Power meters · Public discussion

Pursuit preparation

Started by peterwright · · Last activity · 15 posts · 3,296 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Power meters
Published
3 May 2006
Last activity
4 May 2006
Original author
peterwright
Posts
15
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,296
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–15 of 15
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Hi Guys

    The athlete I was coaching for the 3km pursuit just got silver at the nationals and despite being pleased we want to make sure it is gold next year (April)

    He is going to take a few weeks to chill but then we are going to get back into it and my question revolves around the best way to prep him for next April.

    I would like to get a more detailed feel for his anaerobic vs aerobic work capicity and try to use this info to plan his year. My current feeling is that he is stronger aerobically and needs to focus on the anaerobic element but if this is so, when can we start to work on this element ? I plan to use the monod model to look at this but would like to get a better handle on interpretaion of this data (AWC)

    As we have all this time I really want to make sure we give him the best chance so any advice re the longer term plan will be much appreciated.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. This is an excellent question because it forces analysis of an important underlying question, "Where is the athlete's current capacity relative to his potential?" I think this is both definable through testing-training-testing and crucial to a training strategy. We somehow never seem to address the question of where an athlete is relative to his potential before we go right off into addressing how to improve a certain attribute (at least in this forum). Yet, that seems to me to be the absolutely crucial first question.

  3. RapDaddyo said:

    We somehow never seem to address the question of where an athlete is relative to his potential before we go right off into addressing how to improve a certain attribute (at least in this forum). Yet, that seems to me to be the absolutely crucial first question.

    You make a good point, but We? When I did my first lab tests with Max Testa 3 years ago he identified some areas that showed the most potential for improvement and their positive affect on my threshold power. By focussing on 2 specific components of my threshold power it was raised significantly in the first two months, and it continues to go up even now.

    For my sprint, I told him what my my main weaknesses was _within_ match sprinting and he gave me very specific training for this component. I went from a perrenial 5-7th place at Nat's, to first. Here's a hint, my top speed did not change.

    So as the OP mentioned, you break the event down into its several components, and then analyze the person's ability in each of those components relative to their potential in each component, and then you do training that is specific for that component. Put it all back together for an improvement in the total performance in the event.

    In cooking this is sometimes called "deconstruction", and sometimes the dish is served in it's several parts so that each part can be enjoyed separately. But I digress...

  4. WarrenG said:

    you break the event down into its several components, and then analyze the person's ability in each of those components relative to their potential in each component, and then you do training that is specific for that component. Put it all back together for an improvement in the total performance in the event.

    In cooking this is sometimes called "deconstruction",

    Or in statistics, "principal component analysis". In any case, readers of "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" can see pages 189-191 for an example (which just happens to be specific to Peter's question about the 3 km pursuit).

  5. peterwright said:

    Hi Guys

    The athlete I was coaching for the 3km pursuit just got silver at the nationals and despite being pleased we want to make sure it is gold next year (April)

    He is going to take a few weeks to chill but then we are going to get back into it and my question revolves around the best way to prep him for next April.

    I would like to get a more detailed feel for his anaerobic vs aerobic work capicity and try to use this info to plan his year. My current feeling is that he is stronger aerobically and needs to focus on the anaerobic element but if this is so, when can we start to work on this element ?

    Next February? 😉

    peterwright said:

    I plan to use the monod model to look at this but would like to get a better handle on interpretaion of this data (AWC)

    Well, crunch the numbers and let's see what they say. Until that point, about all I might add is this: unless you're an "aerobic animal" and/or really aerodynamic, you need an AWC of >300 J/kg to ride a decent 3 km pursuit.

  6. acoggan said:

    ...In any case, readers of "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" can see pages 189-191 for an example (which just happens to be specific to Peter's question about the 3 km pursuit).

    What, are you practicing for the talk show circuit?!

  7. WarrenG said:

    What, are you practicing for the talk show circuit?!

    I've been on it for several years now. 😄

  8. acoggan said:

    In any case, readers of "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" can see pages 189-191 for an example (which just happens to be specific to Peter's question about the 3 km pursuit).

    What a good straight man Peter is.😄

  9. RapDaddyo said:

    What a good straight man Peter is.😄

    Yeah, somebody owes somebody else 6 cents.

  10. acoggan said:

    Well, crunch the numbers and let's see what they say. Until that point, about all I might add is this: unless you're an "aerobic animal" and/or really aerodynamic, you need an AWC of >300 J/kg to ride a decent 3 km pursuit.

    What time periods are we using for the monod model? I have 1, 3, 5 & 20 min MMPs in there. I find this choice can vary AWC calcs considerably.

  11. Thanks guys - always glad to help 😉

    However, I am still not sure where to go with this once I have run the Monod model and established AWC.

    Given the long period of time we have my thinking was to work on raising FTP and VO2 for a good few months before introducing some focused L6+ work.

    Plus lots of track specific work and maybe some racing in other track disciplines to improve general speed.

    Any thoughts ?

  12. Alex Simmons said:

    What time periods are we using for the monod model? I have 1, 3, 5 & 20 min MMPs in there. I find this choice can vary AWC calcs considerably.

    My recommendation is that people use data from tests >~3 min but <~30 min in duration. Here's why:

    As you know, the critical power paradigm assumes a linear relationship between work and time, with the slope of this relationship representing one's critical power, i.e., a power that "...can be maintained for a very long time w/o fatiguing." In fact, critical power can, in theory, be maintained forever. Of course, no exercise intensity can be maintained forever (indeed, as I like to joke even resting metabolic rate can only be maintained for one's lifetime), which immediately reveals one of the limitations of this approach: the data don't really conform to a perfectly linear relationship, but instead will fall progressively further and further below the line-of-best-fit as the duration is extended. However, as long as you limit yourself to tests <~30 min in duration, you'll get a good fit to the data, and the calculated critical power will be highly reproducible (anaerobic work capacity somewhat less so). OTOH, if you include points beyond that time, you will tend to obtain a lower estimate of your critical power, and will tend to overestimate your anaerobic work capacity.

    That explains the choice of the upper limit...what about at the short end of things? Again, the selection of 3 min is based on trying to minimize another limitation of the model, albeit one that isn't so intuitively obvious. Specifically, some inherent assumptions of the critical power paradigm are that 1) all of one's anaerobic work capacity will be fully expended during a particular effort (test), and 2) aerobic energy production is fully "online" from the very instant that exercise begins. In fact, neither of this is really true: it generally takes 1.5+ min to fully utilize all of your anaerobic work capacity, and VO2 won't reach a true steady-state until at least that long, and in fact usually longer. The consequence of these violations of the assumptions of the critical power model is that you can't do as much work in only a few minutes as the model predicts, such that those points, too, will tend to fall below the regression line. If you choose to include them anyway, you will obtain a higher estimate of your critical power, and a lower estimate of your anaerobic work capacity.

    (BTW, after arriving at the conclusion that tests of the above duration were really best - despite the fact that tests of 1-10 min are routinely used in scientific studies - I subsequently came across a published paper that presented the same recommendation. Unfortunately, the literature on critical power is quite large, so I can't find the latter paper for you at the moment!)

  13. peterwright said:

    I am still not sure where to go with this once I have run the Monod model and established AWC.

    "Improve your weaknesses and consolidate your strengths."

    peterwright said:

    Given the long period of time we have my thinking was to work on raising FTP and VO2 for a good few months before introducing some focused L6+ work.

    I think that generally makes sense regardless of your athlete's particular strengths and weaknesses...to my way of thinking, all that should really differ would be the relative emphasis. For example, as a pursuiter my wife's great talent was an extremely high anaerobic capacity, so before she ever started doing any level 6 intervals she spent 9 mo training to maximize her LT and VO2max. OTOH, my anaerobic capacity is below average, so when I was aiming for the pursuit I started doing level 6 training (but only in small amounts) a lot earlier.

    peterwright said:

    Plus lots of track specific work and maybe some racing in other track disciplines to improve general speed.

    Again, individual differences: my wife had been racing on the track for a number of years, so her technical skills (in particular, pacing and ability to ride a good line) were such that just a few days of training on the track itself were sufficient to enable her to ride as fast as she could go. In constrast, I tried that approach the last couple of years (since the nearest "real" track is ~4 h away), and my performance clearly suffered, esp. in 2004. That's the major reason that I trained for the pursuit again last year: I couldn't stand the thought of having my technically horrible ride of 2004 be my last race. Although I didn't have a perfect ride last year, it was far, far better, and since I was racing the powermeter more than the clock or anybody else, I could walk away feeling semi-satisfied.

  14. acoggan said:

    (BTW, after arriving at the conclusion that tests of the above duration were really best - despite the fact that tests of 1-10 min are routinely used in scientific studies - I subsequently came across a published paper that presented the same recommendation. Unfortunately, the literature on critical power is quite large, so I can't find the latter paper for you at the moment!)

    Andy, thanks for that clear and complete explanation of the consequences of the testing durations for CP curve data points. I would be very interested in the paper you mentioned if you find it.

    As you know, I think the CP curve can be a powerful tool for post-ride analysis with respect to anaerobic efforts, and maybe more. NP is great as a measurement of the aggregate aerobic intensity of a highly variable power ride, but we need other ways of measuring the aggregate anaerobic intensity of a ride. There is of course the AWC recovery relationship to be addressed, but a measure of the usage side of the equation is an answer to part of the problem. Which raises the stakes for valid CP curve parameters, in turn increasing the importance of the test protocol and durations.

  15. acoggan said:

    "Improve your weaknesses and consolidate your strengths."

    I think that generally makes sense regardless of your athlete's particular strengths and weaknesses...to my way of thinking, all that should really differ would be the relative emphasis. For example, as a pursuiter my wife's great talent was an extremely high anaerobic capacity, so before she ever started doing any level 6 intervals she spent 9 mo training to maximize her LT and VO2max. OTOH, my anaerobic capacity is below average, so when I was aiming for the pursuit I started doing level 6 training (but only in small amounts) a lot earlier.

    Again, individual differences: my wife had been racing on the track for a number of years, so her technical skills (in particular, pacing and ability to ride a good line) were such that just a few days of training on the track itself were sufficient to enable her to ride as fast as she could go. In constrast, I tried that approach the last couple of years (since the nearest "real" track is ~4 h away), and my performance clearly suffered, esp. in 2004. That's the major reason that I trained for the pursuit again last year: I couldn't stand the thought of having my technically horrible ride of 2004 be my last race. Although I didn't have a perfect ride last year, it was far, far better, and since I was racing the powermeter more than the clock or anybody else, I could walk away feeling semi-satisfied.

    Thanks - very helpful.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.