Help with Power Ranges

To find your CP 30 just take your avg. of your 30 min. TT and x it by .05 which is 17, add and sutract 17 to 340 to establish your cp30 323-357

wattsup? said:

I am training with CTS, and am unclear about my power ranges and how they are determined. I've been wondering about this for a few weeks now and have mentioned this to my coach as I have had difficulty completing some of my workouts lately. I figured I might be overtraining or something, but after seeing some great info on these forums, I wanted to try to get some feedback from this knowledgeable group.

Here's enough info (I think) to make a very educated guess about what my ranges should be. There is a definite disparity between the Coggan levels and the CTS-prescribed power ranges, and the Coggan levels make a lot more sense to me.

For my field test, which is basically 3 miles all out, my average power is 340W with an average HR of 178.

I did a 30-minute time trial and my average power was 310W with average HR of 176.

Since I've never done a 40K TT, based on a rough calculation using a ratio from the same column of 5 min power to FT power from the power profiling chart to guesstimate my FT power to be around 280W. When I plug my info into Coggan's Training Levels spread sheet, I get Tempo at 213-252W, while my CTS Tempo power range is 273-290W. I'm sure these are variations on a theme, but this is a pretty big disparity, and confirms the suspicion that my CTS Tempo range (and other ranges) might be too high. Any other CTS guys out there have their power ranges they can share? Any other thoughts on this?

I did a 2x40 Tempo interval today, and the prescribed power range was 273-290W. The first one I maintained 270W with and average HR of 166. The second one, I was only able to maintian 250W with the same average HR. I'm thinking this is at least a notch above Tempo. CTS also have what they call SteadyState, which is a notch above Tempo and would be similar to Coggan's Threshold, I believe. That's more like what today's ride felt like, especially considering I couldn't finish it. My legs were screaming for awhile after my ride as well. Granted, I did 80 miles at endurance pace yesterday, and 60 miles total today, but I think I could have handled what the intended ranges should have been had they been properly calculated.

Thanks in advance for any feedback. Please let me know what other info might be useful if necessary. Just want to make sure I am training "right."

Cheers,

Ethan

wattsup? said:

I am training with CTS, and am unclear about my power ranges and how they are determined. I've been wondering about this for a few weeks now and have mentioned this to my coach as I have had difficulty completing some of my workouts lately. I figured I might be overtraining or something, but after seeing some great info on these forums, I wanted to try to get some feedback from this knowledgeable group.

Here's enough info (I think) to make a very educated guess about what my ranges should be. There is a definite disparity between the Coggan levels and the CTS-prescribed power ranges, and the Coggan levels make a lot more sense to me.

For my field test, which is basically 3 miles all out, my average power is 340W with an average HR of 178.

I did a 30-minute time trial and my average power was 310W with average HR of 176.

Since I've never done a 40K TT, based on a rough calculation using a ratio from the same column of 5 min power to FT power from the power profiling chart to guesstimate my FT power to be around 280W. When I plug my info into Coggan's Training Levels spread sheet, I get Tempo at 213-252W, while my CTS Tempo power range is 273-290W. I'm sure these are variations on a theme, but this is a pretty big disparity, and confirms the suspicion that my CTS Tempo range (and other ranges) might be too high. Any other CTS guys out there have their power ranges they can share? Any other thoughts on this?

I did a 2x40 Tempo interval today, and the prescribed power range was 273-290W. The first one I maintained 270W with and average HR of 166. The second one, I was only able to maintian 250W with the same average HR. I'm thinking this is at least a notch above Tempo. CTS also have what they call SteadyState, which is a notch above Tempo and would be similar to Coggan's Threshold, I believe. That's more like what today's ride felt like, especially considering I couldn't finish it. My legs were screaming for awhile after my ride as well. Granted, I did 80 miles at endurance pace yesterday, and 60 miles total today, but I think I could have handled what the intended ranges should have been had they been properly calculated.

Thanks in advance for any feedback. Please let me know what other info might be useful if necessary. Just want to make sure I am training "right."

Cheers,

Ethan

I wouldn't take your 5 minute power on the profile chart and extend it to ft, since the purpose of that chart is to find your relative strengths/weaknesses. With a 30 minute power of 310, I would say your functional threshold is ~295 watts. Somewhere around there. That means your tempo levels for CTS are much higher than they would be using Coggan's zones. Keep in mind that tempo is a meaningless word that cyclists use for a variety of things, and that a CTS tempo workout might not be the same thing as a Coggan tempo workout. So, talk to your coach more about how your power ranges are determined and the purpose of "tempo."

you need to re-read his post, his 30 min. TT was 340 not 310

whoawhoa said:

I wouldn't take your 5 minute power on the profile chart and extend it to ft, since the purpose of that chart is to find your relative strengths/weaknesses. With a 30 minute power of 310, I would say your functional threshold is ~295 watts. Somewhere around there. That means your tempo levels for CTS are much higher than they would be using Coggan's zones. Keep in mind that tempo is a meaningless word that cyclists use for a variety of things, and that a CTS tempo workout might not be the same thing as a Coggan tempo workout. So, talk to your coach more about how your power ranges are determined and the purpose of "tempo."

bucfan471 said:

you need to re-read his post, his 30 min. TT was 340 not 310

His 3 mile tt was 340, his 30 minute tt was 310.

wattsup? said:

For my field test, which is basically 3 miles all out, my average power is 340W with an average HR of 178.

I did a 30-minute time trial and my average power was 310W with average HR of 176.

Ethan

Ethan, do you have a pretty good sprint or kilo ability? I'm not working with a lot of data, but it appears to me that you might have a high AWC which is skewing your short test results upward. i.e. your profile on Coggan's chart probably won't be flat but will be angled down (\) a bit.

This is one of the problems with doing such short tests to base training zones on. I'm guessing your guess of 280 to 290w threshold is closer to the mark, but, again this is only a guess. You should take some more steps to verify.

One thing you could do is go to the wattage list on topica and search for "7 deadly sins" - this is a posting on 7 ways to determine your threshold power. I personally do 2x20's every couple of days increasing the power each session until I can't complete the second one. The last one I completed is usually only slightly higher than my threshold.

FWIW, my FT is ~92% of my 30MP. I think this is fairly close to the norm. That would put your FT at ~285w. As to the ranges, I don't get too picky below L4 (per AC's schema). Call it whatever you want, but for me everything below 95%FT is relaxation. Improvement begins at 95%FT (L4). But, there's a quick and easy way to find out if your FT estimate is accurate. Do 2x20s at FT with 5 mins recovery at ~65%FT. If you can't complete both 20s at full power, you have overestimated FT.

whoawhoa said:

I wouldn't take your 5 minute power on the profile chart and extend it to ft, since the purpose of that chart is to find your relative strengths/weaknesses. With a 30 minute power of 310, I would say your functional threshold is ~295 watts. Somewhere around there. That means your tempo levels for CTS are much higher than they would be using Coggan's zones. Keep in mind that tempo is a meaningless word that cyclists use for a variety of things, and that a CTS tempo workout might not be the same thing as a Coggan tempo workout. So, talk to your coach more about how your power ranges are determined and the purpose of "tempo."

I think you're a little high on your FT estimate, but not bad for a HS sophomore.

RapDaddyo said:

I think you're a little high on your FT estimate, but not bad for a HS sophomore.

I guessed ~5% lower. I thought I'd read that somewhere. Thanks for the correction.

RapDaddyo said:

As to the ranges, I don't get too picky below L4 (per AC's schema). Call it whatever you want, but for me everything below 95%FT is relaxation. Improvement begins at 95%FT (L4).

Now that should get some debate going! Can you go on a little about that remark? I thought your np/tss rides averaged out somewhere in l3.

EDIT: The second question was kind of stupid. On your rides, do you do any structured work in l3? Or is it on/off (l4,5,6, or l2)?

whoawhoa said:

Now that should get some debate going! Can you go on a little about that remark? I thought your np/tss rides averaged out somewhere in l3.

EDIT: The second question was kind of stupid. On your rides, do you do any structured work in l3? Or is it on/off (l4,5,6, or l2)?

My rides are designed to attain specific numbers of minutes in L4-L6 with a few 10sec L7s thrown in for good measure. When I'm not doing L4-L6 work, I ride at levels designed to give me a target NP for the entire ride. My target NP is a function of the ride duration. For a 1hr ride (which I never do), my target NP would be ~90%FT. Then, I drop the target 5% for each hr. My usual rides are 3-4 hrs, so my NP target is in the 75-80%FT range. But, my overriding goal is my minutes at L4 and above. I was riding with a friend from my group rides the other day and he asked me at what power level I have to ride to attain any real training benefit. My answer was 95%FT for durations of 10 mins or greater, or 105%FT for durations of 3-10 mins. If I can't do that, I don't much care what the pace is because I'm getting no real benefit.

RapDaddyo said:

My rides are designed to attain specific numbers of minutes in L4-L6 with a few 10sec L7s thrown in for good measure. When I'm not doing L4-L6 work, I ride at levels designed to give me a target NP for the entire ride. My target NP is a function of the ride duration. For a 1hr ride (which I never do), my target NP would be ~90%FT. Then, I drop the target 5% for each hr. My usual rides are 3-4 hrs, so my NP target is in the 75-80%FT range. But, my overriding goal is my minutes at L4 and above. I was riding with a friend from my group rides the other day and he asked me at what power level I have to ride to attain any real training benefit. My answer was 95%FT for durations of 10 mins or greater, or 105%FT for durations of 3-10 mins. If I can't do that, I don't much care what the pace is because I'm getting no real benefit.

Wow! Sounds like work. What is the purpose of keeping NP high (z3 for a 3hr ride) if you feel it's only the z4 and above that gives training benefit? You mentioned on another thread that your goal was to get your ft to your personal maximum. How do you feel that the z5/6 minutes impact this? Does every minute above z4 count as threshold work in your mind? Or is the higher intensity stuff in there for a different reason?

Hope you don't mind me grilling you, I'm interested.

whoawhoa said:

What is the purpose of keeping NP high (z3 for a 3hr ride) if you feel it's only the z4 and above that gives training benefit?

That's a very insightful question. A related one would be: Why ride 3-4 hours to get 70 mins of 'beneficial' work, when a typical interval structure would do it quicker?

I expect an answer for both would be: because there is benefit to riding close to one's power v. duration curve at L3 and L2.

whoawhoa said:

Wow! Sounds like work. What is the purpose of keeping NP high (z3 for a 3hr ride) if you feel it's only the z4 and above that gives training benefit?

There's no reason not to. I figure it contributes to my endurance in some vague way. I just figure I want my training rides to be sort of like a RR in total ride NP. My goal is to have a 3 hr ride at an NP of ~275w become just "another day at the beach."

whoawhoa said:

You mentioned on another thread that your goal was to get your ft to your personal maximum. How do you feel that the z5/6 minutes impact this? Does every minute above z4 count as threshold work in your mind? Or is the higher intensity stuff in there for a different reason?

The L5 minutes are there to (hopefully) raise my VO2MAX, although clearly they also result in LT improvement. The L6 minutes are there mainly because the interval "opportunities" are there (short climbs). I structure my rides around the topography of my courses. Beginning in ~March, I'll go out about once a week and climb Mt. Charleston (17.5 miles ~6% avg grade) back-to-back. I'll try to ride the first one at 95%FT and the second one at 90%FT.

RapDaddyo said:

There's no reason not to. I figure it contributes to my endurance in some vague way. I just figure I want my training rides to be sort of like a RR in total ride NP. My goal is to have a 3 hr ride at an NP of ~275w become just "another day at the beach."

Interesting. I bet some of that endurance comes from increased glycogen storage.

RapDaddyo said:

Beginning in ~March, I'll go out about once a week and climb Mt. Charleston (17.5 miles ~6% avg grade) back-to-back.

Now you're just trying to make us jealous.

whoawhoa said:

Interesting. I bet some of that endurance comes from increased glycogen storage.

Good question. I don't know the answer. One of the things I can't get enough of is the physiology underlying training adaptations. I didn't get my application in time for Andy C's lecture at the Expert Coaching Clinic in CO Springs, so I have that experience to look forward to (no kidding).

whoawhoa said:

Now you're just trying to make us jealous.

I'm the first to admit it. I am blessed with some awesome rides here. Not just great topography, but also spectactular views. If I really wanted to make you jealous, I'd post some pics from my daily training rides. But, I might get hate mail from people in, say, Kansas.😄

Last question RD (Maybe). Work:rest intervals. What do you usually do for these? Or do you even worry about them?

whoawhoa said:

Last question RD (Maybe). Work:rest intervals. What do you usually do for these? Or do you even worry about them?

I use a rolling NP to manage that. It really doesn't come into play unless I go over FT. The max rest interval for an L5 interval is ~.5:1 and for an L6 interval ~1:1 (as a function of recovery power). But, I have a computer program that works all of that out. And, in the near future, I'll just ride an on-bike ride script.

RapDaddyo said:

But, I might get hate mail from people in, say, Kansas.😄

What do you mean? I think that Mt. Ventoux picture was a photoshop-ed version of one of the my local rides... 😄

frenchyge said:

What do you mean? I think that Mt. Ventoux picture was a photoshop-ed version of one of the my local rides... 😄

Really? I thought the biggest hills in Kansas were interstate overpasses.