Approximating Power Training without a powermeter

skavanagh.bikeradar

Okay, I give up. I'm not going to get any sort of power measuring device any time soon. Not without my child going hungry and shoeless. So.....how do you do power training without the kit?! Last time I tried to test my max HR it was 183.

I keep reading that training your FTP gives you biggest bang for your buck and 2x20 is the holy grail. Can I work out the HR equivalent? Is there a reliable HR test that will give me an idea of my HR FTP equivalent? Or should I be doing this on RPE and looking at HR as a secondary consideration? Time is limited, I need to make the most of the time I do spending on the bike/turbo.

I also intend to carry on doing 2 or 3 hr 'tempo' rides, again what HR intensity should I be aiming at. Last year I did it on RPE so I can just do the same a few times and see what the HR numbers say of course.

ride_whenever

If you don't have access to a power-measuring-device, HR training is a good substitute.

this thread has some good info, particularly helene's post which gives a good indicator of intensities of zones for training.

DaveyL

First question is, can you ride for 2 x 20 minutes at what you know is a consistent power output? I.e. same cadence at the same level of resistance? A turbo or stationary bike is ideal for this. If you have access to this, it is easy as you can self-correct to get to the right level of intensity.

Pick a level of resistance and see if you can manage a 2 x 20 session (with 5 min recovery in between intervals). If you get to the end and find you have a bit left in the tank, just up the intensity next time.

With 2 x 20s there is still a window of intensity where you get improvment. You don't need to be seeing stars and close to vomiting by the end of the second set to get the biggest improvement, and indeed depending on what else you have planned for the few days following it, you may not want to go that hard as it will really take it out of you. Just dropping the intensity off a little from that means you will get some adaptation and still be able to do something more than active recovery in the following days.

Over time you may want to increase the intensity, or you may feel a given intensity getting easier - a good sign of improvement. Personally I'd start with a 4 week block of them, maybe doing them once or twice a week depending on the intensity you want to use and what else you are doing, and see how it goes from there.

doyler78

ride_whenever wrote:

If you don't have access to a power-measuring-device, HR training is a good substitute.

this thread has some good info, particularly helene's post which gives a good indicator of intensities of zones for training.

HR is only really useful with lower intensity efforts and as effort rises the more irrelevant HR becomes and this is for many reasons one of which is that HR tends to lag effort ie you put the effort in but you don't see that reflected in HR immediately and because it lags coming up it also lags coming down again and with high intensity it means that HR tends to end up smoothed ie it never fully reflects the top end effort or the low end recoveries and ends up somewhere in between. If you were looking at the HR curve it would be much more smooth than with power curve which looks highly variable ie constant peaks and troughs because it reflects that your effort varies from pedal stroke to pedal stroke as road gradient, slight changes in wind speed, etc constantly change meaning the effort required is greater or less than the previous pedal stroke.

In fit cyclists who have ridden for some time they begin to know the effort required in order to meet the demands of a particular section of road or the training they are doing and this they can measure by perceived effort ie how hard it feels expressed on a scale from 0.5 to 10 or 20. With 0.5 being no effort to 10 being maximal effort sustainable for only a few seconds. Perceived Effort has actually been shown to be a better predictor of power output when compared to HR especially at higher intensities.

Therefore when working with HR for longer intervals, long slow rides or recovery efforts then it will be a pretty good guide however when you are going to be doing intense efforts you will need to rely on your previous experience of what effort is needed to get the intensity your are looking for and can sustain for the time or distance you have planned.

I myself am using HR at present and I find it useful for my longer rides however when it comes to short intervals I just go for it and forget the HR monitor. It will take a few rides to work out your limits but once you have them it becomes easier.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Thanks for that chaps. I'm just not sure of HR anymore especially after riding on RPE out on the road last year and ditching the HRM. Of course on the turbo it's more useful but as you say it lags so I don't know if I'm doing sessions correctly. RPE changes based on so many external factors it takes a while to 'dial in' as they say over the pond. I think I got good at it outdoors last year and my 2/3hr tempo rides were close to the mark. It's just that 'going hard' isn't very scientific is it? What if that's too hard or not hard enough?!

I'll have a read of the link posted by ridewhenever. Thanks again.

oldwelshman

Lets put all this stuff in perspective
For the average rider and for probably 98% on here, if you ride more miles you will improve, get faster, stronger.
If you go from 130 miles a week to 250 you will get better.
Even without HR meters, power taps, Garmins etc you can vaary rides and do easy day hard day, sprints,intervals etc without having to know exactly what your HR power output is.
Granted, once you get to elite or 1st cat level then training with power meters and HR can improve training to tweak out some etxra last couple of percent improvement to beat the next elits rider, but for most, ther are large gains to be made just by riding and resting properly. Especially at my age
I wonder how the great Eddy Mercx managed all those years without all these gizmos? (he even used toe clips god forbid)

Alex_Simmons/RST

oldwelshman wrote:

Lets put all this stuff in perspective
For the average rider and for probably 98% on here, if you ride more miles you will improve, get faster, stronger.
If you go from 130 miles a week to 250 you will get better.
Even without HR meters, power taps, Garmins etc you can vaary rides and do easy day hard day, sprints,intervals etc without having to know exactly what your HR power output is.
Granted, once you get to elite or 1st cat level then training with power meters and HR can improve training to tweak out some etxra last couple of percent improvement to beat the next elits rider, but for most, ther are large gains to be made just by riding and resting properly. Especially at my age
I wonder how the great Eddy Mercx managed all those years without all these gizmos? (he even used toe clips god forbid)

And what happens if you're already doing the 250miles a week?

For some of my masters age full time working clients have I found it useful to actually reduce their training volume following a review of their training history/power meter data. And they go better as a result.

I consider this view that a power meter is of no value unless you're a Cat 1 to be crap. It's a tool and a highly effective one if you know how to use it. That doesn't mean one can't improve without one, of course you can.

It's the training that makes you better, not the power meter. It's just with the power meter it is very easy to tell when training is effective and when it's not. It rapidly shortens the learning curve to good training habits for many riders.

Alex_Simmons/RST

In answer to the OP:

A few suggestions:

Think of rides or portions of rides in terms of general intensity ranges:
recovery - very easy
endurance - a pace you could maximally sustain for 2-4 hours
tempo - a pace you could maximally sustain for 1-2 hours
threshold development - a pace you could maximally sustain for 20-60 minutes
max aerobic power development - a pace you could maximally sustain for 3-8 minutes
anaerobic power development - a pace you could maximally sustain for 30-60 secs
sprints - all out for 6-15 seconds

endurance and tempo rides should be pretty straightforward.
the higher level efforts are best done as interval work and can be done as part of a longer ride.

the pace will of course vary depending on course and conditions.

If using a turbo for interval efforts, then once warmed up, maintaining the same rear wheel speed is often a reasonable proxy for power. Where possible try to replicate everything the same each time.

Also, if you have a hill of reasonable gradient and duration, then that can be used to good effect for intervals work and also for testing when you don't have a power meter.

See this item for some more on that:
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... ting-19175

skavanagh.bikeradar

OldWelshman, you make a fair point although I'm sure that Merckx would've used the latest information and techniques available to him at the time. If there were power meters available in 1971 I reckon he'd have been using one.

My biggest issue is that my maxHR is 183 (based on submaximal test) and the numbers feel about right for HR/RPE upto about 85% of MHR then it suddenly gets increasingly hard, too hard. I mean I can cycle at 80% MHR without any problem but 85% is getting very difficult and 90% is impossible! Perhaps we can deduce that my FTP/LT is quite low and I need to do a lot of threshold work. Or maybe that my MHR isn't 183 at all. My resting HR is quite low, in the mid 30's currently but when well trained and rested it's been as low as 28, it's always low since the first time I measured it in about 1987. I'm 37. The highest HR I've recorded (cycling) is 176 when my legs gave out on two seperate occassions - during a 10 and again during a bit of silly competition on a group ride when everyone suddenly decided to try and crack everyone else by TTing on the front of the group. My highest recorded HR of any sort was 191 during a max HR running test about 5 years ago.

Thanks for the tips there Alex. I don't have any hills of 10 minutes duration, I've got one of about 6 minutes but it's nowhere near averaging 7%! It'll have to do though.

bahzob

The main benefit of a powermeter is that it provides an independent measure of your power, which, at the end of the day is what you want to improve through training.

HR cant replace a powermeter for this reason (and nor can RPE). They only provide an indirect measure and really tells you as much about inputs as outputs.

Its a bit like if you want to know how fast a car is going. The speedo will tell you this. The mpg will give you a indication but vary hugely depending on car/conditions.

Ideally (I think) you want to use both power and a measure like HR/RPE. Training improvement ends up as being able to output higher power and/or ride same power longer. Getting back to car example what you are really interested in your range, which will depend on speed/mpg and how big a tank you have.

Getting back to OP then the answer you can do power based training without a powermeter and I guess its pretty much to do what Mercx et al used to do.

Speed (or number of reps at constant speed for short intervals) can be used as an independent variable, similar to power. Obviously its more subject to conditions but with a bit of trial and effort you should be able to replicate intervals specified in a power training program, just replace power with speed for your bike. Shorter intervals easiest on a turbo/hills, longer ones on flat/rolling roads.

You can then build a training program around targetting a speed for a given time. On the turbo or flat/windless roads you may aim to keep speed constant (i.e. in power zone). On rolling roads then you will need to use RPE/HR to keep effort constant (but then these will most likely be longer rides in any case, which HR is suited for). For variety you may be able to find hills that you ride close to limit and record how many times you can ride up/down before cracking. (This is one drill Mercx did do, except he used to race lorries up a hill, target being to beat them. Not advised though)

What you will get out of this are some hard numbers in terms of average speed/number of reps for a given conditions. These should improve as you train. And you can apply similar ideas to power training to improve (e.g. if your best time for a 10 mile route is 26 mins then try riding 5 miles in 12:30, rest, ride second 5 in 12:30. After a few rides try reducing rest so that eventually its zero and you are riding at 25 mins).

To supplement this it may be worth renting a powermeter from time to time to see how things are going. I would recommend this if unused to following a structured training program, most especially to do some longer (1-5 hour) rides and get used to just how hard it is to keep a constant power output (rather than spend over half ride in recovery zone). Once done this a few times you can use RPE/HR to judge.

oldwelshman

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

Lets put all this stuff in perspective
For the average rider and for probably 98% on here, if you ride more miles you will improve, get faster, stronger.
If you go from 130 miles a week to 250 you will get better.
Even without HR meters, power taps, Garmins etc you can vaary rides and do easy day hard day, sprints,intervals etc without having to know exactly what your HR power output is.
Granted, once you get to elite or 1st cat level then training with power meters and HR can improve training to tweak out some etxra last couple of percent improvement to beat the next elits rider, but for most, ther are large gains to be made just by riding and resting properly. Especially at my age
I wonder how the great Eddy Mercx managed all those years without all these gizmos? (he even used toe clips god forbid)

And what happens if you're already doing the 250miles a week?

For some of my masters age full time working clients have I found it useful to actually reduce their training volume following a review of their training history/power meter data. And they go better as a result.

I consider this view that a power meter is of no value unless you're a Cat 1 to be crap. It's a tool and a highly effective one if you know how to use it. That doesn't mean one can't improve without one, of course you can.

It's the training that makes you better, not the power meter. It's just with the power meter it is very easy to tell when training is effective and when it's not. It rapidly shortens the learning curve to good training habits for many riders.

Alex, I am merely trying to make the point that al these gizmo's are not all they are made out to be and not 100% necessary for your average Joe Bloggs.
Ok, a power meter is a very useful training tool and can be used to maximise and monitor training methods.
But would it really be worth a guy paying huge amounts of money to get one to improve his 10m tt time from 29 to 28 minutes? Not saying thats what the OP was trying to do though
The fact remains it is possible to achive a very high level of fitness and performance without any of these gadgets.
I don't recall saying that power meters were no good unless your elite or 1st cat? I just don't consider it worth while for most riders, not quite the same statemet. In fact it would be better to get a nice set of wheels
You are correct to state reduced miles but more intense training can also improve power out but at the end of the day these tools on measure performnce they do not make you ride faster.
For top atheletes I thimk they have advanced training and performance because they can help to monitor training and output and to tailor training and to ensure they peak at right times, but again not sure if that level is required for me and most on here
Anyway I could not afford a power meter :oops:

DaveyL

But you could afford a nice set of wheels?

skavanagh.bikeradar

OldWeslshman, having seen you in action I'd be happy to have no powermeter and get anywhere near you. Of coure with a power meter you might find you can train less hours for the same performance or maximise you current training time for greater gains. All ifs and buts unless you actually have a meter of course. And like you I can't afford one. I can't afford nice wheels either. So, many thanks for the post from bahzob. Lots of good stuff in there, which I'll try and use in the coming year.

I'd like to get my 10 time down to 27 minutes although I did do 27.15 two years ago so perhaps I should be a bit more ambitious and aim for 26 during the coming season.

terongi

oldwelshman wrote:

I wonder how the great Eddy Mercx managed all those years without all these gizmos? (he even used toe clips god forbid)

Merckx was racing against guys who also had no gizmos.

It would be an interesting exercise to take a top pro rider and force him to train like an early 70s rider and race on early 70s equipment and then put him in the modern peleton.

Like the UCI have done with the hour record.

Alex_Simmons/RST

oldwelshman wrote:

But would it really be worth a guy paying huge amounts of money to get one to improve his 10m tt time from 29 to 28 minutes?

I don't think that is a value judgement you or I can make. Only the individual concerned can make that judgement.

Agreed that for the average rider, getting from 29 to 28 wouldn't likely need much more than some reasonably consistent training.

But what if I was a womens Paralympic aspirant with cerebral palsy?

oldwelshman wrote:

I don't recall saying that power meters were no good unless your elite or 1st cat? I just don't consider it worth while for most riders, not quite the same statemet. In fact it would be better to get a nice set of wheels

OK, I must have misinterpreted this then:

oldwelshman wrote:

Granted, once you get to elite or 1st cat level then training with power meters and HR can improve training to tweak out some etxra last couple of percent improvement to beat the next elits rider, ...

Besides, I disagree. The largest (legal) performance enhancement for any rider, irrespective of level, is good training and a PM will really help in that regard. Good wheels too, for sure but I'd recommend a PM over fancy wheels any day of the week.

oldwelshman wrote:

You are correct to state reduced miles but more intense training can also improve power out but at the end of the day these tools on measure performnce they do not make you ride faster.

"The PowerTap is a tool, not a bolt on motor " - Chris Mayhew

oldwelshman wrote:

For top atheletes I thimk they have advanced training and performance because they can help to monitor training and output and to tailor training and to ensure they peak at right times, but again not sure if that level is required for me and most on here

You would be surprised at how crummy or sub-optimal some elite athletes training actually is.

oldwelshman wrote:

Anyway I could not afford a power meter :oops:

That I can't help I'm afraid.

oldwelshman

terongi wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

I wonder how the great Eddy Mercx managed all those years without all these gizmos? (he even used toe clips god forbid)

Merckx was racing against guys who also had no gizmos.

It would be an interesting exercise to take a top pro rider and force him to train like an early 70s rider and race on early 70s equipment and then put him in the modern peloton.

Like the UCI have done with the hour record.

You really think it would make a difference? Not one bit he was pure class and would still trounce most of todays riders if in same era.
If all these gizmos improve everyone so dramtically how come the times for TT's (apart from the top guys) are still comparable to times when I was riding 23 years ago?
I look at TT times now and see club events with times 22,23,24 minutes, ok theres a few 20's but I remember guys doing 21,22 minutes with no aero stuff, toe clips, and only 12 gears OK I am not saying none of the stuff helps but just pointing out that too much can be read into equipment and gizmos when it 99% of the old legs that you need.
Anyway if you are really interested you could work out Mercx's approx power output from climbs he did, time taken and his weight, I am sure it would be very comparable to todays riders

bahzob

I would suggest not quoting what Mercx or other pre-HR/power people did too much.

Basically if you look at the details of what they actually did they were training in a manner similar to power based training. They would have routes/hills and an idea of what speed/ascent time/reps they could do these in and were aiming for in future. Key thing is that they have an independent measure of performance that they can match to RPE (and later HR) to see if they are getting any better. **

Were they competing today then the vast majority of them would be using powermeters as well, as almost every pro does today. They are not essential, they just make training with purpose a lot easier.

In terms of getting better or otherwise. One things for certain, British cycling is getting better (and breaking world records). Again if you look at the details of how they got all the gold they got in Beijing its down to paying attention to every detail, percentages of percentages. And, again, power meters make this a lot more straightforward.

So
Do you need a powermeter to get the best performance out of your body that your genes allow? - No
Does it make this easier? - Yes

** Aside: I think there is an interesting paradox. HR monitors came along first. IMO (for cycling) they are much more of a move away from "old school" methods than powermeters. I would say power based training is actually a move towards old school but in a more scientific way. At the end of the day it isnt what your HR is saying (or how hard you think it is) that matters but whats coming out of the back end of your bike. Old school measured that in terms of speed/ascent time/reps. Power output is just another way to do the same.

scapaslow

Unfortunately the price of power meters is not so "Old School".

If the prices between HRM's and power meters were similar we'd all be using them and throwing the HRM's away (not that i've got either!). I would definitely buy a PM if i could afford it and hope to some day.

BeaconRuth

scapaslow wrote:

Unfortunately the price of power meters is not so "Old School".

If the prices between HRM's and power meters were similar we'd all be using them and throwing the HRM's away (not that i've got either!). I would definitely buy a PM if i could afford it and hope to some day.

Speak for yourself, Scapaslow. I could afford one but have never felt the need to use a powermeter, despite coaching many clients who do and who get a great deal out of using them - not, IMO, because their training is better, but because they either like having very specific training targets, or they like reviewing their training very quantitatively. There are not many riders around for whom the accuracy of training with a powermeter is essential for them to progress. A nice-to-have for many, but by no means essential.

I don't think it would add much to my own training for the type of racing I currently do. I don't think we'd all have one if they were cheaper. Not everybody gets excited about analysing data. Strangely, and this is the case for the vast majority of cyclists I know, most cyclists consider simply riding their bikes a far more interesting pursuit than worrying about data, powermeters, or even consciously 'training'. I spoke to a multi-national champion yesterday who doesn't use a powermeter or a HRM. I think this is what Oldwelshman was trying to get at. For those who want a powermeter and can afford it fine. But don't feel you are getting left behind in the training world just because you can't afford one or choose not to - which is exactly the impression some people would like to give. The community of internet forum posters is just a massively polarised world where all these data-geeks hang out!

Ruth

angelic upstart

Well said Ruth

oldwelshman

Correct Ruth
I do accept some people benefit from training with them, and as you say there are definately a lot of people who like to analyse lots of data.
I also agree with a lot of what Bazbob said about the "old school" method of monitoring is similar to power measurements.
Horser for courses.
I also have spoken to many riders who do not use power measurmenets themselves but a lot do when they are with squads as it is the "preferred" method.
I seem to recall reading that Malcom Elliot still does not use any "gizmos".
I would never say no to trying something (within reason) and would be interested to try training using power meter for a while to see if it does improve training but the cost rules that out so I will get on with older traditional measure of using a watch and reps
Unless anyone is willing to lend me powertap for 6 months ?
By the way I am not against all gizmos (just think not essential) as I sometimes use hrm and garmin edge as it saves me timing my rides as I just look at them on pc later and can see if I am getting faster up hills and faster on hard rides and see if my hr is ok and that I am not going to die!!

bahzob

I think to some extent we may be violently agreeing. The OP asked if it is possible to approximate power training without a powermeter.

I think the answer is yes, in terms of actually doing training you can do pretty much the same as you would with a powermeter by riding set routes and having targets for them (in terms of time, reps etc.) (An e.g. you cant get much more old school than a 78 year old in my club. He took us on a club run recently and used an 80 mile route he used to use when younger, aiming to do at over 20mph average. I do pretty much the same route now as a "level 2" run and measure it in power but we both end up doing for same reason, to build a solid endurance base.)

To take an example from another sport, I didnt cycle when I was (much) younger but did do a lot of swimming. There we had drills that pretty much equated to the "power based" training I do now. No power or HR meter (of course) we just swam reps of set distances (25m to 1500m,) to time targets. Each lane had a different time and your aim was to
move up lanes. Since conditions were pretty much identical each time we swam it was easy to see if you were getting better (and improving your "power"). (PS if you think turbo training is bad this was a lot worse...especially as we had to train at 5am to get the pool to ourselves)

skavanagh.bikeradar

I was put through the same torture with swimming years ago too - getting on the turbo is far more fun and a lot easier mentally than the swimming training was. Makes me shudder to this day.

I've read a lot about RAMP tests, and even tried to do one myself last year but it went on for far too long. Must have got it all wrong. Trouble is most protocols use power.....A RAMP on the turbo and the longest incline I can find locally will be two ways to measure my time/speed/HR and approximate power. Anyone got a good methodology for a non power RAMP test on the turbo?

oldwelshman

Swimming? I would be in the paddling pool

scapaslow

Apologies BeaconRuth, i should never have used the "All" word :!:

There are not many riders around for whom the accuracy of training with a powermeter is essential for them to progress

Are any pieces of technology in your opinion essential? After all we don't really need a watch or a cycle computer do we? - all we need is an uncanny ability to judge ourselves as to how we are doing using perceived exertion.

I'm not sure that every power meter user is a data geek as you suggest though some maybe. I think they are a potentially very useful tool and worth trying out. Especially if the price was right.

I recently got a turbo trainer which amongst other things gives a measure of power - perhaps not that accurately. It has certainly made me aware of how often on a ride i just don't work hard enough and how hard it can be to maintain x watts for a given duration.

Perhaps there are other ways to discover this but i don't know them.

TomBombadil

Hi all,

Interesting subject - I Personally think that the key to all these gadgets is that they motivate people. I remain unconvinced by the literature on the true bennefit of many of these gadgets as most studies are on very small number of subjects and not carriied out blind etc. Where statistical differences can be found - it does not mean the studies will be predictive! I can't see how you can control for the motivation that many get from gadgets - I suspect that they provide a very strong placebo effect.

If you enjoy using them and they motivate you then I suspect you will see an improvement. Personally I know I don't train right - but when I am out on the bike I am really enjoying it. I do use an HRM and would use a powermeter if I had one - I find that gadgets can motivate me for a while - then I get bored and fed up with downloading and analysing the data. I forget to start recording or the batteries are flat or the HRM strap breaks or the PC crashes........and then I just get on the bike and go for a ride.

Tom

Dissapearing off the back......
Tom

liversedge

For me personally the PM gives me undeniable evidence of progress - I can see my power numbers going up during my training.This is hugely motivational and I can see where my gains come from. In addition, it helps me to stay on target during a workout - if I drop off or go too hard its there to remind me (although I tend to ignore the going too hard bit sine my rides are no longer than 3 hour at the moment, unless it is supposed to be a recovery ride).

The PMC in WKO+ is probably the single most useful tool - a dashboard of my training that informs my plans for each week. I have a plan but the PMC tells me where to flex it. Having said all that, I've got the flu right now and really suffering - watching the little blue line plummet is really depressing :-(

Ken Night

You can equate power using other techniques as described by Bazhob-who is technically way ahead of most riders I've met

I think part of the attraction of using PM is getting the numbers while in action, but I'm firmly in the camp of enjoying the rides I do. I ride hard on audaxes and sportives when I'm in training

Having used a turbo for a couple of winters, I can "feel" more when I'm out on ride later in the year, and you can get quite a lot of information from a basic Turbo like the £200 Tacx Flow

Here is the improvement I made early in the year, while training for the Marmotte last year-you can see power increases for the same HR over 3 months

DaveyL

460 Watts? You beast!

Ken Night

DaveyL wrote:

460 Watts? You beast!

These were ramp tests, failed at 480-therefore only held 460 for a minute

DaveyL

You FTP must have been about 360 W though?

(Guilty as charged to Ruth's comment about geekery...)