The official TrainerRoad thread

daniel_b · February 2017

Hi Pirnie,

sorry, wasn't clear, yes it is a Tacx Smart, and it runs in ERG mode for the rest of the test, and slips into resistance mode for the two 8 minute blocks.

So I know I can up the overall percentage difficulty of the entire workout, is there a way to up the resistance as commanded by TR then, or am I missing something, or perhaps is my trainer not supplying the appropriate resistance I wonder.
I know they can only simulate 7% climbs, but from what you have said i should be able to tinker with this loads - I guess that is the 60% you speak of?

Anyone have a screenshot of where you get to this?

And presumably you tinker with this before you start the hour test, and the ERG mode will allow the other parts to run at the resistance dictated by TR, and then when it gets to the resistance part, it kicks into the 60% or whatever you have set it to - I assume default is 0?

This is excellent news!

Vslowpace · February 2017

There's a resistance slider that appears when you swith out of erg modewhere you can change the % on the screen, I change mine to about 20%

For a FTP although the software switches to resistance mode at the point of the test beginning I would flip it manually a minute before the recovery period ends just so you are not fiddling with the resistance sliding when you should be concentrating on more important things.

pirnie · February 2017

Daniel B wrote:

Hi Pirnie,

sorry, wasn't clear, yes it is a Tacx Smart, and it runs in ERG mode for the rest of the test, and slips into resistance mode for the two 8 minute blocks.

So I know I can up the overall percentage difficulty of the entire workout, is there a way to up the resistance as commanded by TR then, or am I missing something, or perhaps is my trainer not supplying the appropriate resistance I wonder.
I know they can only simulate 7% climbs, but from what you have said i should be able to tinker with this loads - I guess that is the 60% you speak of?

Anyone have a screenshot of where you get to this?

And presumably you tinker with this before you start the hour test, and the ERG mode will allow the other parts to run at the resistance dictated by TR, and then when it gets to the resistance part, it kicks into the 60% or whatever you have set it to - I assume default is 0?

This is excellent news!

It depends what OS you're on. I only use the PC version, and on that it looks something like is on this support page, look down to the Standard (Level) Mode section:

http://support.trainerroad.com/hc/en-us ... ahoo-KICKR

That's for a Kickr but it's similar for the Vortex, you just get a % slider where the levels bar is when you switch modes. I presume the Mac app is the same.

For iOS and Android, I don't know where you would change it I'm afraid, but a I'm sure support would be able to tell you very quickly.

On the PC, you can adjust this using the left and right arrows as keyboard shortcuts if you find yourself between gears mid-interval.

I'd definitely echo getting it set up in one of your recovery intervals. Trying to make big changes during an FTP test is a nightmare

daniel_b · February 2017

Cheers gents, great feedback as always on this forum!

I guess I can test this at any point in one of my subsequent training rides, in one of the recovery periods - I have the laptop close enough to just about reach, as I have it sat on top of a wheely tool chest thingy that slightly overlaps my front wheel, so the cursor keys will be readily accessible.

So I guess I just pick a random percentage, 20% or 30%, and see what gear I need to keep it at X power for X minutes, and then make a decision on what to use for the next FTP, I imagine I want to try and do it and keep the cleanest and kindest (to the bike) chainline I can.

pirnie · February 2017

Daniel B wrote:

Cheers gents, great feedback as always on this forum!

I guess I can test this at any point in one of my subsequent training rides, in one of the recovery periods - I have the laptop close enough to just about reach, as I have it sat on top of a wheely tool chest thingy that slightly overlaps my front wheel, so the cursor keys will be readily accessible.

So I guess I just pick a random percentage, 20% or 30%, and see what gear I need to keep it at X power for X minutes, and then make a decision on what to use for the next FTP, I imagine I want to try and do it and keep the cleanest and kindest (to the bike) chainline I can.

Sounds exactly like my setup. To pick a value I would calculate what 111% of your expected FTP is (which is the power you'd be riding at in the 8 minute test) Set your gears somewhere in the middle of the range and then adjust the resistance percentage until your power is at that value at your preferred cadence. Doing it that way lets you go up or down over a decent range of power just using your gears without having to reach for your laptop mid interval, although there's always the option of mashing blindly at the arrow keys to adjust if needs be.

FWIW, I think mine is set to about 60% which leaves me mid cassette in the 50 and I find this gives me the best resistance range whilst still having a decent inertia on the wheel so I don't feel like I'm riding through treacle.

daniel_b · February 2017

pirnie wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

Cheers gents, great feedback as always on this forum!

I guess I can test this at any point in one of my subsequent training rides, in one of the recovery periods - I have the laptop close enough to just about reach, as I have it sat on top of a wheely tool chest thingy that slightly overlaps my front wheel, so the cursor keys will be readily accessible.

So I guess I just pick a random percentage, 20% or 30%, and see what gear I need to keep it at X power for X minutes, and then make a decision on what to use for the next FTP, I imagine I want to try and do it and keep the cleanest and kindest (to the bike) chainline I can.

Sounds exactly like my setup. To pick a value I would calculate what 111% of your expected FTP is (which is the power you'd be riding at in the 8 minute test) Set your gears somewhere in the middle of the range and then adjust the resistance percentage until your power is at that value at your preferred cadence. Doing it that way lets you go up or down over a decent range of power just using your gears without having to reach for your laptop mid interval, although there's always the option of mashing blindly at the arrow keys to adjust if needs be.

FWIW, I think mine is set to about 60% which leaves me mid cassette in the 50 and I find this gives me the best resistance range whilst still having a decent inertia on the wheel so I don't feel like I'm riding through treacle.

That is genius in it's simplicity and intelligence, I will make a note of that now ready for 6 weeks time!

Nick Kanwetz · February 2017

vpnikolov wrote:

I completely understand the adjustment of the FTP for an hour, but am quite confused as to why the HR would be multiplied by the same value. Naturally the power would decrease over the period, hence the adjustment by 95%(logically), but isn't it quite the opposite for the heart rate? Not that it would continue to rise, but remain more or less constant over the period. I am struggling to see the correlation.

I'm waiting to hear back from our head coach on some of his thoughts here, but he'll be away on vacation for the weekend. In the meantime, here's my understanding of this: if the 20-minute test assumes that your power output would be slightly less than what the assessment gauged it at, then LTHR calculations should be no different. In other words, the approximation assumes your power would be slightly less. Under that same logic, the approximation for LTHR assumes that your heart rate would be slightly less since you would need to hold it for substantially longer. So while you could hold 170 for 20-minutes, you theoretically could only sustain 163 for an entire hour.

Also, the 8-minute test actually uses a factor of .92, not .90. My mistake.

I'll follow-up with some of our head coach's thoughts when he's available.

In the meantime, happy training!

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

sh-g · February 2017

dw300 wrote:

Don't get me wrong .. I don't expect that a £130 turbo will help give accurate power readings compared to a Powertap or SRM. I'm really just looking for something to give structured workouts. I'm considering getting my hands on a Powertap sometime in the distant future if I can afford it and if I think it will give a further edge.

How much do you think the error involved will affect results between the same workout on the same set up? I assume that the harder you work and the more heat, the less resistance you'll have?

Don't worry too much about it. I have just started using TR and fooling it with a manual Spinning bike using Garmins speed/cadence bundle attached to the fly wheel and crank and a garmin HR belt. OK, so not 100% accurate but with a bit of experimenting I am getting good training sessions.

vpnikolov · February 2017

Nick Kanwetz wrote:

vpnikolov wrote:

I completely understand the adjustment of the FTP for an hour, but am quite confused as to why the HR would be multiplied by the same value. Naturally the power would decrease over the period, hence the adjustment by 95%(logically), but isn't it quite the opposite for the heart rate? Not that it would continue to rise, but remain more or less constant over the period. I am struggling to see the correlation.

I'm waiting to hear back from our head coach on some of his thoughts here, but he'll be away on vacation for the weekend. In the meantime, here's my understanding of this: if the 20-minute test assumes that your power output would be slightly less than what the assessment gauged it at, then LTHR calculations should be no different. In other words, the approximation assumes your power would be slightly less. Under that same logic, the approximation for LTHR assumes that your heart rate would be slightly less since you would need to hold it for substantially longer. So while you could hold 170 for 20-minutes, you theoretically could only sustain 163 for an entire hour.

Also, the 8-minute test actually uses a factor of .92, not .90. My mistake.

I'll follow-up with some of our head coach's thoughts when he's available.

In the meantime, happy training!

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

Sweet, I am looking forward.

Nick Kanwetz · February 2017

Shamone wrote:

While doing the FTP test on a Kickr Snap, for the two all out intervals the trainer switches from ERG mode to resistance mode. I'm finding I have to change gear to the extent that the Snap vibrates like hell and the power measurement is all over the place.
I'm guessing the resistance level Trainerroad sets is too low - Any ideas how to have this set a higher level during the two intervals?

When the Snap changes modes for testing interval(s), it'll switch to whatever resistance setting it had last been set to. Though the default resistance for the snap is 15%. Should that resistance level not be enough and you increase it, whatever resistance setting you increase it to will be the setting you'll be automatically set at when switched into resistance mode in the future. When you're in your warmup for the FTP assessment, switch into resistance mode and make sure it's a resistance level you feel good in.

If you're on the Windows app, you can adjust the resistance setting with the left/right arrows on your keyboard and switch trainer modes with 'M'. They haven't quite made it into the new Mac app yet.

note: if you're connecting the Snap via Bluetooth, your trainer will automatically switch to slope mode level 3 (unless you leave it at a different setting prior). But the rest of that info still applies.

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

daniel_b · February 2017

Hi Nick,

Darden has been helping me out with my Vortex Smart, and we have made some big strides - it's calibrating everytime (Hope i have not jinxed it now) prior to a session, and the time it takes to shift wattage amounts, seems top have reduced a lot, from what was upwards of an entire minute, to more like 10-15 seconds, which in most cases is completely acceptable.

I completed Ebbetts on Saturday, which contains 16 (IIRC) pretty much all out 10 second sprints, and the requirement for me was to go to something like 320 watts for sveral of them, but whether i left it in the same gear, or went up a few cogs just before, it still only increased to probably 220-240 at the very most.

I'm curious if that is a bug, or a limitation of my comparitively budget smart trainer?

If not, what would be the best way to approach them?

I'm sure there was still some benefit in completing them as I did, I just don't feel I was getting as much usefulness out of them as I could have done.

Thanks

Dan

Nick Kanwetz · March 2017

Norfolkwhite wrote:

Been using TrainerRoad for about 18 months with a Kickr, RPM and TickrX successfully with no glitches over that period. Last night I did a firmware update to the TickrX and can not get it to reconnect to TR. I can see that there is a BT connection to the iPad in settings and the TickrX shows as being connected in the Wahoo App, but in the devices section of TR it is not recognised - any suggestions?

Sorry to hear about the issues! This should be a real easy fix.

Make sure to un-pair the TickrX completely from the Wahoo app and iPad before pairing to TrainerRoad. The TickrX is able to connect over both ANT+ and Bluetooth, but when pairing over BT can only pair to one head-unit at a time—TrainerRoad acting as that head-unit.

If you continue to have any hassle getting things working properly, please don't hesitate to get in touch with us at support@trainerroad.com. We'll be happy to help!

Thanks!

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

Nick Kanwetz · March 2017

Daniel B wrote:

Hi Nick,

Darden has been helping me out with my Vortex Smart, and we have made some big strides - it's calibrating everytime (Hope i have not jinxed it now) prior to a session, and the time it takes to shift wattage amounts, seems top have reduced a lot, from what was upwards of an entire minute, to more like 10-15 seconds, which in most cases is completely acceptable.

I completed Ebbetts on Saturday, which contains 16 (IIRC) pretty much all out 10 second sprints, and the requirement for me was to go to something like 320 watts for sveral of them, but whether i left it in the same gear, or went up a few cogs just before, it still only increased to probably 220-240 at the very most.

I'm curious if that is a bug, or a limitation of my comparitively budget smart trainer?

If not, what would be the best way to approach them?

I'm sure there was still some benefit in completing them as I did, I just don't feel I was getting as much usefulness out of them as I could have done.

Thanks

Dan

That's great news man! And excellent work on the recent FTP test as well!

I was just reading through your guys' conversation above about limitations of the trainer's resistance during the testing interval. Like the other members mentioned, you can adjust the resistance using that slider in the bottom left-hand corner of the workout view. Whatever setting you leave it at will be the setting in switches into in the future as well. You may want to set it to 'Resistance' mode during your warmup and make sure it's at a comfortable resistance level.

For the record, certain trainers will transition into resistance mode while others switch into standard/slope mode. I believe the KICKR and KICKR Snap are the only trainers that switch into slope mode, but that's only over Bluetooth. Trainers that connect over the ANT+FE-C profile like your Vortex switch into resistance mode.

The Vortex should have no issues getting you up to that wattage. While it is on the less expensive side of smart trainers, we have many users who successfully use the machine. I gave Darden the heads-up about your experience with Ebbetts and he'll be following up with you to make sure we figure out what's going on there.

edit: I overlooked that those intervals in Ebbetts are only 10 seconds... My apologies! Unfortunately, this is indeed a limitation of the Vortex in this situation. The trainer can only adjust resistance so fast, and by the time the trainer would have achieved the desired wattage, the interval is already over.

Direct-drive trainers seems to have been functionality with these kinds of workouts, but our suggestion is to do these super short, intense efforts in resistance mode.

P.S. I responded to your inquiry about the audible instructional text but am not seeing it in the thread. I may have accidentally not sent it? In any case, this is something we've considered but are sticking to the text for now. We'll be sure to keep everyone in the loop if that changes. But we do appreciate your feedback!

Thanks again Dan!

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

Nick Kanwetz · March 2017

Daniel B wrote:

A question for Nick, or anyone who knows really.

I'm going for my second FTP tomorrow early doors, but was just reading some of the TR articles about the differences, and or benefits of either the twin 8 test, or the single 20.

It does say in the article, that even if the block you are doing starts with one, you can substitute for the other type.

Stupid question, but how would I do that?

So like you may have read already, the 20-minute FTP testing protocol is suited more for rider-types that will be exposed to longer, sustained efforts. You'll see that reflected in the intensity and duration of the testing interval. This is more fitting for road racers, triathletes, time trialists, endurance mountain bikers, and gravel racers.

The 8-minute test, on the other hand, suits rider-types who are familiar with short, punchy efforts above threshold (VO2 max). This fits criterium racers, cyclocross racers, and cross country mountain bikers. Similar to the 20-minute test, your testing intervals will reflect those intensities that these types of riders are exposed to.

Like the others mentioned, just look up your desired testing format and execute on it. Then, select 'Assign' in your training plan and assign it to that test.

Hope this helps!

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

bobmcstuff · March 2017

I'm having really annoying problems with Garmin speed/cadence sensor dropouts from the android app during workouts.

I've tried replacing the batteries, and my Garmin doesn't seem to be having the same dropouts (I've been dual recording through the app for TR and through my garmin 810).

I occasionally use the desktop program with an ant dongle and haven't noticed the same issue there so I think it is due to the app/my phone - although I don't use the computer program much so I could have been lucky.

Any ideas?

Nick Kanwetz · March 2017

bobmcstuff wrote:

I'm having really annoying problems with Garmin speed/cadence sensor dropouts from the android app during workouts.

I've tried replacing the batteries, and my Garmin doesn't seem to be having the same dropouts (I've been dual recording through the app for TR and through my garmin 810).

I occasionally use the desktop program with an ant dongle and haven't noticed the same issue there so I think it is due to the app/my phone - although I don't use the computer program much so I could have been lucky.

Any ideas?

Sorry to hear about the frustration man.

Since you're in the same environment with your desktop and have cross-checked signal strength while concurrently running the Garmin, I'm weary to blame the dropouts on wireless interference. That leads me to think it may be some limitations of the ANT+ wireless signal strength of the Android device itself.

Given the various Android devices out there, some ANT+ enabled devices have stronger signal strength than others. If you think this is the case, you can snag a nifty adapter for your Android device that you can plug your ANT+ USB stick directly into. This will make sure your signal strength is on par with what you experience on the desktop. If your Android device uses USB-C, then you'd need a USB-C to USB adapter. If it uses a different connection, search whatever's specific to your device.

Let me know what you think when you get a chance.

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

mechanism · March 2017

I started Sweet Spot Base Mid Volume II today with the 8 Minute Test. The result... 6.6% lower than at the start of Sweet Spot Base Mid Volume I.

Oops.

bobmcstuff · March 2017

I had an almost identical situation between the starts of Sweet Spot LV II and General Build...

I knew it was coming though as I'd been unable to complete the last week or so at 100% intensity, I had a couple of weeks terrible training due to workload, and basically ended up stretching the last recovery week out to 3 weeks of mediocrity.

Seems to be coming back pretty fast though.

mellex · March 2017

TrainerRoad is my first dabble with structured training. Surprised just how addictive it is and I need to remember to actually ride outside on a road sometime, soon!

Simple to setup and a great choice of workouts/career plans. Currently working my way through the first six weeks of Sweet Spot and I can already see positive improvements.

Nick Kanwetz · March 2017

mellex wrote:

TrainerRoad is my first dabble with structured training. Surprised just how addictive it is and I need to remember to actually ride outside on a road sometime, soon!

Simple to setup and a great choice of workouts/career plans. Currently working my way through the first six weeks of Sweet Spot and I can already see positive improvements.

Really glad to hear things are going well so far! If you ever run into any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to drop us a line at support@trainerroad.com. We're always happy to help.

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

nicklong · March 2017

Hi Nick,

I've noticed the new build phase plans and the methodology or interval principles seem to have changed quite a lot - e.g. in General Build there are a lot more mixed intervals with threshold followed by VO2Max work in the second half.

What is the logic behind this - is this "better" or is the intent to allow people to do General Build every year without getting too repetitive?

Finally, when will the Specific Race plans be updated? I'm just about to start Climbing Road Race as I fancied something different to RRR but if it is going to change I'd stick to that discipline!

Nick Kanwetz · March 2017

nicklong wrote:

Hi Nick,

I've noticed the new build phase plans and the methodology or interval principles seem to have changed quite a lot - e.g. in General Build there are a lot more mixed intervals with threshold followed by VO2Max work in the second half.

What is the logic behind this - is this "better" or is the intent to allow people to do General Build every year without getting too repetitive?

Finally, when will the Specific Race plans be updated? I'm just about to start Climbing Road Race as I fancied something different to RRR but if it is going to change I'd stick to that discipline!

Hey!

Interestingly enough, our Head Coach Chad Timmerman (who designed the plans and changes) just responded to someone with a similar inquiry.

Here's what he said: "In the high-vol version, this was largely fueled by the exclusion of VO2max work in SSB HV and in the mid-volume it’s about using what’s effective on a still pretty time-constrained training schedule. In both cases, my concern also fell on keeping things varied which is beneficial both physiologically and psychologically.

Lifting TSS using only long, steady efforts would make for more hours on the bike too, and when it comes to indoor training, is not really in line with what I want to endure and I imagine most riders are on that same page.

Finally, the short VO2max efforts and those shorter, slightly suprathreshold repeats that are usually 5-8 minutes long at 102-108% FTP are very much about increasing sustainable power. Riding below FTP for longer durations doesn’t increase FTP, it only increases stamina below FTP.

If you want to lift FTP, work has to be done above it. And that work is relatively very stressful making shorter durations necessary."

So that's a good summary of the methodology behind the plan changes.

He is aiming to have the Specialty plans out ASAP, and that is likely to fall within the timeframe of you already in the middle of it. I would just plan on being able to access them on your next Base/Build/Specialty cycle and continue with RRR as planned. They are still great plans. These new adjustments are just aimed to be that much more specific to the new changes in the Base and Build phases.

Hope this helps! Please don't hesitate to let us know if you have any other questions or concerns.

Thanks!

edit: forgot my sig

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

gcwebbyuk · March 2017

If you want to lift FTP, work has to be done above it. And that work is relatively very stressful making shorter durations necessary."

Does this mean that the base phase just strengthens your current FTP, and that improvements to FTP should really only be noticed in the Build and Speciality phases?

vpnikolov · March 2017

vpnikolov wrote:

Nick Kanwetz wrote:

vpnikolov wrote:

I completely understand the adjustment of the FTP for an hour, but am quite confused as to why the HR would be multiplied by the same value. Naturally the power would decrease over the period, hence the adjustment by 95%(logically), but isn't it quite the opposite for the heart rate? Not that it would continue to rise, but remain more or less constant over the period. I am struggling to see the correlation.

I'm waiting to hear back from our head coach on some of his thoughts here, but he'll be away on vacation for the weekend. In the meantime, here's my understanding of this: if the 20-minute test assumes that your power output would be slightly less than what the assessment gauged it at, then LTHR calculations should be no different. In other words, the approximation assumes your power would be slightly less. Under that same logic, the approximation for LTHR assumes that your heart rate would be slightly less since you would need to hold it for substantially longer. So while you could hold 170 for 20-minutes, you theoretically could only sustain 163 for an entire hour.

Also, the 8-minute test actually uses a factor of .92, not .90. My mistake.

I'll follow-up with some of our head coach's thoughts when he's available.

In the meantime, happy training!

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

Sweet, I am looking forward.

Just to resurrect this discussion a bit.

I was reading a post on Joe Friel's blog: http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/04/de ... -lthr.html

He recommends doing a 30 min TT test where after the first 10 minutes, you press the lap button and the average HR of the last 20 minutes is the LTHR.

Now, the premise is that during the first 10 minutes the HR would go up to a reasonable level by the time the 20 minutes start.

That's where I find TR's methodology of determining LTHR flawed as it relies only on the 20 minutes FTP test during which the HR won't be to a level close to the actual value, and on top of that the result is decreased by the .92 or .9 factor (depending on which FTP test is used). I can only assume LTHR should actually be multiplied by a higher factor to give an approximation of the correct value.

Nick Kanwetz · March 2017

vpnikolov wrote:

Just to resurrect this discussion a bit.

I was reading a post on Joe Friel's blog: http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/04/de ... -lthr.html

He recommends doing a 30 min TT test where after the first 10 minutes, you press the lap button and the average HR of the last 20 minutes is the LTHR.

Now, the premise is that during the first 10 minutes the HR would go up to a reasonable level by the time the 20 minutes start.

That's where I find TR's methodology of determining LTHR flawed as it relies only on the 20 minutes FTP test during which the HR won't be to a level close to the actual value, and on top of that the result is decreased by the .92 or .9 factor (depending on which FTP test is used). I can only assume LTHR should actually be multiplied by a higher factor to give an approximation of the correct value.

The 5-minute clearing effort + the earlier VO2 efforts seen in both of our testing formats can be thought of as similar to Friel's 10-minutes in that we're also supposing our HR will rise to such reasonable level before embarking on the 20-minute effort.

I just realized I hadn't got back to you on the LTHR topic—my apologies. Here goes.

HR typically climbs over the duration of longer, steady-state efforts, same with repeated shorter efforts. Cardiac drift, regardless of what causes it, is tied to duration, so as the heart has to work harder due to a number of physiological goings-on, it gradually climbs to support the same amount of effort that was necessary at earlier points in the ride/workout. So in that sense, you're right.

But when we estimate LTHR, we’re estimating the HR that would be tied to a *lower* level of effort than that measured during a 20-minute effort. So if he averaged 300w for 20 minutes with an HR of 170bpm, then we’d expect him to have a *lower* HR than what he’d see when operating at his estimated 285-watt FTP.

Less work/power —> lower effort/HR. The effects of extended duration don’t really come into play in this context.

Our coaching team dislikes using a specific percentage to estimate HR response about as much as we dislike relying on HR as a sole metric used to guide structured workouts (which is why we are loathe to use LTHR in any context).

One rider could improve fitness and drop 5% HR at 200w while another could only drop 2% (or 10!). Same FTP’s, same training plan, different to wildly different physiological responses, never mind the day-to-day inconsistencies in HR.

This is directly from a discussion on the topic between our Head Coach and myself.

Hope this helps!

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

pan280 · March 2017

I apologise if this has been asked before.

Can someone give me some tips for riding with a wahoo kickr, power meter (in my case p1 pedals) with power match?

The problem i have is that there is a delay in adjusting the resistance on the kickr, and my cadence/power.
I did a session today and found it really hard to stay consistent. Is there a method to it?

Nick Kanwetz · March 2017

pan280 wrote:

I apologise if this has been asked before.

Can someone give me some tips for riding with a wahoo kickr, power meter (in my case p1 pedals) with power match?

The problem i have is that there is a delay in adjusting the resistance on the kickr, and my cadence/power.
I did a session today and found it really hard to stay consistent. Is there a method to it?

Sorry to hear you were running into issues here!

PowerMatch requires constant communication between your power meter, smart trainer, and our software. That means the issues most athletes experience with this setup is when that communication is interfered with. It is often some sort of wireless interference that can cause this, but it could be something like a pairing issue as well.

Either way, let's have you get in touch with our crack support team at support@trainerroad.com. We'll be happy to make sure everything is getting set up as it should and walk you through finding any potential sources of wireless interference in your training environment.

Looking forward to getting your issues hashed out ASAP.

Thanks!

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

schayaraks · March 2017

gcwebbyuk wrote:

Nick Kanwetz wrote:

If you want to lift FTP, work has to be done above it. And that work is relatively very stressful making shorter durations necessary."

Does this mean that the base phase just strengthens your current FTP, and that improvements to FTP should really only be noticed in the Build and Speciality phases?

As a newcomer to TrainerRoad and cycling in general, I'm interested in the response as well. I'm currently on SSB1 and noticed that it's very much emphasizing aerobic capacity but kind of concerned that it's not doing much to raise my (shockingly) poor FTP.

Nick Kanwetz · March 2017

(Thanks for bumping this one as it was overlooked above)

gcwebbyuk wrote:

Does this mean that the base phase just strengthens your current FTP, and that improvements to FTP should really only be noticed in the Build and Speciality phases?

I misspoke by saying FTP won't improve at all when working under it. Training above or below your threshold level isn't black & white, and there is plenty of training benefits that bleed between the lines.

Training below FTP can improve a number of attributes that lead to higher power output at your lactate threshold, so it definitely can lift FTP. It's just not the sole goal. Sub-threshold (below FTP) training is aimed more at increasing stamina slightly below FTP. Supra-threshold (above FTP) work is geared more towards elevating an athlete's FTP.

Again, there's no hard and fast rule here. Training below or above FTP is meant at targeting different aspects of your fitness with more emphasis respectively, but can translate to increased capabilities in both areas of one's fitness.

All these fitness qualities of increase aerobic capabilities (e.g. lactate buffering/shuttling, ETC/Krebs Cycle efficiency, diminishing reliance on glycolysis) can indeed raise once sustainable power such that their FTP increases. And in fact, this is what athletes often see—even in the base phase of training.

If we were talking about a longer, low-intensity approach to base training (like our Traditional Base plan), this would change things up a bit. But aspects of the argument remain the same. There's just far less intensity in a traditional approach with the goal of building on that fitness in a much more time consuming, lasting manner. So there can be delays in increases in fitness with an approach like that.

Athletes who go the Sweet Spot Base route often see their largest increases in FTP in the base and build phase. The Specialty Phase serves to refine those skills—not as much about FTP building. If you're on the high-volume plan, you'll be dosed with all sub-threshold work due to the balance of intensity with volume. The above conversation rationalizes why you'll still see increases in FTP in the base phase even with all sub-threshold work.

The Traditional Base route often sees the largest increases in FTP in the build phase.

schayaraks wrote:

As a newcomer to TrainerRoad and cycling in general, I'm interested in the response as well. I'm currently on SSB1 and noticed that it's very much emphasizing aerobic capacity but kind of concerned that it's not doing much to raise my (shockingly) poor FTP.

Workouts that emphasize aerobic capacity are actually workouts above FTP, so I believe you mean workouts below your anaerobic threshold (FTP).

In any case, take a look at the response above and we should be on the same page. If not, please feel free to let us know any other questions you may have. Sweet Spot Base is a highly effective plan at helping athletes raise their FTP, but FTP raising isn't the only focus during this phase of training. It serves to establish the strength and aerobic endurance that'll be further built and expanded upon in the Build phase. But that's not to say FTP won't be increased in the process.

Really hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Community Manager at TrainerRoad — Cycling's Most Effective Training System

schayaraks · March 2017

Nick Kanwetz wrote:

{Lots of useful info}

Thanks for the great clarification, Nick! From the podcast to the tech support and forum interaction, I can say TrainerRoad is a great 360 degree cycling ecosystem.

The official TrainerRoad thread

Comments

Categories