Ge, take a pill dude.. The increase is not in the 300 watt range (actually I improved much more in the anaerobic zone this time- 308 to 330) the data I refer to is from 239 watts to 251 watts, which represents a 5% improvement.. and YES, for all I know the margin or error for the device and for the variables you list could very well be 5% +/- However, I believe that the factors affecting output are MINIMIZED in a controlled environment like my dining room. (No wind, no hills, steady temperature, not propelling my own weight, bike has been inside for a week and is completely acclimated, torque zeroed etc)
But I'm optimistic about these matters, and I also know my legs and body very well. I know what speeds I can hold on the trainer, and what cadence is required and in what gears. Compared against the test I took a month ago, consider this additional data:
CP20 on 1/9: 239 watts, 21.8 mph, 7.273 miles covered
CP20 on 2/12: 251 watts, 24.5 mph, 8.191 miles covered
CP20 on 2/12: 251 watts, 24.5 mph, 8.191 miles covered
No it's not as scientific as you want it to be, but it's evidence that the numbers are compatible with and proportionate to, the output.
Is it my improved form which you're disputing? or the accuracy of the PT? or the necessity of the device? It's working for me.. Not the PT, the training program WITH the PT is working for me. No need to take the wind out of my sails, I do enough of that on my own, to myself, thank you very much.
As a matter of fact, dinner sat in my gut like a brick during last night's test. Conditions weren't optimal. I almost puked.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in indoctrinating you- that's a lost cause. I'm just engaging you on this topic because you're my friend. That and the readers here deserve to be entertained..
gewilli wrote:
gewilli has left a new comment on your post "Field Test "Do-Over" result":
what is your margin of error?
statistically what does 12 watts mean?
what is the variance?
you want science?
you can't HANDLE science.
You want to USE science?
USE science, don't just use numbers.
Is 12 a meaningful difference indoors?
IS it from a 1-2 PSI difference in your tires on the trainer?
Is it from a 2-4°F difference in ambient temperature?
Is it from a 1-2 hour extra sleep differential over the last 3 days?
Is it due to eating better the 24 hours leading up to the test?
Is it due to being better hydrated?
better music?
better mentality?
or
is it the legs...
12 watts.
out of something around 300.
what % increase is that?
You say you want to use the science. But. Are you actually using science?
(hard tough questions - you may know the answers to them all - i'm still just trying to help you understand why i feel these are rather pointless toys)
8 comments:
the necessity of the device. the significance of reporting a 12 watt increase...
the speed is good - maybe you were more efficiently pedaling - not more watts but better application of existing watts... maybe...
Have you ever embarked on a program like this in the past WITHOUT a powertap?
I'm just suggesting that maybe if you had a coach, and only a coach w/o a powertap, maybe your improvements would be bigger.
It seems from observation that the big variable you cannot rule out is if the PT is helping or not.
Would you be faster or just as fast w/o the PT?
Would you be better able to determine the instant LT feeling w/o the PT?
It is working for you. Seems to be self evident. That's good.
Esp good for you.
5% is a nice small sustainable number... coupled with your experience on the bike it should reward you with some better placings.
Question is: Will you actually finish a road race this year, or are you gonna stick with crits?
;-)
That's a big jump in speed for 12 watts.
Murat-
you can validate whether your PT is accurate - all you need is a certified weight, put the computer into torque mode, and there you go. Normally, PTs are w/in 1-2% accurate and remarkably stable (there may be some issues w/ the wireless version, but you don't have that). If you see a PT that is 'off', it's normally off 100s of Watts, so you know the torque tube is broken.
As for you, I'd consider a 5% increase in 20 min max power of an already 'trained' (intentionally vague) cyclist 'solid', if both were max efforts - which I find no reason to doubt.
There's no literature that I'm aware of that shows improvements in exercise economy or efficiency (*especially* not the latter) over such a short period of time, especially in trained cyclists.
Most importantly, looks like you're having fun with it!
J & JB:
The big difference between Jan 9 and Feb 12 is Cadence..
On Jan 9's 20 minute effort, my cadence was only 89 rpm average.
Feb 12's 20 minute effort was done at an average of 100 rpm.
Another good measure of the data's validity is average heart rate. In both tests, it was 174-175 respectively.
I think the big disparity in speed and distance was cadence.. Apparently I'm better at spinning than grinding out a bigger gear.
Thanks for weighing in. Another test is scheduled for mid March. Let's see what happens then.
You're right JB I am having fun testing my limits, harvesting the data, learning about myself from it. Having a coach and a PT works very well for me. My career is very demanding and I have the discipline and willpower of a heroine addict... Getting a detailed daily program of workouts from a coach and having a device which keeps me honest and on track is exactly what I needed. Last seson the coaching and the PT use began in mid May- way too late to really make a huge impact. Even so, I posted a few solid results in 2007. [Solid by my standards, relative to previous season]
To answer your question Ge, I do indeed plan on trying some road races again this year, especially the ones where I was dropped or didn't finish in 2007. Palmer, GVCC Classic, North Stonington.. Mostly criteriums though.. I'll do the road races primarily to prove to myself that I can finish them and to gain some form for crits.. In case you forgot, at those latter two events, I did the Pro-Am in 2007.
wait
you did them at different CADENCES?
fahking HELL dude!
STANDARDIZE
the damn toy ain't no good if you don't control the variables...
89-100 is a HUGE change.
Unless you were specifically training your cadence higher.
*shrug*
Oh and I thought you threw away your HR strap? Why bother collecting data you deem worthless ;)
speed is not really a good indicator on the trainer. If you tighten the resistance a little tighter or the tire pressure is higher/lower, it will affect speed, but not the power measured at the hub. The P/T is documented as having a 1-2% accuracy, so Its fair to say that you probably have improved.
temperature affects heart rate much more than power so if carried out in a similar environment probably doesn't affect the test too much. ( taking into account what is possible/available in the real world to a weekend warrior. In fact the protocol you used is very similar to most research labs)
So could you have done this without a power meter. The answer is obviously yes by applying perceived effort on the same training regimes... But you don't receive the instant feedback that the meter gives.
The powertap nay-sayers tend not to notice that the motivation/mental factor of feedback helps some athletes immensly. In addition, the direct feedback also helps the athlete become more in-tune with their body and can therefore perform the same training regime base on feel after a period of time.
So to sum up... if you like it and inspires/motivates you... then who gives a heck what anyone else thinks.
ok, i think I've stirred this one up enough :-)
Order Cialis, Viagra, Levitra, Tamiflu. Order Generic Medication In own Pharmacy. Buy Pills Central.
[url=http://www.itpill.com/]Discount Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, Tamiflu Pharmacy No prescription[/url]. canadian generic drugs. Discount pills pharmacy
When you body Cialis or some other meds in our betray you may be trustworthy generic Viagra now that this spin-off just of first-rate distinction bequeath be delivered to you certainly in time.
Post a Comment