Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

Pacing for Longer Rides

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

Pacing for Longer Rides

Old 06-25-20, 02:23 PM
  #51  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 16,489

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2450 Post(s)
Liked 515 Times in 379 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
Your training is sufficient for what you're doing. It's not sufficient for other things. I assert that really efficient training, however, would allow for both.

What's fast for you isn't fast for me. What's long for me isn't long for you. But your training, despite being significantly more, wouldn't prepare you for what I want to do. My training does prepare me for what you want to do (at least physically. mentally would be a toss-up depending on motivation).
You don't know that because you haven't done it. Specificity and all that. We really don't train that differently, I just can't do hard intervals as frequently, age you know. I usually pack 2-3 of your days into one, 100 TSS/hour type of thing. February, went out with the Rabbits on my single with the PM, did 332 TSS in 3:13 saddle time, 3130' in 49 miles. That was all-out, but I stayed with them, 2 X FTP on the little risers, did a 3 hour recovery snowshoe the next day. I know, really slow, but I am 75. Tomorrow I'm supposed to do a 30' Z4 interval, OOS because of my saddle sore.. I doubt I can do it, but I"ll try. It'd be a piece of cake seated.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 06-25-20, 02:52 PM
  #52  
Riveting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 658

Bikes: '13 Trek Madone 2.3, '13 Diamondback Hybrid Commuter, '17 Spec Roubaix Di2, '17 Spec Camber 29'er

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked 99 Times in 69 Posts
Originally Posted by downtube42 View Post
400 miles in 24 hours was my best, which isn't bad but about a hundred miles off the winning pace.
Nice job! I've gone 325 miles in 24 hrs (20 hours of moving time), 16.3 mph avg moving speed. In hindsight, I wish I had ridden faster, since I definitely had more left in my tank at the 24 hr mark, but I picked a finishing pace, instead of a winning pace, because finishing my first (and only) 24 hr ride, and having fun doing it, was more important than winning. To get your kind of mileage I would've had to ride an avg of 20 mph, instead of 16.3, or taken less than 4 hours of breaks, either of which might have broken me.
Riveting is offline  
Old 06-25-20, 06:45 PM
  #53  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: Felt AR

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2117 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
You don't know that because you haven't done it. Specificity and all that. .
Simply riding for a long time isn't that specific. I'm confident it's well within my fitness levels.


Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
I just can't do hard intervals as frequently, age you know. I usually pack 2-3 of your days into one, 100 TSS/hour type of thing. February, went out with the Rabbits on my single with the PM, did 332 TSS in 3:13 saddle time, 3130' in 49 miles.
This would indicate that you still have a lot to learn about power.

Last edited by rubiksoval; 06-25-20 at 07:18 PM.
rubiksoval is offline  
Likes For rubiksoval:
Old 06-25-20, 11:28 PM
  #54  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 16,489

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2450 Post(s)
Liked 515 Times in 379 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
I think you still have a lot to learn about power.
Probably so - there's always more to learn. It's confusing. My tested FTP is 160w, which might be a little generous, certainly not too low. On the ride, TP said my average power was 118w. but my normalized power was 160w and IF = 1.01, hence the high TSS. Strava said I did 1384 kJ, weighted average power 134, though the same thing with the Coggen formula was 164w. This was a fairly ordinary short ride for this group of LD riders. I was starting to cramp on the last hill.

According to TP:
Z6: 40' The lower boundary of my TP Z6 is 194w. Max watts was 613.
Z5: 17'
Z4: 19'
Z3: 17'
Z2: 22'
Z1: 1:18
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 01:15 AM
  #55  
colnago62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,038
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 557 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times in 134 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Probably so - there's always more to learn. It's confusing. My tested FTP is 160w, which might be a little generous, certainly not too low. On the ride, TP said my average power was 118w. but my normalized power was 160w and IF = 1.01, hence the high TSS. Strava said I did 1384 kJ, weighted average power 134, though the same thing with the Coggen formula was 164w. This was a fairly ordinary short ride for this group of LD riders. I was starting to cramp on the last hill.

According to TP:
Z6: 40' The lower boundary of my TP Z6 is 194w. Max watts was 613.
Z5: 17'
Z4: 19'
Z3: 17'
Z2: 22'
Z1: 1:18
You probably needed to do a ramp test. IF of 1.00 is supposed to equal the effort you can sustain for an hour. If you are riding at that pace for more than that, it is a sign that your numbers might be wrong.
colnago62 is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 05:14 AM
  #56  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: Felt AR

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2117 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
My tested FTP is 160w, which might be a little generous, certainly not too low. On the ride, TP said my average power was 118w. but my normalized power was 160w and IF = 1.01
Even though I'm not the biggest fan of NP and TSS and understand how it can be broken, holding 1.01 for 3 plus hours is beyond even that realm. That FTP is certainly too low unless your PM was suddenly reading much too high on that day. 40 minutes in Z6 is...unlikely, seeing as how that's normally a zone you'd hold for 30-120 secs at a time (because it's very difficult).

To compare to your one ride, in the last 90 days (over 100 hours of riding), with multiple group rides and workouts, I've only accumulated 1 hour and 4 minutes of time in Z6.

Last edited by rubiksoval; 06-26-20 at 05:20 AM.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 06:08 AM
  #57  
Jim from Boston
Senior Member
 
Jim from Boston's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,383
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 206 Times in 161 Posts
Originally Posted by Metallifan33 View Post
Hi All,
I'm just getting into doing some longer rides (between 2 and 3 hrs for me) and have just gotten into reading about FTP, pacing, etc (which is a good thing, because until recently, I just went as hard as I could for as long as I could).
Now that I've learned about FTP/FTHR, I've started experimenting with zone 2 rides. They just seem so slow (mostly because I'm, in fact, slow).

My question is, when you legends plan a 3 or 4 hour ride, how do you decide what pace you're going to go with? Do you just do zone 2 for all longer rides, or do you adjust... e.g. 75% for a 2 hr ride, 60% for a 3 hr ride, 55% for a 4 hr ride? (or some system that's similar)?

Or do you just ride by feel (so slowing down around hr 3 if you misjudged it etc.)
Thanks!
Originally Posted by Iride01 View Post
I don't maintain speed no matter whether I'm riding for one hour or six hours. At least not when I'm solo. I'm just going at whatever steady power output I know I can maintain without tiring.

I don't have a PM, I just have learned over the years to feel in my legs what I can and can't maintain. Watching my HR and cadence also helps me make some judgments about how I'm doing.
Originally Posted by canklecat View Post
I go mostly by perceived exertion. If I plan to ride longer than 2 hours, I start easier than usual and wait 30-60 minutes to decide whether to increase my effort.

On good days heart rate is a reliable indicator for me....

Meanwhile I'm just taking an easy week, judging my
perceived effort based on whether I can carry on a conversation (harder to do since I've skipped group rides for months due to the pandemic) or singing to myself to guesstimate my effort.

And as the summer heat increases I need to compensate by easing
the perceived effort even more. So even if I could risk a group ride, I wouldn't try to match their pace if they wanted to do a tempo ride based on the age range of 30-50something....
Originally Posted by downtube42 View Post
If you want to do it with data, go for it. I believe a data driven approach to training will, if followed, yield the best result. I can't help at all. There are books on the topic

I've followed a holistic approach of riding hard when I want, keeping it fun, and being sure to have rest days. I've been doing this for 40 years, have not won any races, but I'm still doing it after 40 years, which is something.
I have posted on several threads my semi-quantitative use of a Relative Perceived Exertion Scale to set my pace for fitness, at an enjoyable level:
Originally Posted by Jim from Boston View Post
"Cadence"

I’m a 40+ year long cyclist and I ride mainly for fitness. My training tool is the Relative Perceived Exertion (RPE) Scale, and I use cadence to chose gears to maintain my desired exertion..
Originally Posted by Jim from Boston View Post
This year though, I decided to go for speed (intensity), and I use the semi-quantitative, standardized, but personally relavant system of (Borg’s) Relative Perceived Exertion (RPE) (link).
Originally Posted by Jim from Boston View Post
The RPE scale ranges from 6 to 17, with descriptions of the intensity. Multiply the RPE by 10 is the approximate heart rate. Jim's scale is the equivalent on a 0 to 100 scale, easier to think about:

RPE = 7, very, very light... Jim's scale = 20 to 30

RPE = 9, very light... Jim's scale = 30 to 40

11, fairly light...50 (my usual happy-go-lucky pace without thinking about it)

13, somewhat hard...60 (I have to focus to maintain)

15, hard...70 (I start breathing hard at about 30 seconds)

17, very hard (lactate threshold; breakpoint between hard but steady breathing and labored with gasping)...

18, 80 (my predicted max HR)

19, very, very hard...90 to 100.
My basic training is to ride at my RPE of 50% for six miles to warm up, then cruise at an RPE of 60%, and do intervals (on hills) at 70%. I try to change gears to maintain a cadence of about 85-90 rpm on flats and rolling hills, and about 60 to 80 rpm on harder hills, to maintain my RPE.

Shift up to higher gears as the cadence rises, and shift down as the RPE increases.

Last edited by Jim from Boston; 06-26-20 at 11:09 AM.
Jim from Boston is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 09:35 AM
  #58  
guadzilla
Pointy Helmet Tribe
 
guadzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Offthebackistan
Posts: 4,162

Bikes: Venge, R5, Shiv, Lynskey and a few more

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 414 Post(s)
Liked 500 Times in 233 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
Kind of both, depending on the time period. I became a Cat 1 at 20 years old and I was riding 10-20 hours a week throughout the year. Then I quit and didn't ride for 7 years.
After starting again in my 30s, my training is squarely in the 6-10 hours a week range. I've done one 15 hour week in 7 years, and a handful of 10-13 hour weeks when building for long races.
So in my 30s, 8-10 hours to build up fitness (like this winter when I started after a 6 month break and an ftp of ~220w) to being competitive, and then 4-6 hours a week to maintain it.
Ah cool, thanks for the considered reply.

I used to do 6-8 hour weeks with a fair bit of high intensity but i found that the gains I had then didnt last - but then, I only started endurance sports in my mid-30s (and in my mid-to-late 40s now). Am doing an 80:20 polarized plan with 10-12 hours of bike+run, and am feeling that my foundation is getting a lot better. I also recognize a big improvement from doing long Z2 with very little time in Z2. I suspect that for me, i need to pay attention to the volume each yet and do atleast 2-3 months of volume focused efforts between more traditional intensity blocks.

Last edited by guadzilla; 06-26-20 at 09:41 AM.
guadzilla is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 11:00 AM
  #59  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: Felt AR

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2117 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by guadzilla View Post
Ah cool, thanks for the considered reply.

I used to do 6-8 hour weeks with a fair bit of high intensity but i found that the gains I had then didnt last - but then, I only started endurance sports in my mid-30s (and in my mid-to-late 40s now). Am doing an 80:20 polarized plan with 10-12 hours of bike+run, and am feeling that my foundation is getting a lot better. I also recognize a big improvement from doing long Z2 with very little time in Z2. I suspect that for me, i need to pay attention to the volume each yet and do atleast 2-3 months of volume focused efforts between more traditional intensity blocks.
If I could coach my 18-22 year old self with a powermeter, I think 10-12 hours would be ideal, with a few 13-15 hour weeks at certain points. At that amount, you're getting the best of both worlds: sufficient specific endurance for most any length U.S. race while not being so overwhelming that you can't pack in 2-4 quality workouts as needed. Powermeters were such a game-changer in my training. 5 hours of noodling around on group rides and such became 3 hours of targeted work. So much more bang-for-the-buck.
rubiksoval is offline  
Likes For rubiksoval:
Old 06-26-20, 11:07 AM
  #60  
guadzilla
Pointy Helmet Tribe
 
guadzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Offthebackistan
Posts: 4,162

Bikes: Venge, R5, Shiv, Lynskey and a few more

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 414 Post(s)
Liked 500 Times in 233 Posts
^^^ Yeah, agreed. Even with my significantly lower volume, powermeters help me get the most out of my training hours.

Am shooting to get up to being able to do 8-10 hours on the bike regularly, with 3-4 hours of running thrown it. Started riding against last year after a gap of 2+ years, so need to build up the ability to recover again. That's been the first sign of having reached middle age
guadzilla is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 11:48 AM
  #61  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 16,489

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2450 Post(s)
Liked 515 Times in 379 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
Even though I'm not the biggest fan of NP and TSS and understand how it can be broken, holding 1.01 for 3 plus hours is beyond even that realm. That FTP is certainly too low unless your PM was suddenly reading much too high on that day. 40 minutes in Z6 is...unlikely, seeing as how that's normally a zone you'd hold for 30-120 secs at a time (because it's very difficult).

To compare to your one ride, in the last 90 days (over 100 hours of riding), with multiple group rides and workouts, I've only accumulated 1 hour and 4 minutes of time in Z6.
That's what I'm trying to get across in this thread: optimal endurance training is not plunking along at a continuous long-sustainable pace. Not at all. This ride is what endurance training looks like. This is how it's done. Go as hard as you possibly can, recover, repeat endlessly. The standard quote is something like, "Endurance is between your ears." Short rides like this are done at a higher intensity to simulate what happens on a long ride but in a lot less time. No kidding it's "very difficult." That's the whole point. As we say, "If it weren't hard, we wouldn't be doing it." You could be training a lot harder.

I was taught on longer rides than this, with long climbs, to simply keep attacking the group, off the front until you can't and they catch you, sit in until you get your breathing back under control, attack again, repeat, repeat. On a short ride like this, the routine is to attack every little rise full gas. I did the 600w+ on the ride's one longer steep hill when I sprinted from the back and dropped everyone, then "recovered" at FTP for the rest of the hill which was shallower. Yes, that's exactly the opposite to what everyone says about "how to climb a hill." It's harder, yes. but this isn't racing, it's training. It's supposed to be hard. A couple of the faster riders did catch me before the top, but as I said, it's not racing.

This is pretty funny, really. What the heck am I doing? But this is how one gets to be fast on endurance rides. You just haven't trained specifically to do this, continuously except for one regretted winter, for 20 years. You had other priorities. The first group ride with these folks I ever went on was a double metric. They schooled me very quickly. At the mid-ride lunch stop, I cramped so badly that I slid under the table and laid on the floor. I was off the back and soloing at 16 for most of the second half, but I was hooked. I had no idea.

Strasser rode the 3000+ miles of RAAM at an average of 16.42 mph. That's on elapsed time, not moving time. He didn't do that by riding slowly. A RAAM rider I know said he attacked the first climb hard and was never seen again.

I have a Powertap SL 2.4, which I calibrate before every ride or workout. My FTP is, as I said, if anything too high. I certainly can't hold 160w for an hour. My 110% and 120% intervals seem just right: I'm panting and have trouble completing one set.

But as you said, the TSS calculation is much more interesting than assuming it's 3 hours at FTP.
Normalized Power is calculated using an algorithm that is a little complex, but in a nutshell takes into account the variance between a steady workout and a fluctuating workout. The resulting value is an attempt to better quantify the physiological “cost” of the harder “feel” of the variable effort.
Full explanation here: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/w...malized-power/

The point of having a TSS in TP is to create a CTL and TSB which track fitness and exhaustion as closely as possible. IME it works quite well. I had another Perfect Ride™.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 12:10 PM
  #62  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: Felt AR

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2117 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
That's what I'm trying to get across in this thread: optimal endurance training is not plunking along at a continuous long-sustainable pace. Not at all. This ride is what endurance training looks like. This is how it's done. Go as hard as you possibly can, recover, repeat endlessly.

So to be clear, your opinion of optimal endurance training isn't structured in any way, shape, or form, it's just go as hard as you can and repeat?

And you do that with extremely faulty power numbers that give you very little useful information?

This isn't an idea that you're going to be getting across any time soon.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 12:12 PM
  #63  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: Felt AR

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2117 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
I have a Powertap SL 2.4, which I calibrate before every ride or workout. My FTP is, as I said, if anything too high. I certainly can't hold 160w for an hour. My 110% and 120% intervals seem just right: I'm panting and have trouble completing one set.

But as you said, the TSS calculation is much more interesting than assuming it's 3 hours at FTP. Full explanation here: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/w...malized-power/

The point of having a TSS in TP is to create a CTL and TSB which track fitness and exhaustion as closely as possible. IME it works quite well. I had another Perfect Ride™.
Your notion of 332 TSS in 3 hours certainly does not mean it's "working well". It's little more than an arbitrary number at this point.

Your numbers are off, simple as that. Trying to justify it as matching up with your perceived notion of fitness and exhaustion is self-fulfilling at best.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 12:17 PM
  #64  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: Felt AR

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2117 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
You could be training a lot harder.
Loan me your powermeter and set up my zones for me and I'm sure I'll be doing 1200 TSS a week.

Results won't change a bit, but hey, those numbers sure sound cool.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 12:22 PM
  #65  
MoAlpha
• —
 
MoAlpha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 6,222

Bikes: Shmikes

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4225 Post(s)
Liked 1,537 Times in 849 Posts
Originally Posted by guadzilla View Post
Ah cool, thanks for the considered reply.

I used to do 6-8 hour weeks with a fair bit of high intensity but i found that the gains I had then didnt last - but then, I only started endurance sports in my mid-30s (and in my mid-to-late 40s now). Am doing an 80:20 polarized plan with 10-12 hours of bike+run, and am feeling that my foundation is getting a lot better. I also recognize a big improvement from doing long Z2 with very little time in Z2. I suspect that for me, i need to pay attention to the volume each yet and do atleast 2-3 months of volume focused efforts between more traditional intensity blocks.
Polarization is probably the most helpful training concept I've ever assimilated.
MoAlpha is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 12:30 PM
  #66  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 16,489

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2450 Post(s)
Liked 515 Times in 379 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
Loan me your powermeter and set up my zones for me and I'm sure I'll be doing 1200 TSS a week.

Results won't change a bit, but hey, those numbers sure sound cool.
Rather than assuming that others are wrong and only you are correct, you could test my hypothesis. Go out on a route with short rolling hills and attack every hill as hard as you can, almost all of them seated, for at least a couple hours. Attack and recover. Ignore your PM, just try to slaughter yourself. Have a look at your results in TP. Why do I think you won't try that? As you say here, your results won't change if you keep doing the same thing, very true.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 12:37 PM
  #67  
WhyFi
Senior Member
 
WhyFi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 30,555

Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo

Mentioned: 337 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13516 Post(s)
Liked 2,799 Times in 1,505 Posts
What about Pacing for Longer BF Pissing Matches?
WhyFi is online now  
Likes For WhyFi:
Old 06-26-20, 02:23 PM
  #68  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: Felt AR

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2117 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Rather than assuming that others are wrong and only you are correct, you could test my hypothesis. Go out on a route with short rolling hills and attack every hill as hard as you can, almost all of them seated, for at least a couple hours. Attack and recover. Ignore your PM, just try to slaughter yourself. Have a look at your results in TP. Why do I think you won't try that? As you say here, your results won't change if you keep doing the same thing, very true.
So, what, like in a race or something? How many dozens of examples would you like?

Here's a hard race. Note that my powermeter, ftp, and zones were was all pretty accurate. Zone 6 was 25 minutes and 6 seconds.





Another of my longest and hardest races. Z6 = 19 minutes and 39 seconds.



These were both from national championship races, so suffice to say I was "slaughtered" in ways that I'm not typically slaughtered.

But hey, maybe you just train so much harder.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 05:22 PM
  #69  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 16,489

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2450 Post(s)
Liked 515 Times in 379 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
So, what, like in a race or something? How many dozens of examples would you like?

Here's a hard race. Note that my powermeter, ftp, and zones were was all pretty accurate. Zone 6 was 25 minutes and 6 seconds.

Another of my longest and hardest races. Z6 = 19 minutes and 39 secoThese were both from national championship races, so suffice to say I was "slaughtered" in ways that I'm not typically slaughtered.

But hey, maybe you just train so much harder.
Nice! Way to go! I don't understand the issue. That was a good example of a similar workout, only ~45' longer and a little less time in Z6 than I had, but not a terribly different set of percentages. It's interesting that you also had a lot of time in Z1. I wondered about that in the case of races. I wonder what your TSS in TP would have been, which I believe is the complaint, not really the amount of Z6 I had, which as we see, is not that different. We had different goals - yours was to try to win the race or at least podium, mine and that of my other riders was to accumulate as much high end stress as possible in the distance available, hence the Z1 time I had and how little of the others between there and Z6.

These competitive rides I've been doing almost every Sunday for 20 years are race simulations, except that if one of us drops the group, we soft pedal so we can do it again, except it'll probably be someone else who goes and the challenge will be to hold their wheel if we can. So there's no winner, just trying to leave it all on the road. Our motto: "We believe in safe and cooperative riding," cooperating to trash each other. That we had more surging that did you could have been the dynamic or the terrain. This particular ride had so much surging because it was so short. My goal is for it to be hard just to walk when I get off the bike, and this wasn't much time to get to that point, though it worked about perfectly. Longer rides don't look like this: the last 10 hour ride I did had an IF of .73, 543 TSS.

I don't get to do these competitive rides as often as I used to since I take the tandem on them now. The ability to have a bit of competition depends on what other tandems show up. It's not quite the same, but I do get a good workout on the tandem anyway, good enough to do what I want to do on my single, as you saw.

I can't do this on my own, can't get that level of stress, which I think is quite normal. My workout structure follows a pattern which was discussed in another thread where I think you were present. The idea is to accumulate a lot of stress at the start of the week and then gradually get rid of it over the week so that one starts the next week with somewhere around zero for a TSB. Tuesday, my TSB is usually -20-30.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 05:55 PM
  #70  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: Felt AR

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2117 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Nice! Way to go! I don't understand the issue. That was a good example of a similar workout, only ~45' longer and a little less time in Z6 than I had, but not a terribly different set of percentages. It's interesting that you also had a lot of time in Z1. I wondered about that in the case of races. I wonder what your TSS in TP would have been, which I believe is the complaint, not really the amount of Z6 I had, which as we see, is not that different. .
TP is the same as WKO4. TSS is the same.

No, it's an absolutely massive difference. The amount of Z6 you had is indicative of your zones being way, way off, which is why your TSS is way, way off. That's the issue. Your numbers are significantly out of whack. There's no comparison, here. I was no where near an IF of 1.01, because that's pretty much impossible for that duration.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 07:13 PM
  #71  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 16,489

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2450 Post(s)
Liked 515 Times in 379 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
TP is the same as WKO4. TSS is the same.

No, it's an absolutely massive difference. The amount of Z6 you had is indicative of your zones being way, way off, which is why your TSS is way, way off. That's the issue. Your numbers are significantly out of whack. There's no comparison, here. I was no where near an IF of 1.01, because that's pretty much impossible for that duration.
I looked back at my last Z4 interval workout - 2 X 15 X 5 outdoors, in the saddle, on June 7. Assuming my FTP was 160 I was shooting for ~155w. I averaged 157 on the first and 154 on the second. At the end of each interval, my HR was about at LT, which I know is an accurate number from doing long climbs. For the first interval I was one beat low, second was one beat high. That plus that I tested at 160, plus my experience with 110% and 120% intervals says zones are correct. Sorry 'bout that. In any case, you're complaining about a zone which starts at 120% of FTP and goes up to 375%. Complain to TP, not to me. I just upload the files. I don't set the parameters of their calculation. You probably ignored it, but I said that TP had normalized power at 160, Strava had it at both 143 and 164, the 164 figure coming from the local power idol's calculation. There seems to be a difference of opinion about how to calculate NP and thus TSS, IOW don't complain to me about it. I know how to ride a bike. You're out of line.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 06-27-20, 04:45 AM
  #72  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: Felt AR

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2117 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
IOW don't complain to me about it. I know how to ride a bike. You're out of line.
I know how to use a microwave. Doesn't mean I understand how it works.

You're using an older version of Z6 that includes Z5, so that explains the otherwise impossible amount of time in that zone. Unfortunately, that doesn't help your erroneous IF and TSS scores, but your training parameters make no difference to me either way.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 06-27-20, 11:33 AM
  #73  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 16,489

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2450 Post(s)
Liked 515 Times in 379 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
I know how to use a microwave. Doesn't mean I understand how it works.

You're using an older version of Z6 that includes Z5, so that explains the otherwise impossible amount of time in that zone. Unfortunately, that doesn't help your erroneous IF and TSS scores, but your training parameters make no difference to me either way.
They're only erroneous if you disagree with TP's calculations. TP's hrTSS for that ride was 242, though only 1/3 of the time was spent over Z3. We can see quite clearly that their equations for hrTSS and TSS gives higher ratings for high end work. The following Wednesday, TSB was -19 and my legs were still so sore that I could barely manage a 30' recovery ride on my rollers. I did various workouts during the week to gradually taper my TSB. The next Sunday, CTL was up 4 points, TSB was -1, and we had a very strong tandem ride. TP's numbers were a good match for my subsequent performance, which is the reason I use it. I recommend it to the gentle reader, should anyone have had the perseverance to have struggled through this sub-discussion.
Power zones as set up in TP using a 160 FTP, Andy Coggan 6 zone system with CTS type labels:
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 06-27-20, 01:53 PM
  #74  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: Felt AR

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2117 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
They're only erroneous if you disagree with TP's calculations.
The calculations are only as good as your inputted FTP.

I feel like that's been said multiple times already.

An IF of 1.01 for 3+ hours is like an illuminated billboard sign that says your inputs are off.
rubiksoval is offline  
Likes For rubiksoval:
Old 06-27-20, 08:53 PM
  #75  
woodcraft
Senior Member
 
woodcraft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 5,249
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1465 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 508 Times in 299 Posts
I just did a long-ish ride, for my sad state of fitness- 6 hrs moving time.

Mainly focused on keeping the HR to modest levels, and looked at power only to not go at all high. No efforts on hills.

A twinge in the outside of the lower leg, so focused on pedaling through the ball of foot & big toe.

Outbound was steady, but stopped quite a bit on the return leg. Finished only moderately worked, so the restraint payed off.
woodcraft is offline  
Likes For woodcraft:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.