Study which show us that training with PM does not make you faster

[Alex Simmons/RST]

To overcome this problem requires an aversive test such as a MAP or FTP test (both of which interfere with training).

Testing is training, training is testing.

There is no evidence to show that holding a steady power is in any way advantageous. If you look at the optimal pacing strategy for events from the 4000m pursuit through to a 200km TT, none of them equate to a constant power. The most effective and common power profile is one which has a biphasic response (hard start, steady middle and surge at the end). Carl Foster and Jos De Koning have published extensively on this. Why anyone has come to the conclusion that you should go out and hold a steady power output in intervals and that this is beneficial is beyond my understanding. It goes against all the evidence.

I have to take exception with this assertion.

If you examine the individual pursuit, I think you'll find that the best performances are typically ridden with very little variance in the lap split times (and hence power), apart from the opening lap of course where the initial rate of energy expenditure is highest due to the requirement to accelerate up to desired pursuit speed.

Generally a strategy that gets up to desired speed, perhaps over shooting by no more than 1.5km/h is ideal with a very gradual fade through the event being OK. Zero to around 1 second per km fade is about the most I think for a really well paced pursuit. More and you could have ridden faster overall if paced better. If you are going faster at the end, then you left some time out there.

As for long time trials, then optimal pacing is somewhat dependent on terrain, but if flat (as say with an hour record on a track), then you will again want to ride as steady state as possible. The energy cost of going a bit fast and fading, or worse acceleration/decelerating, is high in terms of overall speed.

Having coached an hour record, I can assure you the strategy that provides the best outcome is steady state.

Where terrain is variable gradient, then there is time to be gained by augmenting power output accordingly, however an maximal iso-power (or near iso-power) strategy is still very fast, and likely faster than what some actually end up doing (and that's too hard on the climbs and too soft elsewhere, or the classic beginners mistake of going out too hard and fading).

 

[FrankDay]

If you examine the individual pursuit, I think you'll find that the best performances are typically ridden with very little variance in the lap split times (and hence power), apart from the opening lap of course where the initial rate of energy expenditure is highest due to the requirement to accelerate up to desired pursuit speed.

Generally a strategy that gets up to desired speed, perhaps over shooting by no more than 1.5km/h is ideal with a very gradual fade through the event being OK. Zero to around 1 second per km fade is about the most I think for a really well paced pursuit. More and you could have ridden faster overall if paced better. If you are going faster at the end, then you left some time out there.

As for long time trials, then optimal pacing is somewhat dependent on terrain, but if flat (as say with an hour record on a track), then you will again want to ride as steady state as possible. The energy cost of going a bit fast and fading, or worse acceleration/decelerating, is high in terms of overall speed.

Having coached an hour record, I can assure you the strategy that provides the best outcome is steady state.

Where terrain is variable gradient, then there is time to be gained by augmenting power output accordingly, however an maximal iso-power (or near iso-power) strategy is still very fast, and likely faster than what some actually end up doing (and that's too hard on the climbs and too soft elsewhere, or the classic beginners mistake of going out too hard and fading).

I guess this comes down to arguing what is the best possible strategy for the fastest time and what is the most effective strategy for winning. If we could know what our exact limits were on any given day the steady strategy is arguably the best. But, we never know what our exact limits are and if we guess too high then we will pay for that in the second half and we won't even come close to our potential. So, a more reliable strategy is probably to be a little low during the middle part of the race while the rider assesses his capabilities that day. Then, he can up the effort towards the end as he feels his ability that day will allow him to do so. That may not maximize our time on that effort but, it seems, it maximizes the chances of winning by minimizing the chances of making a serious error.

This seems especially important when the rider is more interested in simply beating the competition and reaching the next level than in setting a record. If there are heats, guessing wrong on the correct pacing means the end of the day. The main object is to get to the finals and then win that race. Absolutely maximizing our performance every time on the race course is not the usual goal.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

This seems especially important when the rider is more interested in simply beating the competition and reaching the next level than in setting a record. If there are heats, guessing wrong on the correct pacing means the end of the day. The main object is to get to the finals and then win that race. Absolutely maximizing our performance every time on the race course is not the usual goal.

In pursuit racing only the final two seeds (riders) know what time they have to beat to reach the final (and usually only one of those two is the top seed). Up to then, every competitor must ride their maximal performance in order to ensure a ride in the finals. You only get one chance to set a time and 4 fastest go to finals (1v2 for gold, 3v4 for bronze).

Pacing is critical and while you don't want to start too hard, being too conservative will cost you dearly as well (unless you are supremely confident your ability is vastly superior relative to the rest of the field).

 

[FrankDay]

In pursuit racing only the final two seeds (riders) know what time they have to beat to reach the final (and usually only one of those two is the top seed). Up to then, every competitor must ride their maximal performance in order to ensure a ride in the finals. You only get one chance to set a time and 4 fastest go to finals (1v2 for gold, 3v4 for bronze).

Pacing is critical and while you don't want to start too hard, being too conservative will cost you dearly as well (unless you are supremely confident your ability is vastly superior relative to the rest of the field).

In that instance it seems that the lower seeds have a bigger incentive to cut it closer because that is the only chance they have based upon ability. The top few have more room for error and usually enough experience to be able to ride more "conservatively." Even then, didn't Chris Hoy "blow it" a couple of years ago and not advance in a big meet.

I am not arguing that pacing isn't critical to racing well but just pointing out that there might be valid reasons why people might choose a "less than optimal" pacing strategy.

 

[CoachFergie]

In that instance it seems that the lower seeds have a bigger incentive to cut it closer because that is the only chance they have based upon ability. The top few have more room for error and usually enough experience to be able to ride more "conservatively." Even then, didn't Chris Hoy "blow it" a couple of years ago and not advance in a big meet.

I am not arguing that pacing isn't critical to racing well but just pointing out that there might be valid reasons why people might choose a "less than optimal" pacing strategy.

And these are?

Chris Hoy lost as top seed to the lowest seed in a match sprint not because of pacing but because he didn't show his opponent respect and eased up in the straight. Normally Hoy adopts a very even pace in the Sprint, Kilo and Pursuit as he lacks a very high top end.

 

[JayKosta]

Frank Day posted -
"I am not arguing that pacing isn't critical to racing well but just pointing out that there might be valid reasons why people might choose a "less than optimal" pacing strategy."

and then was aked,

And these are?
...

================================================

My thought is that Frank's choice of words "less than optimal" might cause confusion.
The 'optimal pacing strategy' is whatever is necessary and sufficient to win. or to place as high as possible, with the least overall use of energy.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

In that instance it seems that the lower seeds have a bigger incentive to cut it closer because that is the only chance they have based upon ability. The top few have more room for error and usually enough experience to be able to ride more "conservatively." Even then, didn't Chris Hoy "blow it" a couple of years ago and not advance in a big meet.

I am not arguing that pacing isn't critical to racing well but just pointing out that there might be valid reasons why people might choose a "less than optimal" pacing strategy.

There is no sensible reason for pacing to be less than optimal in pursuit qualifying.

There is a reason for a top seed to not need to ride maximally if they are confident of beating the time required to reach the gold medal final, but doing so with less than optimal pacing strategy is just wasting energy they are better off saving for the final.

Hoy is a sprint rider and pacing efforts in sprinting is a whole 'nuther ball game. The qualifier is maximal, and pacing is critical there too in its own unique way. The time differences between riders are hundredths of a second, one cannot afford to screw up sprint qualifying. All that does it pit you against a tougher opponent in the the sprint rounds (or worse still, not even make the sprint rounds).

After that, a top sprinter can "do enough" to beat their opponent and reduce their overall workload in order to progress to the next round, but match sprinting has a LOT of craft and faster riders are often beaten by craftier riders.

 

[Polyarmour]

And i must stop smoking 36min49sec on 10km running is not bad for 38. years old smoker.
My Vo2Max would not getting higher but anyway i am wondering

Translation: I choose to ignore the fact that smoking will destroy my health while I can still run 10km in 36min49mins.

 

[oldborn]

Translation: I choose to ignore the fact that smoking will destroy my health while I can still run 10km in 36min49mins.

It can be translate that way for sure, but i am smoking 68% (7-8 cigarets) less than in two months before (20 or 30 cigarets). It is awful habit for sure mate.

Let s back on mine bike leg pacing strategy for 10 run-36 bike-5 run duathlon legs killing format race before 4 days, and see how without PM, IMHO I can improve results.
I knew that i am suck on short-medium hills (5-10 minutes long), so i choose to sit behind and slow pack of 6 riders as much as i can.
And if i hold on i am still have a chance on second run leg.
I manage to hold pack 21km or so, until 5th hill and then strongest rider among us kill us.

From 15km to finish line i ride by myself, without computer, stop watch, or anything.
So pretty much same conditions like last year and i still manage to improve mine bike leg time for little less than 4 minutes, and overall more than 9 minutes.

Results http://www.stubica.hr/file/16-duatlon-stubica.pdf, i am 11 th place overall, 10th in Nationals (Slovenian Dude is winner. Winner avg spd was 37,8km/h, mine 31,2km/h), and those first three places are killers), Team competion first place for me (it s count)

It is not a kind a very popular format race, too hard course, too much running.

I knew the course (8 hills), i did not prepare for it like last year (was not priority race, i do not beleive in periodization, tapering, or so), i knew that descending speed is important so i manage to catch pack every time until 5 th hill, i knew that i can sit back if tempo before hills would not be too high.

[/url][/IMG]

Strenght was mine concern (not endurance or power) and will be, also cadence and geer ratio is those thing i must work on, bike training volume also .

I ride this course two times before and knew pretty well, i knew that i must hold for those 5 or 10 minutes and i do not need PM to tell me that (i knew gradient and lenght)

What i could learn with PM? Anyone?

 

[Davobel]

Those 'peak power numbers have to be an error. Peak power for well trained 32 year old cyclists should be more around 1200-1500 mark, even as minute power scores they would be too high, more likely in the high 200's.

 

[CoachFergie]

Those 'peak power numbers have to be an error. Peak power for well trained 32 year old cyclists should be more around 1200-1500 mark, even as minute power scores they would be too high, more likely in the high 200's.

Confusion between Peak Power or Watt Max referring to the max aerobic power that one sees at the termination of a VO2max test or the Max Minute Power test (MAP test) and the peak power one sees in a Wingate test.

 

[TexasTom]

"less than optimal" pacing strategy."

Oh this is all too funny. Isn't this phrase an oxymoron?

Thanks for the laugh!

 

[CoachFergie]

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/07/tour-2011-alp-dhuez-leaving-mountains.html

Some really good analysis of the whole tour. No real discussion of heart rate