Yes.

I’m particularly fond of Charles Howe’s pdf “Training and racing using a powemeter”, though there are infinite number of books and websites that discuss the topic.

In a nutshell: use a power meter to make your watts higher on hard days and the right intensity on other days.

Training and Racing with a Powermeter by Allen and Coggan is a good resource. But for me the most helpful resource in learning about training with power, what different metrics mean, when to work what zones, etc has been doing training plans with TrainerRoad and especially listening to their podcast (Ask a Cycling Coach). There are a lot of old episodes you can go through and just skip the parts/questions that may not be relevant.

As for normalized power vs average power. I think desert dude once said something along the lines of average power is what you put out as a performance while normalized power is the physiological toll on your body. So for a hilly ride or one with lots of stops or intervals, normalized power would be a better indication of how hard you worked that day (though tss could be even better)

---

Matt

I think where it is especially handy is something like VO2 intervals where you have to pace yourself for 3 to 5 minutes it's easy to go out too hard the power meter gives you a much better handle on what you're doing compared to heart rate.

When it comes to racing, the best use of a power meter is probably to keep your power DOWN, rather than up. Basically to avoid going out too hard early when you are feeling fresh, to avoid overcooking it on short hills, etc, so that you are still able to produce your target power towards the end of the race.

And, yes, normalized power is generally a more meaningful metric than average power when looking at the demands of the overall ride.

But the real benefits of a pm is your training, and in particular the ability to hit and hold specific power targets during more structured training. This gives you a lot more return for your training time.

Agree that Training and Riding with a Power Meter is a pretty good place to start in terms of developing your knowledge. Without knowing how to get the most out of a PM, your Assioma's would be little more than an interesting novelty.

btw, congrats on your purchase - I have been using my Assioma's for 2.5 years now, and they are awesome!

The first organized bike race was about 150 years ago, and there were informal races before that. For most of that time, cyclists trained without power meters, and some got pretty good results. Riders have been doing structured training for a lot of that time, but now *highly* structured training with exact precise targets are popular because of power meters. What's unclear is whether highly structured training with exact precise targets produces better results than just "normally" structured training, or that you get "more" return for your training time.

Training FTP is one of the least demanding uses of a power meter, yet it often seems to be the main thing people focus on. You don't need highly structured training to train FTP -- in fact, you don't really need a power meter at all to train FTP. Highly structured training is the result of power meters, not a power meter's raison d'etre. The market for highly structured indoor training, especially, has been enabled by the growth in power meters.

You used to, and can still, train FTP pretty effectively without a power meter. What's much easier and more precise than before there were power meters is training and analyzing pacing, especially on rolling terrain and with and against wind; and measuring rolling and aerodynamic drag. Those are things that are very hard to do without accurate, precise, and reliable power data. So that's the real benefit of a power meter: being able to do things you couldn't do before.

// a power meter helps to read the individual data sheet of your engine .. the task is to understand the diverse causal reaction chains and adopt to them for the current main aims just in time ..

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>

The data speak for themselves but sometimes their voices are soft and sly.

I usually find that when people ask me to look at their data it screams 'I'm constantly fatigued and not doing the type of work that will elicit useful adaptations'
But then, I have a statistics degree. If you're struggling with data analysis maybe you could consider further study in that area...

I can always use more stat, and I envy those who are good at it, like this guy.

I guess that I'm qualified to look at data - I'm an engineer :-)

And i will find/read “Training and racing using a powemeter”

.. thinking about my declaration [during my morning ride] I found the difference between reading and displaying [ore vice versa, a signal is temporary and the reader determines the message] .. speed is the consequence of consecutive decisions for specific situations .. oSo >>

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>

Couldn't have said it better. Although, I would even doubt the bold marked passage.

I think training is generally better done with HR (exception, 3 or 5 minutes VO2max intervals, for which I think Perceived Effort is the way to train it, rather than looking at a PM), because that is what indicates the intensity your body is doing.
Let's put it this way: if you include all the things like ambient temperature, shape of the day etc. in a training with PM (which you have to do), than you can better train straight away with HR. A further advantage is that you can use HR also for running. Since the PM it seems that at once, for running, "pace" is the thing, although the rule was, before the PM, that HR is a lot more of importance than pace (in races and in training).
I have the feeling that HR has come in disrepute because the straps are cumbersome to use and sometimes the radio connection of the sensor and the watch or computer has problems. Also, it seems to be "unmodern" to use HR.
PM, and also pace is more popular at the moment and mostly functions technically without problems, giving exact vaues, such that it gives people a false sense of security.

Most riders train with power pretty near to the same way they used to train with HRMs. They have zones, and targets for time in zone, and they're prescribed training plans that use almost the same language and terms -- just with a little more exactitude and precision.

If you're training with a power meter pretty much in the same way you trained with a HRM, you shouldn't be surprised that you get pretty much the same results.

The best use of a power meter is to do things you couldn't do before (or maybe you could but they were much harder to do before). Some of those things require actual power accuracy. When you see people writing "accuracy doesn't matter, only consistency does" then you almost always know they're using their power meters for training just like a HRM.

And keep in mind at the same power, ones HR can be 5-10 beats higher if cycling in hot weather. The extra beats are for cooling, not propulsion. All in all, I think training via HR is the best should a person not be able to use both.

It gets complicated however, when some training protocols are geared primarily with power in mind. Still, most of these can be used perfectly well with only HR.

I don't think it sounds all that complicated. It is the same as looking at pace/HRR while running. In hot weather the pace/HRR is lover (equals lover VO2max) - or is it way off?
As i can read, the first thing that is needed, is a new FTP test. I have a nearby airstrip out of service, laid out to recreational use (biking!).

I really like the inputs. It is really important for me, I'm just a recreational triathlete.
I guess I am a FOP biker (usually in to 2 % of a race), but not ready to go all in on training - I have 3 kids, job and wife - but will use this to get the best out of my relative limited training time (8-12 hours a week including swimming and running).