The Powermeter Thread

[Alex Simmons/RST]

As Alex has suggested a lot of things like FTP may not be ideal for an Ironman. Andy Coggan may differ on that.

Just to clarify, I didn't really say that. What I said was I would not be surprised to find some IM athletes using something other than a knowledge of their FTP to guide their training, and that they may use the power data in other ways. I suppose an analogy would be being not surprised to find a track pursuiter unaware of their FTP but still using power meter data to guide their training.

I didn't however say that knowledge of and/or working on FTP isn't useful for an IM athlete (or a pursuiter for that matter), and indeed a little later emphasised that point, perhaps a little subtly, when pointing out the empirical observation about the relatively narrow range of TSS typical for well paced IM bike legs (well paced in the sense of a good total race).

Indeed the use of TSS in this manner (i.e. as a global pacing indicator) is quite creative as it not only deals with overall relative effort level, but also accounts for the non-linear physiological cost of variable effort.

 

[FrankDay]

Andy Coggan recently said "it's your glycogen budget, spend it wisely".

In your opinion did Alexander spend his wisely? It would seem that was the opinion of the writer of the article when he wrote: "but it was the only card Alexander could play to stay in the picture." Do you agree? Or, are these analyses subject to different interpretations? If so, how do we know which interpretation is right?

Strawman. Unless the SRM was draining his lifeforce all it does measure power.

I thought the benefit of the power meter was it could be used to inform the rider what they were doing, as long as the rider took the effort to look at the meter display. Isn't looking at the meter supposed to give the rider information as to whether they might be at a level that would be "draining the life force" out of him if it was kept up? Isn't helping with pacing the supposed benefit of having one during a race? Post race analysis, as we are doing here, would be a secondary benefit to help, one would hope, ride a better next race. It just seems to me that Alexander would be one person you would think had enough experience to have learned how to pace better than this (assuming our analysis is correct) whether he does by feel or by using a PM but it seems he failed. What do you think went wrong?

Could well have been a better strategy. VI of 1:07.

I agree. Why do you think this multiple Ironman Champion "blew it"?

Simply what happens when the script gets changed due to circumstance.

Come on. Do you think Craig Alexander could not have anticipated getting a flat somewhere during the race and have planned for that contingency? It isn't like he was a first timer. I'll bet he has experienced plenty of flats before (he did manage to change it in about 60 seconds, something that would take me 5-10 minutes to do) such that this should have been a simple race strategy adjustment for him. But, it appears, it wasn't.

Context always helps. Does he use the Performance Manager? Does he just use it cycling Training Stress Scores or do they use estimated TSS for Swim and Run training. Is he comparing powers from race to race to try and find an optimal pace. Is he using the PM to pace or just to assess after if his "feel" was right. Performance on the day doesn't just happen. Preparation is repeating the race day time and time again, measuring to see what works and what doesn't.

While none of us know exactly what he does or doesn't do don't you think we can assume that Craig Alexander, a multiple Ironman World Champion, has pretty much done the bolded text above? Yet, I think it is clear it didn't help him even though he is stating he thinks he did as well as he could have on the day.

Part of that testing is testing the tests. We all did lactate threshold testing back in the eighties, people still do it now. But why use a proxy for 30min power (lactate threshold) when you can just measure 30min power. As Alex has suggested a lot of things like FTP may not be ideal for an Ironman. Andy Coggan may differ on that.

My goodness, a disagreement or two as to what all this might mean. How do we know who is most correct?

Do you think the Elites have attained perfection? If not then we keep measuring, testing and challenging them to do more.

No, but we usually expect them to come closer to it than the less experienced. In my opinion, there is more to be gained in analyzing "failures" like this data than analyzing the "perfect" race. If you understand what can go wrong then, perhaps, you can work on ways to prevent it. I think many think the PM is useful to do just such a thing but in this case it is evident it didn't work.

Just the same as looking at the power from the Tour de France. Interesting. But without context a little limited. It's why I tell people who are new to power that it is usually 6 months in that we can start to get a more focused picture of what is happening with their cycling fitness.

In this analysis, what context are we missing?

 

[CoachFergie]

I'm going to call all this the perfection fallacy. Expecting perfection when there is still so much to learn. All the better reason to keep testing and measuring.

 

[FrankDay]

Indeed the use of TSS in this manner (i.e. as a global pacing indicator) is quite creative as it not only deals with overall relative effort level, but also accounts for the non-linear physiological cost of variable effort.

I am not sure what you mean regarding the use of TSS as a global pacing indicator? You don't mean using it during the race do you? Or, using it to compare efforts of riders of the same race after the race? What is to be made of the varying TSS results from Kona of Sam's almost 365 to others less than 300? Is there any way to know if we are dealing with GIGO or something "real"?

 

[CoachFergie]

I am not sure what you mean regarding the use of TSS as a global pacing indicator? You don't mean using it during the race do you? Or, using it to compare efforts of riders of the same race after the race? What is to be made of the varying TSS results from Kona of Sam's almost 365 to others less than 300? Is there any way to know if we are dealing with GIGO or something "real"?

We would dispute Sam Gyde's Functional Threshold number. But then you wouldn't do a whole bunch of testing to get the FTP bang on to get the correct TSS score for the event. You would prepare to win the event.

 

[FrankDay]

We would dispute Sam Gyde's Functional Threshold number. But then you wouldn't do a whole bunch of testing to get the FTP bang on to get the correct TSS score for the event. You would prepare to win the event.

But, can't you dispute everyone's FTP unless you knew specifically how and when it was derived? just because someone is an outlier from the norm may suggest a problem but, certainly, is not proof of a problem.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I am not sure what you mean regarding the use of TSS as a global pacing indicator? You don't mean using it during the race do you? Or, using it to compare efforts of riders of the same race after the race? What is to be made of the varying TSS results from Kona of Sam's almost 365 to others less than 300? Is there any way to know if we are dealing with GIGO or something "real"?

For it to be a valid measure, one needs a valid FTP value.

You would primarily use it as one of your post race assessments as an indicator of execution. Not the be all and end all, but as an indicator.

It is possible (indeed I've done this for pro and age group IM athletes) to provide pacing strategy guidelines by using a TSS range and relevant physical parameters. They are of course only guidelines but for courses that are variable in terrain and wind, it can help to spend that glycogen budget wisely.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

But, can't you dispute everyone's FTP unless you knew specifically how and when it was derived? just because someone is an outlier from the norm may suggest a problem but, certainly, is not proof of a problem.

When you see a value that is abnormally high, then you consider the possible reasons, and one quite probable reason is an underestimated FTP. It's not the only possibility but it would suggest validation of the FTP setting is worth checking before devoting any great level of credence to the reported number.


As an example of this, a rider I know recently posted a picture of his 2 hour 45 minute ride summary data after a ride on his new Garmin Vector pedals:

Now you can choose to believe his IF, TSS and left-right balance numbers, or you can say, hmmm, I think there are other more probable explanations for these things.

From those 4 numbers (picture plus ride time), I suggested it was highly probable that his FTP setting was too low and that his Garmin Vector pedals were not properly installed.

I was right on both accounts.

 

[FrankDay]

When you see a value that is abnormally high, then you consider the possible reasons, and one quite probable reason is an underestimated FTP. It's not the only possibility but it would suggest validation of the FTP setting is worth checking before devoting any great level of credence to the reported number.


As an example of this, a rider I know recently posted a picture of his 2 hour 45 minute ride summary data after a ride on his new Garmin Vector pedals:

Now you can choose to believe his IF, TSS and left-right balance numbers, or you can say, hmmm, I think there are other more probable explanations for these things.

From those 4 numbers (picture plus ride time), I suggested it was highly probable that his FTP setting was too low and that his Garmin Vector pedals were not properly installed.

I was right on both accounts.

I think if you see an IF of 1.06 for a two hour ride one might reasonably assume there is a real problem with the assumed FTP or measured power. However, if you listen to the interview with Sam you will discover he rode at a substantially higher power than the goal set by his coach because he felt so good. Sam has also shown great consistency over the last 3 years but this year was better than usual. As I said, outliers deserve special attention because one is more likely to learn something from them, if verified, than from analyzing expected results. We aren't going to answer the question here as we don't have enough data to confirm or correct his FTP but just because something is not what you expect or think possible is not evidence, per se, of the data being wrong (unless, of course, the two hour sustained power is higher than the FTP).

 

[CoachFergie]

I think if you see an IF of 1.06 for a two hour ride one might reasonably assume there is a real problem with the assumed FTP or measured power. However, if you listen to the interview with Sam you will discover he rode at a substantially higher power than the goal set by his coach because he felt so good. Sam has also shown great consistency over the last 3 years but this year was better than usual. As I said, outliers deserve special attention because one is more likely to learn something from them, if verified, than from analyzing expected results. We aren't going to answer the question here as we don't have enough data to confirm or correct his FTP but just because something is not what you expect or think possible is not evidence, per se, of the data being wrong (unless, of course, the two hour sustained power is higher than the FTP).

Alex's take is better.

Clearly shows the power meter is not calibrated, as he found.

Whether this had an influence on the high IF for the ride is another matter. Either way an IF that high indicates that either FTP is not right or the PM is not calibrated or zeroed. Or both.

I would suggest that if all Sam uses the PM for is racing then he probably doesn't need to worry about FTP and IF and would be curious to know how his coach determined his ideal wattage for the bike section. Was there testing sessions or was it just based on power seen in previous events.

How much higher was his actual power than the power his coach suggested?

Then there are the basics of knowing if the SRM was calibrated and when was it zeroed. Did he use a PC7 or ANT+ head unit to record the data?

 

[sciguy]

I would suggest that if all Sam uses the PM for is racing then he probably doesn't need to worry about FTP and IF and would be curious to know how his coach determined his ideal wattage for the bike section. Was there testing sessions or was it just based on power seen in previous events.

How much higher was his actual power than the power his coach suggested?

In the webcast Sam mentioned that he and his coach came up with power goals to use for climbs, flats and descents shortly before his race at Mont Tremblant. These worked well for Sam at IMMT and because his training went very well over the two months between it and Kona, on race day Sam decided to up those levels between 5 and 10 watts. Interestingly, if you look at Sam's power file he backed off a significant amount between the first half and second half of the bike.

One of the more interesting bits from the interview is that Sam's VO2max has been tested several times at ~ 80ml/ml. I would bet that's probably one of the very highest in the whole field. No doubt he works his tail off too, races smart but picking the right parents is always a leg up.

Hugh

 

[CoachFergie]

In the webcast Sam mentioned that he and his coach came up with power goals to use for climbs, flats and descents shortly before his race at Mont Tremblant. These worked well for Sam at IMMT and because his training went very well over the two months between it and Kona, on race day Sam decided to up those levels between 5 and 10 watts. Interestingly, if you look at Sam's power file he backed off a significant amount between the first half and second half of the bike.

How did he determine training was going well?

5-10 watts is a gamble but based on the outcome it looks like he arrived well tapered.

One of the more interesting bits from the interview is that Sam's VO2max has been tested several times at ~ 80ml/ml. I would bet that's probably one of the very highest in the whole field. No doubt he works his tail off too, races smart but picking the right parents is always a leg up.

And another reason why one doesn't read too much into anecdotes and case studies. Someone has to have the best genes in the field.

 

[FrankDay]

I would suggest that if all Sam uses the PM for is racing then he probably doesn't need to worry about FTP and IF and would be curious to know how his coach determined his ideal wattage for the bike section. Was there testing sessions or was it just based on power seen in previous events.

How much higher was his actual power than the power his coach suggested?

Did you actually listen to the interview? Anyhow, as I remember, his set goal was 270 and his NP was 288, so 18 watts (6.66%) higher and he averaged 278, 8 watts (3%) higher.

Then there are the basics of knowing if the SRM was calibrated and when was it zeroed. Did he use a PC7 or ANT+ head unit to record the data?

You will have to ask him or his coach. All we have is what we have. Let us know if you learn anything.

 

[FrankDay]

In the webcast Sam mentioned that he and his coach came up with power goals to use for climbs, flats and descents shortly before his race at Mont Tremblant. These worked well for Sam at IMMT and because his training went very well over the two months between it and Kona, on race day Sam decided to up those levels between 5 and 10 watts. Interestingly, if you look at Sam's power file he backed off a significant amount between the first half and second half of the bike.

It is hard to imagine he backed off a lot with a VI of 1.04 for the entire ride.

One of the more interesting bits from the interview is that Sam's VO2max has been tested several times at ~ 80ml/ml. I would bet that's probably one of the very highest in the whole field. No doubt he works his tail off too, races smart but picking the right parents is always a leg up.

Hugh

I don't think it is so much as picking the right parents as picking the right sport. We are all probably optimized for some sport. He went through a lot of them before he found triathlon. Most of us probably don't change sports that much to find something we are good at but, instead, just try to get good at what we love.

I didn't get that his VO2 max had been tested several times. I went to Sam to get more information about this. I was especially interested in whether it was tested running or cycling and whether it was done before or after he started on PowerCranks. He told me it was done in 2010, before starting PowerCranks and it was done running on a treadmill. So, 80 may be a little misleading as people will tend to test higher running than cycling because more muscles are used running. He said he is scheduled to repeat the test after 5 years, so in 2015 we will learn more. This will be very interesting (at least to me) when he does. He will be older but I just received some very preliminary data from a researcher doing a study looking at the PowerCranks and running. He has very small numbers so far so nothing conclusive can be proven but he is finding improvement in running speed and VO2max in 6 weeks with no improvement in running economy compared to control. This, I surmise, is probably from the improved training and utilization of the hip flexors. So, that 80 might actually be low for him as he is now. If this finding holds then one might expect to actually see an increase in Sam's VO2max when retested since he will then be 4 years into extensive PowerCranks usage (and, I'll bet, a little thinner). Can he reach 85ml/kg at the age of 40-41? We will see.

 

[FrankDay]

Someone has to have the best genes in the field.

My choice for that honor this year is Mirinda Carfrae. In the past it was Chrissie.

 

[FrankDay]

5-10 watts is a gamble but based on the outcome it looks like he arrived well tapered.

Well, it might be a gamble if one is using power to base your pacing and decide to increase it hoping you are tapered well but it may not be such a gamble if you are experienced racing based on feel and power is just used as a "check" on how you are feeling. That seems to be the tact taken by Sam and it, indeed, did seem to work well for him.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

It is hard to imagine he backed off a lot with a VI of 1.04 for the entire ride.

I think you misunderstand what sort of variability in power affects VI.

 

[sciguy]

Did you actually listen to the interview? Anyhow, as I remember, his set goal was 270 and his NP was 288, so 18 watts (6.66%) higher and he averaged 278, 8 watts (3%) higher. You will have to ask him or his coach. All we have is what we have. Let us know if you learn anything.

Not Fergie here but:

Well Frank, I actually listened to the interview twice and took notes You're memory of the pod-cast seems to be a bit flawed. Go back and listen to it again to see if it still matches your recollection.

After you've done that, you should take some time and educate yourself regarding VI. While I'll concede that whoever writes the Training Peaks race report blurbs does a disservice to the concept, that does not relieve you of the need to perform the basic due diligence one ought to invest if you're to discuss this matter in an informed fashion.

Hugh

 

[CoachFergie]

I didn't listen. I will be listening to Andy's presentations. That is where I am sure I will make a ton of notes and be inspired about measuring the power of my riders better and using the information to make even better coaching decisions.

 

[FrankDay]

Yes Frank I actually listened to the interview twice and took notes. By your snarky remark it's obvious to me that you did not listen to the same pod-cast or are inventing things again. Go back and listen to it one more time and then tell me what I got wrong or if it's you who mixed things up.

After you've done that, take some time and educate yourself regarding VI. It's obvious that you lack even a basic understanding of the concept. While I'll concede that whoever writes the Training Peaks race report blurbs does a disservice to the concept, that does not relieve you of the need to perform the basic due diligence one ought to invest if you're to discuss this matter in an informed fashion.

Hugh

If you would go back and recheck my comment you will find it was not directed towards you. I directed that to CF who has subsequently confirmed he did not listen to the podcast. Why he "participates" in these discussions when he is unwilling to do anything to understand the point of view of anyone who might hold a view contrary to his own is beyond me.

As I remember my only potentially "snarky" comment towards you was simply that I didn't get that he had been tested multiple times for VO2max. Then I gave some subsequent information I had gained directly from Sam regarding this. If that was taken as being offensive I apologize.

 

[FrankDay]

After you've done that, take some time and educate yourself regarding VI. It's obvious that you lack even a basic understanding of the concept. While I'll concede that whoever writes the Training Peaks race report blurbs does a disservice to the concept, that does not relieve you of the need to perform the basic due diligence one ought to invest if you're to discuss this matter in an informed fashion.

Hugh

Just out of curiosity, are you holding me to a higher standard of understanding the concepts of the training peaks software and terms than the training peaks representative who has done these analyses? I mean, if the TP representative doesn't understand this stuff or can't communicate it, what hope is there for the average person?

 

[elapid]

Why he "participates" in these discussions when he is unwilling to do anything to understand the point of view of anyone who might hold a view contrary to his own is beyond me.

Pot meet kettle ...

 

[CoachFergie]

Just out of curiosity, are you holding me to a higher standard of understanding the concepts of the training peaks software and terms than the training peaks representative who has done these analyses? I mean, if the TP representative doesn't understand this stuff or can't communicate it, what hope is there for the average person?

Again the perfection fallacy and there is a difference between not understanding and not being able to communicate.

 

[CoachFergie]

Why he "participates" in these discussions when he is unwilling to do anything to understand the point of view of anyone who might hold a view contrary to his own is beyond me.

Says the guy who refuses to read Racing and Training with a Power Meter book which aims to educate people on how to use a power meter as a measurement device and provides the basic physiological rationale as to why we use these methods.

With the release of WKO+ 4.0 I would expect a third edition is probably required and Andy is starting some webinars this week.

The analysis of a single race is interesting and especially that of the better riders but there is always a lot of context missing. It is the measurement over time that allows us to really test our coaching decisions. That being said it sounds like there are some new cool analysis tools in 4.0 that could give us more understanding of one off performances. Rock on the webinars.

 

[FrankDay]

Says the guy who refuses to read Racing and Training with a Power Meter book which aims to educate people on how to use a power meter as a measurement device and provides the basic physiological rationale as to why we use these methods.

With the release of WKO+ 4.0 I would expect a third edition is probably required and Andy is starting some webinars this week.

The analysis of a single race is interesting and especially that of the better riders but there is always a lot of context missing. It is the measurement over time that allows us to really test our coaching decisions. That being said it sounds like there are some new cool analysis tools in 4.0 that could give us more understanding of one off performances. Rock on the webinars.

It isn't a matter of reading or not reading. All I have asked for is the scientific validation of the concepts that shows a benefit to using one over other methods. Until that is shown we are talking about whether information can be better transmitted by FM or AM radio. One may be clearer but the information that can be transmitted is exactly the same. If a benefit can be shown then, perhaps, I will get on the PM bandwagon. Until then (at least as regards the 1st gen PM's) I will hold that the uses and benefits are quite limited to testing scenarios (comparing positions or components for aerodynamics and power changes for instance). Not that these benefits are not insubstantial, if used, but my sense is the average user ignores this use of the device.