course you ride with faster cyclists, in which case it can be like a race simulation. Those kind of group rides are pure gold.
    Absolutely agree. "It's like getting your lungs pulled out of your body with a fish hook" is the metaphor I like to describe for the hammerfest rides.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  11. #11
    Rod
    Rod is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,020
    The weather is just starting to allow us to ride outside a lot in Kentucky. I can barely get people to show up for one group ride a week. Last week 3 guys including myself showed up. The week before 9 were there.

    Thursday: 15 mile mtb ride with a friend. 1.5 hours 2 large hills 2k feet of climbing with intervals
    Friday: 10 mile mtb - got caught in the rain 1 hour
    Saturday: 2:30 - group ride - felt sick zone 2-3 1 massive climb
    Sunday: 1 hour 36 minute zone 2
    Day before: 3 hill sprints - small hill in the dark
    Yesterday: 2 hour solo 3 large climbs exhausting ride 31 miles
    Today: rain 45 minutes zone 2 before a huge storm

    I have a late racing season so I'm just trying to get base miles. I've maintained my fitness really well, but I haven't spent a lot of time on the bike. I can do a 50 mile road ride with ease, so I'm not sure how long I should focus on base. I'm thinking at least another month. I've also been doing some jogging and basketball at the same time.
    There is not much choice between rotten apples.

  12. #12
    Team Awesome
    Reputation: playpunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    974
    I don't really like riding alone. I know that champions train alone, but I don't give a crap. When I ride alone I go really, really easy, typically.

    We have Wednesday Night Worlds, a fast paced Thursday night MTB ride, and usually long rides on the weekend. I try to tag along with fast folks on those.

    I've seen my all time max HR on the Weds rides. I think it's fast enough.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,961
    funny the timing of this thread...

    yesterday i took off really late in the day for my ride (work has sucked) and i wasn't so motivated so i was just sort of spinning along. a couple guys from the local road race team passed me... game on!

    it was nice to have someone to ride with and it definitely got me motivated (maybe too much so considering i have a big race this weekend).

    i do most of my rides alone lately since the wife is out, it has been effective but occasionally having someone else around is really nice.
    Try to be good.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    285
    I would do all group rides if I had a group ride available for what I was trying to do that day.. a lot of times there is too much stopping.. or the day of the "fast" ride is a day I need an easier day since it's the day after my longer Sunday ride. When I find people of similar fitness/skill levels I just hit them up and try to ride with them

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    463
    too much road. wrong forum.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by gcavy1
    too much road. wrong forum.
    Correct forum. Wrong attitude Road riding adds "kill" to your skillz.

  17. #17
    Metalheadbikerider
    Reputation: free-agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,753

    I wish!

    See "dad" thread below for an answer to your question.
    Support mtb'ing in the Portland area, join NWTA with your dollars, hands, and/or voice. nw-trail.org

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,961
    Quote Originally Posted by gcavy1
    too much road. wrong forum.
    gotta do what you can with what you got. for me roadie training is cheaper, environmentally more friendly, time efficient, etc...

    i only get to ride my mtb once a week or so. i don't love road riding so much, but without it i wouldn't be anywhere near where i am right now physically (and any riding is better than none when it comes to keeping from going postal when work sucks).

    fortunately i can still handle my bike, when i start losing time on descents i will re-evaluate!
    Try to be good.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by whybotherme
    gotta do what you can with what you got. for me roadie training is cheaper, environmentally more friendly, time efficient, etc...

    i only get to ride my mtb once a week or so. i don't love road riding so much, but without it i wouldn't be anywhere near where i am right now physically (and any riding is better than none when it comes to keeping from going postal when work sucks).

    fortunately i can still handle my bike, when i start losing time on descents i will re-evaluate!

    I know, I know...I was just picking on ya...its my instinct to pick on roadies...even when ultimately I get the bulk of my training from my road commutes!

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Poncharelli
    WR304 -What do you define "Zone 2" as? Would that be "Endurance" according to the Coggan power zones?

    Yes, Endurance power zone. Zone 2 which is 150- 200Watts. I target 170-180 ideally.

    From your power data how much time did you spend in the "Active Recovery" and "Endurance" power zones for the complete week? What was the TSS for the complete week?

    I have poweragent, and can't easily get that info. But a large part of that riding would be in the Endurance and active recovery power zones. On Thursday my TSS was 106. Tuesday (2 road group rides) was 162. On the Friday Zone 2 ride, it was 117. Wednesday and Saturday was probably well under 100 (easy riding MTB on flat dirt road)

    When I use the term hammerfest, it is organized as a hammerfest. For example, the Tuesday-Thursday ride is a lunch time ride, 1 hour total. The club leader has it organized as a 10 minute warm-up, 40 minute hammerfest (crit pace, but over rollers and hills), 10 minute cool down. On this lunch time ride the intensity factor is just under 1.0 for the 40 minutes, for me. When the ride group is stacked, the NP will exceed 300W, which sucks when my FTP is around 270 (and I'm mostly drafting). So it's just a matter of time before I get dropped, at those power requirements.
    ...
    It's hard to believe I spent that much time above 350W. I guess that's why it hurt like freakin' hell.

    Once I finish these rides (10min WU, 40 minute HF, 10min CD), I ride home targeting Zone 2, 170-180W.

    For the Sunday MTB ride, I don't have a PM on the MTB. But it had a similar feel and purpose as the hammerfest rides. We line up in ability order (in which, I'm not first), and hammer to a designated meeting point. We wait for everyone, then hammer to the next meeting point. It was about 20-25 minutes per hammerfest. But you're right, the MTB ride does have more idle time.

    Thanks for posting the information. One of the strengths of a power meter is that it reduces the guesswork involved. The Cycle Ops Poweragent software is just awful though. I'd think about using a different software package for looking at your power data.

    What average watts did you do for that 3.5 hour zone 2 ride on the Friday? It sounds like it would have been below your target of 170-180 average watts to result in a TSS of 117, and probably at an intensity factor of 0.65 or lower. I changed the power zones for some of my recent files to try and see what the TSS and IF would be like at an FTP of 270 watts.

    A 3h30 ride at an average power output of 172 watts (NP 188 watts) produces a TSS calculation of 169.9 and an IF of 0.697 for a rider with an FTP of 270 watts.
    A 3h25 ride at an average power output of 161 watts (NP 182 watts) produces a TSS calculation of 146.7 and an IF of 0.673 for a rider with an FTP of 270 watts.

    It's always interesting to be able to have the power details available. Looking at the Intensity Factor and Training Stress Score is an indication of how tough the rides actually were.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intensity Factor
    Although normalized power is a better measure of training intensity than average power, it does not take into account differences in fitness within or between individuals. TrainingPeaks therefore also calculates an intensity factor (IF) for every workout or time range analyzed. IF is simply the ratio of the normalized power as described above to your threshold power (entered under "Athlete Settings" at your "Athlete Home"). For example, if your normalized power for a long training ride done early in the year is 210 W and your threshold power at the time is 280 W, then the IF for that workout would be 0.75. However, if you did that same exact ride later in the year after your threshold power had risen to 300 W, then the IF would be lower, i.e., 0.70. IF therefore provides a valid and convenient way of comparing the relative intensity of a training session or race either within or between riders, taking into account changes or differences in threshold power.

    Typical IF values for various training sessions or races are as follows:

    •Less than 0.75 recovery rides
    •0.75-0.85 endurance-paced training rides
    •0.85-0.95 tempo rides, aerobic and anaerobic interval workouts (work and rest periods combined), longer (>2.5 h) road races
    •0.95-1.05 lactate threshold intervals (work period only), shorter (<2.5 h) road races, criteriums, circuit races, longer (e.g., 40 km) TTs
    •1.05-1.15 shorter (e.g., 15 km) TTs, track points race
    •Greater than 1.15 prologue TT, track pursuit, track miss-and-out

    Note that one particularly useful application of IF is to check for changes in threshold power - specifically, an IF of more than 1.05 for a race that is approximately 1 hour in duration is often a sign that the rider's threshold power is actually greater than that presently entered into the program. Thus, by simply examining a rider's IF for various events during the course of a season, increases or decreases in threshold power can often be revealed without the need for frequent formal testing.

    Training Stress Score (TSS)
    TrainingPeaks uses your power data to calculate a training stress score (TSS) for every workout, and provides a graphical summary of your recent TSS on your Athlete Home page. TSS, which is modeled after Dr. Eric Bannister's heart rate-based training impulse (TRIMPS), takes into account both the intensity (i.e., IF) and the duration of each training session, and might be best viewed as a predictor of the amount of glycogen utilized in each workout. Thus, a very high TSS resulting from a single race or training session can be used an indicator that one or more days should be scheduled. For example, individuals will tend to differ in how much training they can tolerate, depending on their training background, natural abilities, etc.

    The following scale can be used as an approximate guide:

    •Less than 150 - low (recovery generally complete by following day)
    •150-300 - medium (some residual fatigue may be present the next day, but gone by 2nd day)
    •300-450 - high (some residual fatigue may be present even after 2 days)
    •Greater than 450 - very high (residual fatigue lasting several days likely)
    As well, the cumulative TSS per week or per month can be used help identify the maximum intensity and volume of training that still leads to improvements, rather than overtraining"
    Andrew Coggan

    http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articl...ess-score.aspx

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    What I think you can learn from your power numbers is that in this particular week you did plenty of volume but it was all gentle. There was 1 hour 20 of good quality riding (2x40 minutes lunchtime rides) but then the remaining 12 hours 10 minutes sound like they were close to recovery pace. If a significant percentage of your weekly schedule and ride intensity is decided by the groups you ride with, and doesn't meet your needs, then it can hurt your performance. The problem with riding at someone else's pace all the time is you need some overload and training stimulus in order to improve. You'll end up plateauing without ever getting any faster through the year if you're not careful.

    What I'd consider would be to revise your standard zone 2 170-180w target upwards as it seems too low. If you're going to do a lot of zone 2 "Endurance" make it at the upper end of the zone. 195 - 205 watts would be a good starting point for your 3.5 hour rides if you have an FTP of 270 watts. A good format for shorter rides like these 3.5 hour ones is to maintain a good pace for the first three hours, but then lift the pace and do the final 30-40 minutes absolutely flat out so that "It's like getting your lungs pulled out of your body with a fish hook".

    With the MTB hammerfest rides an interesting experiment would be to use a stopwatch and measure just how much time you spend stationary during the ride waiting for other riders. This is the thing that really stands out when you begin comparing mountain bike and road training rides - just how much time you can end up stationary, even on what's supposed to be a hard ride.
    Last edited by WR304; 03-25-2011 at 05:04 AM.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,411
    Quote Originally Posted by WR304
    What average watts did you do for that 3.5 hour zone 2 ride on the Friday? It sounds like it would have been below your target of 170-180 average watts to result in a TSS of 117, and probably at an intensity factor of 0.65 or lower. I changed the power zones for some of my recent files to try and see what the TSS and IF would be like at an FTP of 270 watts.
    Yes, it was low. Looks like I was lacking motivation or wasn't feeling on it. Had a 140W average, 160W pedaling average. Living in a hilly area gives a lot of zero pedaling. I was also surprised at the low TSS for such a long ride.

    I see what you mean though. I went back into poweragent and looked at some of my old group rides, and you are right. Unless you get into a group and proclaim a ride as "race simulation", you really don't get the high average power or TSS. The lunch time ride does that, but the longer weekend rides do not. It is about the same AP and TSS as riding alone and with less running time, even though the ride alone has a much lower PE. TSS, IF, and NP are relatively new to PowerAgent, so they are new concepts to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by WR304
    What I'd consider would be to revise your standard zone 2 170-180w target upwards as it seems too low. f you're going to do a lot of zone 2 "Endurance" make it at the upper end of the zone. 195 - 205 watts would be a good starting point for your 3.5 hour rides if you have an FTP of 270 watts.
    Should be 56-75% of FTP, which is 150-200W (according to Coggan). It feels plenty hard for me, especially towards the end of a long ride. But I'll give the upper zone a shot. I'll probably have to target 210 to average 180 (it always seems to work out that way).

    Quote Originally Posted by WR304
    With the MTB hammerfest rides an interesting experiment would be to use a stopwatch and measure just how much time you spend stationary during the ride waiting for other riders. This is the thing that really stands out when you begin comparing mountain bike and road training rides - just how much time you can end up stationary, even on what's supposed to be a hard ride.
    Agreed. It's only hard when you riding. And we ride full out, but at the expense of total volume. Maybe I'll install a bike computer on my MTB, but I keep breaking them. I've also used the Cardiotrainer phone app, but it's pretty unreliable. But MTB group rides are really great for bike handling, since I normally lose contact with the guy in front of me and I'm trying my hardest to minimize the gap.

    On a side note, I downloaded Golden Cheetah, so I'll see what I can learn from that. I understand that they use some similar but different metrics from TSS, IF, and NP. My PM is having some hub issues, so after I get that fixed, I'll start using that program.

    Thanks for your help. Some of these concepts take a while to sink in. Also getting a feel for the numbers. That TSS chart was helpful.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  22. #22
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,735
    Quote Originally Posted by WR304
    What I'd consider would be to revise your standard zone 2 170-180w target upwards as it seems too low. If you're going to do a lot of zone 2 "Endurance" make it at the upper end of the zone. 195 - 205 watts would be a good starting point for your 3.5 hour rides if you have an FTP of 270 watts. A good format for shorter rides like these 3.5 hour ones is to maintain a good pace for the first three hours, but then lift the pace and do the final 30-40 minutes absolutely flat out so that "It's like getting your lungs pulled out of your body with a fish hook".
    Personally I wouldn't recommend changing your zone 2 rides. For a guy with an FTP of 270 an average wattage for 3 1/2hrs (not norm power) of 170-180 is very solid. Actually if I coached you I would be probably telling you to slow down a bit.

    190-220 averages is more typical of riders with FTPs a fair bit north of 300.

    Now if you are looking at norm power then you might want to consider (definitely not for sure) lifting you intensity.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,929
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN
    Personally I wouldn't recommend changing your zone 2 rides. For a guy with an FTP of 270 an average wattage for 3 1/2hrs (not norm power) of 170-180 is very solid. Actually if I coached you I would be probably telling you to slow down a bit.

    190-220 averages is more typical of riders with FTPs a fair bit north of 300.

    Now if you are looking at norm power then you might want to consider (definitely not for sure) lifting you intensity.
    Zone 2 "Endurance" is often subdivided into Low Level 2 and Upper Level 2 depending upon what you're targeting.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BCF Training Zones

    Low Level 2


    Feels
    Concerted - still able to hold a conversation.

    Achieves
    Strengthens & enlarges heart muscle,Improves oxygen transfer, Reduces heart rate (for given output), Improves ability to use fuel (food), especially fat, Develops motor muscles and muscular endurance.

    Type of Training
    To gain the full cardiovascular benefit sessions need to be long (typically over 1h for running & swimming, 2h for cycling) & continuous. Shorter sessions are useful for developing technique & muscular endurance.

    Upper Level 2

    Feels
    Silent - Still comfortable but the need to keep supplying oxygen means that breathing gets in the way of talking.

    Achieves
    Develops aerobic endurance. The ability to sustain high power output, Training is most effective at either end of the band – i.e low zone 3 & high zone 4. (See below).

    Type of Training
    Long efforts (sustainable for several hours) or long intervals (15mins to 1h) with short recovery."


    http://www.perfectcondition.ltd.uk/A...in%20Zones.htm

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When I do that type of ride the sensation is as described for Upper Level 2 above - comfortable for several hours but it isn't easy to talk. That's really what I was thinking of in order to add a little more quality if the majority of the longer group rides are all going to be fairly steady at Low Level 2 pace or below.

    Just targeting an average power figure over a longer ride can hide all sorts of problems though. If you break down what I did yesterday into shorter 30 minute sections for example then it was a bit scruffy. Between 2 and 3 hours was with a tailwind and I didn't try hard enough. The power output was falling away mid ride which is an easy mistake to make. You think that you must be trying hard because you're going quite fast but that isn't always the case. This is where the power data is useful because it shows up the difference between what you think you're doing and the reality.

    My FTP isn't 270 watts. It's somewhere around 230 - 240 watts. (I'm using 232 watts at the moment). My Zone 2 "Endurance" power range would be 130 - 175 watts.

    For yesterday's solo ride applying my FTP gives TSS and IF results which are in the right sort of area according to the Training Peaks article.

    Totals:
    3h30 ride at an average power output of 172 watts (NP 188 watts) produces a TSS calculation of 230.1 (medium difficulty) and an IF of 0.812 (endurance paced) for a rider with an FTP of 232 watts.

    Detail:
    First 30 minutes = avg 201 watts (includes climb - 9 min at 240 watts)
    30min - 1hr = avg 164 watts
    1hr - 1h30 = avg 163 watts
    1h30 - 2hrs = avg 167 watts
    2hrs - 2h30 = avg 159 watts
    2h30 - 3hrs = avg 160 watts
    3hrs - 3h30 = avg 191 watts (lifting pace at end - 241 watts for final 8 min)

    That's an example of how pacing can go wrong riding by yourself as the third hour's power output was lower than I'd have liked. With a group ride it can be even more variable than this with large swings in power output between segments.

    The best way to increase your average power over a group ride is to stay on the front and keep pedalling on all the downhills as much as possible. As soon as you start doing a lot of freewheeling it drags the average down a lot.
    Last edited by WR304; 03-25-2011 at 01:39 PM.

  24. #24
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,735
    Quote Originally Posted by WR304

    My FTP isn't 270 watts. It's somewhere around 230 - 240 watts. (I'm using 232 watts at the moment). My Zone 2 "Endurance" power range would be 130 - 175 watts.

    For yesterday's solo ride applying my FTP gives TSS and IF results which are in the right sort of area according to the Training Peaks article.

    Totals:
    3h30 ride at an average power output of 172 watts (NP 188 watts) produces a TSS calculation of 230.1 (medium difficulty) and an IF of 0.812 (endurance paced) for a rider with an FTP of 232 watts.

    Detail:
    First 30 minutes = avg 201 watts (includes climb - 9 min at 240 watts)
    30min - 1hr = avg 164 watts
    1hr - 1h30 = avg 163 watts
    1h30 - 2hrs = avg 167 watts
    2hrs - 2h30 = avg 159 watts
    2h30 - 3hrs = avg 160 watts
    3hrs - 3h30 = avg 191 watts (lifting pace at end - 241 watts for final 8 min)

    That's an example of how pacing can go wrong riding by yourself as the third hour's power output was lower than I'd have liked. With a group ride it can be even more variable than this with large swings in power output between segments.

    The best way to increase your average power over a group ride is to stay on the front and keep pedalling on all the downhills as much as possible. As soon as you start doing a lot of freewheeling it drags the average down a lot.

    That is a hard ride, a really hard ride.

    When I look through the power files I get from my athletes a TSS over 200 is pretty rare. It usually takes a long and really hard group ride to get that kind of training stress.

    My take on your data is that you need to test your FTP again. Either that or you spent several days in the hurt locker after that ride.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,929
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN
    That is a hard ride, a really hard ride.

    When I look through the power files I get from my athletes a TSS over 200 is pretty rare. It usually takes a long and really hard group ride to get that kind of training stress.

    My take on your data is that you need to test your FTP again. Either that or you spent several days in the hurt locker after that ride.
    Getting an accurate FTP figure is surprisingly difficult to do. I might still be underestimating my FTP (like last year) but I don't think it's by much. For the most recent 20 minute FTP test on 13 March 2011 the testing format was 7 minutes on the flat and then the final 13 minutes up a constant 9% gradient climb. I was beginning to fade towards the top of the climb.

    The results of the FTP test on 13 March 2011 were 244 watts for 20 minutes (normalized power 248 watts). 244 x 0.95 is 232 watts approx which is what I've been using. 3.31 w/kg.

    This test gave a higher power figure than the flat time trial testing format that caused the lower numbers before. There aren't any climbs long enough to do a full 20 minute climbing FTP test around here.

    Taking the full 20 minute test wattage of 244 watts for my FTP the figures for yesterday's 3h30 ride would be TSS 208.00 and IF 0.772. I'm not convinced that I could actually manage to sustain 244 watts for an hour at the moment though, even on a good day.
    Last edited by WR304; 03-25-2011 at 03:54 PM.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,411
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN

    When I look through the power files I get from my athletes a TSS over 200 is pretty rare. It usually takes a long and really hard group ride to get that kind of training stress.
    The other thing that's fundamentally strange about TSS is that a 100 TSS ride is 1 hour at FTP. (like a 40K TT; And the Coggan table is calling up to 150TSS easy!!!)

    But you can also achieve a 100+TSS riding Zone 2 for about 3 hours. (as I did on that Friday ride).

    For me, that 1 hour TT is a MILLION TIMES harder than a long zone 2 ride. Is that what Training Stress Score is saying? That these two rides are physically equivalent?
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Poncharelli
    The other thing that's fundamentally strange about TSS is that a 100 TSS ride is 1 hour at FTP. (like a 40K TT; And the Coggan table is calling up to 150TSS easy!!!)

    But you can also achieve a 100+TSS riding Zone 2 for about 3 hours. (as I did on that Friday ride).

    For me, that 1 hour TT is a MILLION TIMES harder than a long zone 2 ride. Is that what Training Stress Score is saying? That these two rides are physically equivalent?
    Training Stress Score feeds into the performance manager part of WKO+. It's an attempt to allow you to gauge how much training load you're accumulating but does have some limitations. Have a look at these articles:

    http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articl...ent-chart.aspx

    http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articl...e-manager.aspx

    "While the Performance Manager is an extremely valuable tool for analyzing training on a macro scale, it is important to also consider things on a micro scale as well, i.e., the nature and demands of the individual training sessions that produce the daily TSS values. That is, the “composition” of training is just as important as the overall “dose”, and the usefulness and predictive ability of the Performance Manager obviously depends on the individual workouts being appropriately chosen and executed in light of the individual’s competition goals.

    To give an example: an elite pursuiter might build their CTL up to the same high level during both a road-focussed, level 2/3/4 intense period of training early in the season and during a track-focussed, level 5/6/7 intense period of training immediately before the national championships, but even after a comparable period of tapering (to achieve the same positive TSB, i.e., to gain the same amount of “freshness”) you still would not expect them to perform as well in an actual pursuit earlier vs. later in the season. Conversely, however, they likely would perform better in a road time trial earlier vs. later in the season, because the training they were performing at that time would have been more appropriate, or more specific, for that event. In both cases, however, CTL, ATL, and TSB would still be good indicators training load and adaptation.

    Moreover, it is important to note that this limitation is not unique to the Performance Manager approach, but also applies to the impulse-response model as well. Indeed, as Morton et al. (1990) emphasized in discussing the parameters of the criterion performance tests used to establish the time constants and gain factors of the impulse response model: “They must represent best-effort performances on a standard test that is appropriate in length and intensity of effort to the competition event being prepared for.” (emphasis added) In other words, the specificity principle always applies, and this fact should not be overlooked when using (or evaluating) the Performance Manager."
    Andrew Coggan




    .

  28. #28
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Poncharelli
    The other thing that's fundamentally strange about TSS is that a 100 TSS ride is 1 hour at FTP. (like a 40K TT; And the Coggan table is calling up to 150TSS easy!!!)

    But you can also achieve a 100+TSS riding Zone 2 for about 3 hours. (as I did on that Friday ride).

    For me, that 1 hour TT is a MILLION TIMES harder than a long zone 2 ride. Is that what Training Stress Score is saying? That these two rides are physically equivalent?
    You see the limits of WKO there.


    I think WKO does a good job of measuring the stress of training but a poor job of measuring the stress of racing. It tends to under estimate the stress of a hard shorter efforts. Still it is a good tool to use.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,411
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN
    TSS over 200 is pretty rare. It usually takes a long and really hard group ride to get that kind of training stress.
    An endorsement for group rides from a world class coach!!!!
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  30. #30
    Team Awesome
    Reputation: playpunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    974
    Well, I'm not a nerd with a powertap, but here are the GPS stats from yesterday's group ride:

    73.31 miles, 4:30 total ride time, 16.3 MPH average, and 4693 feet of climbing. 7 climbs of 500 feet or more, plenty of pacelining, hard climbing, and waiting around for slower folks.

    TSS? Who cares. Happiness Quotient? High.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,929
    Quote Originally Posted by playpunk
    Well, I'm not a nerd with a powertap, but here are the GPS stats from yesterday's group ride:

    73.31 miles, 4:30 total ride time, 16.3 MPH average, and 4693 feet of climbing. 7 climbs of 500 feet or more, plenty of pacelining, hard climbing, and waiting around for slower folks.

    TSS? Who cares. Happiness Quotient? High.
    There's nothing wrong with group rides so long as you're realistic about what you expect to achieve from them. A long and really hard group ride is fun whilst being great training at the same time.

    TSS is just another measurement to try and compare rides. It doesn't take any effort to discover as it's calculated automatically. The main benefit is being able to look at how much cumulative training you've done at a glance.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •