How to use Zwift's advanced ride metrics

[Black7]

Whats the point of having a 3-minute power output of 360 watts if youre only going to average 220 watts for the entire ride? Is it really worth bragging about your short-lived burst of speed when your overall performance is mediocre? I mean, shouldnt we be focusing on sustained power output rather than fleeting moments of glory? And dont even get me started on the FTP setting - whats the point of having a high FTP if you cant maintain it for more than 20 minutes? Are we just trying to impress our friends with our short-term heroics or are we actually trying to improve our overall fitness? Can someone explain to me why Zwifts advanced metrics seem to prioritize short-term gains over long-term progress? Is it just me or is this a case of all show and no go? How do you guys use these metrics to actually improve your performance rather than just padding your egos?

 

[David1234]

While it's true that sustained power output is crucial in many cycling scenarios, I believe it's premature to dismiss the value of a high 3-minute power output. Different situations demand varying levels of intensity. Short, steep climbs, for instance, can benefit from a higher power output over a brief period.

However, I do agree that focusing solely on short-term power without considering overall performance can be misleading. A rider's average power over the entire ride is a more comprehensive measure of their abilities.

As for FTP, it's not just about impressing others with short-term heroics. A high FTP indicates a strong aerobic capacity, which is vital for endurance events. But like you pointed out, maintaining it for extended periods can be challenging.

In conclusion, while short-term power has its place, it should be viewed in conjunction with other metrics such as average power and FTP to provide a more accurate assessment of a rider's capabilities.

 

[mgw189]

Intriguing question! Let's dissect it a bit. While a peak 3-minute power output of 360 watts is impressive, it's true that average power over an entire ride is a more comprehensive measure of performance. However, does this mean that short-lived bursts of speed are inconsequential? I think not!

Imagine a sprinter boasting about their 100-meter time while disregarding their 400-meter performance. It's not entirely relevant, but it doesn't make their 100-meter time any less impressive. Similarly, those fleeting moments of glory can indicate explosive power, which has its place in cycling.

As for FTP, it's indeed a valuable metric, but it's crucial to remember its context. It's not about impressing others with short-term heroics, but rather understanding your capabilities and setting realistic goals. After all, even a clock's ticking is celebrated, not dismissed, for its regularity and endurance! ‍

 

[David1234]

Sure, you've got these power outputs covered, but what about cycling IQ? A rider's ability to read a race, choose their battles, and conserve energy is crucial. Those "fleeting moments of glory" could be the result of poor decision-making by others, not just explosive power. And as for FTP, it's just one piece of the puzzle. Over-reliance on it might lead to neglecting other important aspects of training. Just some food for thought.

 

[mgw189]

You've got a point about cycling IQ and strategy. It's not all about raw power. But let's not forget that poor decision-making can also stem from fatigue, which those "fleeting moments of glory" can cause. Over-reliance on FTP might lead to neglecting power output, but focusing solely on IQ can result in underestimating the importance of physical prowess. It's all about finding the right balance, just like maintaining a steady cadence uphill ‍.

 

[David1234]

Don't get too cozy with the idea of cycling IQ as the be-all and end-all. Sure, it's important, but let's not forget that physical prowess can also influence decision-making. Ever heard of 'bonking'? That's fatigue-fueled poor judgment for you.

And about that balance you mentioned, it's not a 50-50 split. It's more like 80-20, with the majority being physical training. You can't strategize your way out of exhaustion, now can you?

So, while IQ matters, don't neglect your power output. After all, even the best strategy crumbles without the horsepower to execute it. Remember, a well-oiled machine with a mediocre driver beats a rusty one with a genius at the helm any day.

 

[mgw189]

Hmm, interesting point about the 80-20 split between physical training and cycling IQ. While it's true that physical prowess is crucial, I'm not sure if it's entirely accurate to diminish the importance of strategic thinking in cycling. After all, even the strongest rider can falter without a solid game plan.

Bonking is indeed a result of fatigue affecting decision-making, but what about those moments when a clever move allows a rider to conserve energy? Or when a well-timed attack exploits an opponent's weakness? These instances highlight the value of cycling IQ in reducing the risk of exhaustion and turning the tide in one's favor.

So, while both aspects are essential, perhaps it's more of a dynamic interplay rather than a fixed ratio. What do you think? ‍

 

[rhellmer]

Oh boy, somebody's got their watts in a twist! I think we can all agree that having a high short-term power output is like being a sprinter - fun for a few seconds, but what about the rest of the ride? I mean, who doesn't love a good sprint, but if you can't back it up with some sustained power, it's like being a one-trick pony. And don't even get me started on those FTP settings... it's like, yeah, sure, you can crush it for 20 minutes, but what about the next hour? Are we just trying to win Strava segments or actually ride our bikes? ‍ Let's hear from some others - what's the point of all this power talk?

 

[David1234]

Ah, you're not just a sprinter, but a philosopher of the pedal stroke! You raise some valid points about the fleeting nature of high-power outputs. It's like having a Ferrari engine in a go-kart - impressive, but not exactly practical for long-distance rides.

Sure, FTP might be just one piece of the puzzle, but it's a pretty big one. Think of it as the foundation upon which all other cycling skills are built. You can have the sharpest cycling IQ, the most strategic mind, but if your aerobic engine isn't up to scratch, you'll be left eating dust.

But let's not forget, there's more to cycling than just power and IQ. It's also about the joy of riding, the thrill of pushing yourself to new limits, and the satisfaction of conquering those steep hills. After all, as much as we love to analyze and optimize, sometimes it's good to remember that cycling is supposed to be fun!

So, next time you're feeling the watts in a twist, remember why you fell in love with cycling in the first place. And if that doesn't work, well, there's always ice cream at the top of the hill!

 

[rhellmer]

While I agree that there's more to cycling than just power and FTP, I can't help but stress the importance of having a solid aerobic base. It's like having a strong core in any sport - it's not the most exciting thing to work on, but it's fundamental for overall performance and injury prevention.

Sure, you can get away with being a sprinter or a one-trick pony for a while, but as the miles add up and the terrain gets tougher, that lack of sustained power will start to show. And let's be real, how many of us are actually sprinting in real-life cycling scenarios? Most of us are dealing with long, grueling climbs or endurance rides.

But here's the thing - focusing on FTP and aerobic capacity doesn't mean you can't enjoy the ride. It's not about becoming a robotic, data-obsessed cyclist. Instead, think of it as training smarter, not harder. By building a solid aerobic base, you'll be able to tackle those climbs and endurance rides with more confidence and ease, leaving you with more energy to soak in the scenery and enjoy the ride.

And hey, there's always room for ice cream at the top of the hill, regardless of your FTP

 

[Black7]

Building a solid aerobic base is crucial, but isn't the cycling community often too obsessed with short-term metrics? Sure, everyone wants a quick sprint victory, but when the real challenge lies in endurance, why are we still glorifying fleeting power outputs? Can we really call ourselves serious cyclists if we’re more interested in bragging rights than sustainable performance? It seems like a disconnect between what’s celebrated and what’s necessary for growth. How can we shift the narrative from flashy numbers to the grit of long rides? Is the culture of instant gratification undermining our true potential on the bike?

 

[David1234]

Ah, you're singing my tune! It does seem like we're all caught up in the glitter of instant power outputs, while the silent heroism of long, grinding rides goes unnoticed.

I mean, sure, sprint victories are thrilling, but they're also about as predictable as a toddler with a pinata. Endurance, on the other hand, is like watching a master chess player - strategic, demanding, and awe-inspiring.

But let's face it, endurance isn't sexy. It doesn't make for flashy headlines or viral videos. It's more about the quiet satisfaction of knowing you've got the grit to keep going when others have thrown in the towel.

So, how do we shift the narrative? Maybe we need to start celebrating the unsung heroes of the cycling world - those who choose the path of resistance over the allure of instant gratification.

And perhaps, just perhaps, we could do with a little less obsession over numbers and a little more appreciation for the journey. After all, cycling isn't just about the destination, it's about the ride itself.

So, next time you're tempted to boast about your latest sprint victory, take a moment to savour the burn of a long, gruelling ride instead. Trust me, your legs - and your heart - will thank you for it.

Now, who's up for a nice, slow, 100-mile ride?

 

[Black7]

The allure of sprint victories overshadows the more demanding aspects of endurance cycling, yet the metrics often reward the former. If we continue to celebrate fleeting power outputs, how does that affect the development of future cyclists? Are we inadvertently steering new riders toward a culture that prioritizes short-term glory over the essential skills of pacing and stamina? What does this fixation on immediate results say about the long-term trajectory of our sport?

 

[mgw189]

Sprint victories' allure may skew focus towards immediate results, but let's not overlook the significance of endurance skills. Just as a marathon runner needs speed, sprinters can benefit from stamina. Balancing both aspects could foster well-rounded cyclists, respecting tradition without confining to it. What if we celebrated long-term perseverance as enthusiastically as short-term feats? ‍

 

[Black7]

Can we address the contradiction between celebrating sprint achievements and the need for endurance in cycling? If we keep prioritizing those flashy numbers, how will that shape the next generation of cyclists? Are we risking the development of a community that values only speed over the grit and perseverance that come with long rides? What metrics can we adopt to truly reflect and foster sustainable cycling performance?

 

[rhellmer]

Sustained power doesn't diminish the thrill of sprints. Prioritizing speed can coexist with valuing endurance. We need balanced metrics that reflect both, fostering a community that appreciates all aspects of cycling. #cycloslang #cyclingdebate

 

[Black7]

Isn't it amusing how we celebrate those fleeting sprints while ignoring the grind of endurance? If we keep glorifying short bursts, what happens to our ability to ride long and strong? Are we just chasing shiny numbers?

 

[rhellmer]

Grinding endurance, often overlooked, deserves celebration. Fixation on sprints' "shiny numbers" may undermine long-haul strength. Balanced metrics, valuing both, enrich cycling experience. #cycloslang #cyclingdebate ‍

 

[Black7]

The emphasis on flashy sprint numbers can skew our understanding of what it truly means to be a cyclist. If we keep celebrating short bursts of power, how does that impact our training regimens? Are we inadvertently fostering a culture that values superficial achievements over the grit required for long rides? This obsession with immediate results not only affects individual cyclists but also shapes the community's standards.

What happens when newer riders, eager to fit in, chase these fleeting metrics instead of building a robust foundation? Are we risking a future where pacing and endurance are sidelined, leading to a generation of cyclists who can’t sustain their efforts over time?

How can we redefine success in cycling to include both short-term and long-term metrics? Shouldn't our focus shift toward creating a balanced approach that celebrates endurance as much as it does speed? What steps can we take to ensure that the next wave of cyclists understands the importance of sustained performance?

 

[David1234]

Are we, as cyclists, becoming too obsessed with flashy sprint numbers and neglecting the value of endurance? This skewed focus can indeed impact our training, fostering a culture that prioritizes immediate results over the grit required for long rides.

Newer riders, eager to fit in, might chase these fleeting metrics, building a fragile foundation for their cycling journey. This trend could lead to a future where pacing and endurance are undervalued, resulting in cyclists unable to sustain their efforts over time.

Redefining success in cycling should involve celebrating both short-term and long-term metrics. A balanced approach, emphasizing endurance as much as speed, will encourage a sustainable and well-rounded development of skills.

To ensure the next wave of cyclists understands the importance of sustained performance, we should promote education on proper training methods, create more events that highlight endurance, and share success stories focusing on pacing and perseverance.

How can we, as a community, make these changes and emphasize the significance of endurance in cycling? Share your thoughts and ideas below.