1) In a race/TT 80 seconds is absolutely massive - most TT's I've done have been decided by less than 5 seconds. 10% increase in power is an amazing accomplishment as well.

2) 20 minutes is more or less a general guideline for your FTP and it is long enough to make you work your ass off, while short enough that your legs don't burn out after each interval. A good estimate for FTP is 95% of your 20 minute power.

3) RPE is the rate of perceived exertion. Basically it represents how hard you "feel" you are working. You shouldn't need a power device or a HRM to tell you how hard you feel you are working.

I occasionally underestimate how important this concept is and often find myself wanting "more data" when all I need is readily at my disposal.
It's a good thing my old school Power Tap head unit does a terrible job of picking up HR strap data. :)

I know what RPE is, I was just curious what 95% of FTP would equate to RPE? 9 of 10? 8.5 of 10?

This is the kicker....RPE when riding 95% of power may feel pretty manageable the first 5 minutes. It takes everything I have to maintain (i.e. EVERY BIT OF ENERGY) at the end of 40'. This is why power is superior, IMO.

Definitely agree. I"ve noticed when doing 6x5' that the first 3-4 intervals aren't terrible for the first 3.5-4 minutes, and then on the last two, when trying to maintain the same numbers, I feel like death.

I appreciate the answers, guys. I've got another question. This pertains to trainer workouts, not road work.

Say, you are in XX gear hitting XX cadence in interval 1-4. Intervals 5 & 6 you are hitting the same exact numbers. Doesn't that give you the same type of workout as power? Except, of course, you don't know your starting point...if it's 90% FTP, etc. But you DO know that I want to be in a certain gear at a certain cadence for each interval.

If those workouts are successful, and you're just obliterating yourself on the bike (just like many of you do using power), what is the difference in my simple method I use above and the more complex (and more accurate) method you guys use?

The resistance that your trainer provides can change as it heats up from riding.

So being in the same gear at the same speed doesn't necessarily equate to an equal power output.

You make a valid point but this effect will stabilize. Warm-up for 15 minutes and you should not drift after the first interval with a quality trainer.

Gearing and cadence will work as suggested with a bit of due diligence.

This comment confuses me. If you use a powertap...on a trainer...isn't the problem exactly the same if you don't have a powertap?

And I'm not saying that "my" way is better than power. Obviously, it's 110% inferior. but if purchasing a PT is not an option, how could that method NOT be really effective? Same gear, maintain cadence for each interval...and one that will make you feel like puking those last 2-3 minutes?

The problem is the same, except that with a PM you see the power change and change your gear selection accordingly to adjust. Perhaps it's unique to different trainers, but my experience with the Fluid2 trainers that we use for our sessions has been that they tend to increase resistance each time they heat up and the effect doesn't stabilize very well. This may be very unique to one brand or kind of trainer though as it seems Dave Luscan has had better results than I.

FWIW, I'm not jumping in and saying that a person can't train effectively without a PM. They can, a PM just adds precision to the training regime. Whether that precision is worthwhile depends on the individual.

I follow you perfectly.

Now, one final question. Let's say the trainer does heat up and resistance increases, like you note below. Is it a BAD thing that your power numbers might be higher for those two intervals (#5 & 6), if you're wanting to keep your cadence and gearing the same?

To ask in another way, if you don't have a PT, and you do this by gear only, what's the big deal if you are working harder those last two intervals? Outside of injury/mental burnout.

Make sense?

I would say that the likelihood of you failing/fatiguing out, on the intervals because of the change in resistance is more probable than injury or mental burnout.

Otherwise, go for it. In my very personal opinion, I'd rather see athletes be able to do these intervals with power. If that's not an option though, it's not, and therefore you should do them the best way that you can and your proposal seems like a reasonable alternative given no power option.

I'd LOVE to be able to train with power. Unfortunately, a PT (or any power device) is not on the budget list right now.

Your answers, and others, gives me at least the satisfaction that while I might not be able to do this thing exactly right, I'm close enough (I think) to not stress out that I might be shortchanging myself.

Thanks for your responses. Really appreciate it.

Funny thing is...I observed exactly this same behavior (i.e. resistance increasing with constant wheelspeed) with my Fluid^2 trainer just this past weekend. I had a little bit of extra time and decided to characterize the wheelspeed vs. power curve. I warmed up the trainer at 150-200W for 16 minutes. I then did a series of 2 minute intervals at constant cadence in various gears. For anything under ~270-280W, I couldn't see any drift in the power requirement for constant cadence/wheelspeed...BUT, as soon as I did a gear that required ~300W for the same cadence, I suddenly saw a power curve (after download) slowly drifting upward through the 2 minute interval. Very interesting...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

In my experience, the Fluid^2s have 3 (unadvertised) levels of resistance, and they are pretty stable at each. First is less than 200 watts and you can stay there all day. Come up to 200 or slightly above for 5 minutes and you will get a very noticeable shift. It has been for me quite distinct and consistent across several trainers. You can generally perform 200-400 watt work at this level for extended periods without further shifting or drifting. The final jump on the Cycle-Ops comes after 450-500 watts for 2-3 minutes. At that point the trainer seems to shift to maximum resistance. Each shift seems to be worth about 2-3 cogs to get back to the same level and be quite distinct as opposed to gradual.

This is not covered in the literature or addresed by Cycle-Ops as far as I know, but it has been reported by others. And even more importantly, it was the weirdest part of owning the Fluid 2. It was consistent but just odd.

Seems like yours responded a bit differently. Perhaps one of your two minute intervals caught the unit in no mans land where it would slowly drift as opposed to making the sudden shift that myself and others have experienced.

The Kurt Kinetics are dead on with no drift in my opinion. So it would be possible to do a workout entirely on gear and cadence in such a circumstance.

Tom, I would try this experiment: Instead of 150-200, jump right on and hit 225-250 for 5-7 minutes. The shift I would experience when doing this on my Fluid2 was too distinct to be ignored. It was two cogs minimum and all at once. One should be stable there and able to workout based on gear and cadence.

Finally, if you need me to come over to pedal at 250 watts for 5 minutes, I would be more than happy to oblige. ;>)

Edited to add I really think these levels are clearly heat based, so while I may say 225 watts for 5 minutes always caused a shift, on occasion it was 170 watts for 15 minutes to do the same. But who wants to admit to pedaling at 170 watts right?

Dave, my experience with the Fluid 2 and KK trainers maches yours exactly.

x3. Same experience here as well. I've even considered pointing a little fan right at the Fluid2's heat sink. Either that, or maybe welding a 10 or 15 pound weight to the flywheel. (Though I can't weld.)

Rode a brand new KK with the extra flywheel for the first time today.

You are absolutely right, a workout based on cadence using that trainer would be entirely possible. It's amazingly consistent.

I've been reading this thread with great interest as someone just getting started with power. I've not tested my FTP (although i will correct this shortly). However, i recently did an ironman and my average power was a sad 190watts. Based on this, it is possible to calculate a very rough FTP?

How was your run?

Great run. Best ever in fact

I wouldn't say 190 is sad, it would depend on how big you are and how fast you go at 190 watts.

Having a good run afterwards is really good news :)

jaretj

Agreed 190 isn't pathetic at all.


You need to do some riding and some hard threshold efforts, but I'd say 250 to 270 isn't unrealistic.

I appreciate you being "gentle" on me.... in terms of threshold work - how often and generally what kind of intervals would you recommend

Theres not enough information to make that assessment. 190 watts can be great if you are very light, or terrible if you are very heavy. For example if the person weighs 50kg and pushed 190 watts, that would be a considerable threshold, but to remain at that weight while pushing 250 to 270 would make them competitive in the TDF.

Of course for an Ironman I wouldn't want to push right at threshold simply because of the distance.