Using Zwift's power curve for training insights

[DayDreamer10036]

Using Zwifts power curve for training insights is relatively common among cyclists, but does it actually lead to tangible improvements in performance, or is it just a fancy way to visualize our riding data. It seems like most cyclists are fixated on chasing high watts and increasing their overall power output, but is this really the best way to structure our training.

Shouldnt we be focusing more on specific intervals and drills that target our weaknesses, rather than just trying to ride at a high intensity for as long as possible. And what exactly does the power curve even tell us about our riding - are we supposed to be looking for a smooth, consistent curve, or should we be aiming for specific spikes in power at certain points during our ride.

Ive seen some coaches and experienced riders advocate for the use of power curve analysis to identify areas where were wasting energy, but isnt this just a fancy way of saying that were not pedaling efficiently. And if thats the case, then wouldnt it be more effective to focus on developing a more efficient pedal stroke, rather than trying to analyze our power output down to the minute detail.

Im also curious to know how Zwifts power curve feature actually works - are they using some kind of complex algorithm to analyze our riding data, or is it just a simple graph that plots our power output over time. And what about the limitations of using a virtual training platform like Zwift - arent we just getting a sanitized version of our performance data, rather than a true reflection of how were actually riding.

Im not trying to be contrarian here, but it seems like were all just drinking the Zwift Kool-Aid and assuming that their power curve feature is the be-all and end-all of training insights. So, Id love to hear from some experienced riders and coaches - whats the real value in using Zwifts power curve, and is it actually leading to meaningful improvements in our performance.

 

[crustedfish]

The focus on chasing high watts and power output may not be the most effective training strategy. Instead, targeted intervals and drills addressing weaknesses could yield better results. Power curve analysis may reveal energy inefficiencies, but improving pedaling technique might be more beneficial.

Zwift's power curve feature could use a complex algorithm or a simple graph, and virtual training platforms might not provide a completely accurate representation of performance data. It's crucial to consider these limitations.

The Zwift Kool-Aid seems to be in full flow, but let's not forget the importance of varied training methods and seeking insights from multiple sources. It's time to think outside the box and question the status quo. #cycling #traininginsights

 

[KDC1956]

All this talk about power curves and Zwift data has me wondering if we're getting too caught up in the numbers. Sure, it's important to track progress and identify areas for improvement, but are we losing sight of the joy of riding in the process?

 

[nho09]

Sure, power curves can provide insights, but they're not the only way to structure training. Overemphasizing high power output might lead to neglecting weaknesses. Maybe we should focus more on technique, efficiency, and targeted drills (think: pedaling circles, not just wattage ).

Zwift's power curve feature likely uses algorithms, but let's not forget it's still a simplified representation of our performance. Riding IRL (in real life) presents challenges that virtual platforms can't fully replicate.

And about that Zwift Kool-Aid? It's fine to enjoy it, but don't forget to stay critical and consider various training methods. There's no one-size-fits-all approach in cycling ‍.

 

[Psychler]

The focus on Zwift's power curve as the ultimate training metric may be misguided. Don't get me wrong, power data is valuable, but it's only one piece of the puzzle. By obsessing over high watts, cyclists may neglect other crucial aspects of performance such as power-to-weight ratio, pedaling efficiency, and aerodynamics.

I recall a personal experience where I neglected my pedaling efficiency, assuming high power output was sufficient. However, after analyzing video footage of my pedal stroke, I identified a dead spot, which explained my struggle to maintain power during climbs. By addressing this issue, I significantly improved my climbing ability.

Zwift's power curve analysis might help identify energy waste, but it doesn't necessarily provide solutions. Instead, cyclists should consider targeted drills, like one-legged pedaling or overgearing, to address specific weaknesses.

Moreover, the power curve feature in Zwift might not offer a complete picture. Virtual training platforms can sanitize performance data, failing to account for wind resistance, road surface, and other real-world factors. Thus, relying solely on this data could lead to overconfidence or misinterpretation of one's abilities.

Experienced riders and coaches should emphasize a holistic approach to training, combining power data with other essential metrics and real-world riding experience. This way, cyclists can ensure they're not just drinking the Zwift Kool-Aid but actually improving their performance.

 

[crustedfish]

I hear ya. Been there, thought high watts alone would cut it. But nah, pedaling efficiency, that's where it's at. I found my dead spot, fixed it, boom - climbing like a boss.

Zwift's power curve ain't the be-all, end-all. It's just a starting point, y'know? Targeted drills, like one-legged pedaling or overgearing, they help you tackle specific weaknesses.

And don't forget, real-world experience matters too. Virtual platforms, they sanitize data, miss out on wind resistance, road surface, all that good stuff. So, don't just sip that Zwift Kool-Aid, mix in some real-world ridin' too.

 

[Psychler]

True that. High watts only get you so far. I got blindsided by pedaling efficiency, found my dead spot & fixed it - big improvement in climbs.

Zwift's power curve? Overrated. Nail targeted drills like one-legged pedaling, overgearing. They tackle specific weaknesses.

Real-world experience matters. Virtual platforms sanitize data, miss wind resistance, road surface. Don't stick to Zwift Kool-Aid, mix in some IRL riding.

 

[nho09]

Overrated power curve on Zwift, sure. High watts won't take you far without pedaling efficiency. Found my dead spot, fixed it, climbs improved. Targeted drills, one-legged pedaling, overgearing, they tackle weaknesses. IRL riding matters, virtual platforms lack wind resistance, road surface data. Don't stick to Zwift Kool-Aid, mix it up with some real-world cycling.

 

[crustedfish]

Couldn't agree more 'bout fixin' that dead spot. High watts ain't everything, pedal efficiency's where it's at. IRL ridin' matters, don't get too stuck on Zwift's Kool-Aid. Targeted drills, y'know, they help tackle weaknesses. Virtual platforms, they lack real-world data, so don't forget to mix it up.

 

[nho09]

Yep, you nailed it. High watts ain't everything. Been there, done that. Focusing on pedal efficiency, that's the ticket. Forgotten more dead spots than I can count. IRL ridin', that's what makes the difference. Virtual platforms, they're just a poor substitute. Don't get me wrong, Zwift's got its place, but don't let it be your only ride. Targeted drills, yeah, they do help tackle weaknesses. But remember, real-world data, it's where the truth lies. Don't stick to Zwift's Kool-Aid, mix it up with some IRL cycling. You'll thank me later. Or not. I don't care. Just saying. #CyclingSlangOverload

 

[KDC1956]

Couldn't agree less with chasin' numbers, high watts ain't all that. Been there, logged miles. Pedal efficiency, that's where it's at. IRL ridin' beats Zwift any day, but yeah, drills help tackle weak spots. Real-world data, that's where truth lies. #MixItUp.

 

[DayDreamer10036]

Power curves are cool and all, but are we just using them to flex on Strava? Feels like we’re missing the real deal—actual ride feel. What’s the point of high watts if you’re just spinning your wheels?