When do you begin winter training?

hatone

IMO your training should progress from an emphasis on general fitness preparation to a focus on race-specific preparation at the appropriate times. General fitness training of the base period is primarily directed at improving aerobic endurance. Once that is well developed (come Spring) you look at advancing beyond base by training to ride more quickly. That might include specific training strategies to enhance pace management, climbing, sprint power and anaerobic capacity to producer bigger and longer lasting matches (in power training). Do you have a SRM or similar?

okgo

What is aerobic endurance? And how could it be improved upon?

I get to the start of my winter training with 8-10 thousand miles in my legs since Jan, I think that's a fairly decent base, why would I want to continue riding around at a level that is not going to promote adaption?

While I agree its better to leave some things till later as they take less time to train, I still view 3 months as riding around at 60% of my FTP as a waste of valuable time, when in that time I could be trying to push it up, after all he who has the greater FTP is the one who tires less for a given effort and will arrive at the end fresher..?

BenderRodriguez

okgo wrote:

Well I don't have a definitive idea hence I'm looking into coaching...

Ah, sorry, when you criticised hatone's programme as being from 'the Dark ages' I thought you were something of an expert.

okgo wrote:

I can't feasibly see what good riding around at half of my FTP is going to do me.

To some extent that depends on how much you do it. Although 'half' your ftp might be rather low, there is still a lot to be said for a polarised approach that includes a large proportion of 'base building', as long as you have the time to do it. For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23264537

okgo wrote:

I see no need to waste 3 months where I could be building FTP riding around at a nominal pace

Firstly, training tends to be more effective if the type of training load is varied. Also, let's assume that, if you really work at it, this time next year your FTP might be 10% better than it is now. Your approach seems to be to focus on 'FTP building' from now till them, which means gaining less than 1% per month. Thing is, a more cyclical training programme will give a similar or greater improvement and at the same time boost other capacities, such as the ability to burn fat at ever higher speeds, and will also be less likely to lead to you becoming physically and psychologically stale. For now maintain what you have gained and recover fully, especially psychologically, then build some base, the chances are then you will then be able to add that 10% to your FTP in 3 months of focused training, rather than 12.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that if you start working on your FTP now you will be able to add 3 or or even 2% a month to it consistently for the next 12 months. Chances are that ain't going to happen. If you are unfortunate enough to be a 'low responder' you might be close to your ceiling already and no coach on Earth can change your genetic inheritance!

SBezza

hatone wrote:

IMO your training should progress from an emphasis on general fitness preparation to a focus on race-specific preparation at the appropriate times. General fitness training of the base period is primarily directed at improving aerobic endurance. Once that is well developed (come Spring) you look at advancing beyond base by training to ride more quickly. That might include specific training strategies to enhance pace management, climbing, sprint power and anaerobic capacity to producer bigger and longer lasting matches (in power training). Do you have a SRM or similar?

I would severely detrain if I spent my training hours in the winter just doing low end endurance work, what is the point. For a fit rider who has been training all year anyhow, there is no need to go right down to low level endurance rides for a big block, there is riding at other intensities that promote improvements in aerobic endurance. Lower level rides are good if you are doing 3 hour + rides, if it is shorter than that then you are not training effectively I would suggest.

As okgo has said some of us use the winter time to actually get fitter without races getting in the way, as generally you will end up losing fitness during the season if you are not prepared to go into races tired from training, or even have breaks in racing to get the training in. As I mentioned above I will have a short break to mentally refresh myself more than anything, but the hard work will start in November so I can go into the 2014 season hopefully even quicker.

BenderRodriguez

okgo wrote:

I still view 3 months as riding around at 60% of my FTP as a waste of valuable time, when in that time I could be trying to push it up, after all he who has the greater FTP is the one who tires less for a given effort and will arrive at the end fresher..?

Perhaps you should get a coach. I have a feeling that if you pay someone a £100 a month for advice, then you might be more inclined to take notice of it than any advice you could get for free, either on here or by doing a little research.

Anyhow, something from 'The Dark Ages' for you to reflect on. (The writer was a a six times world 'Ironman' triathlon champion...)

Ace of Base
by mark allen

Hello 1996! Even though it's almost the official beginning of spring, if you are anything like me, I'm still trying to find my rhythm in training. Should I try something new or go with the basic routine I've done in the past? Something extravagant? Forget it. It's nuts and bolts time. Everything we do now on the roads and in the pool will pay off during the summer and at that final race of the year in the fall. The trick is to do enough training in the right way without overdoing it. It may seem like quite a balancing act, but in reality it's quite simple to lay the groundwork now in a way that will carry you through an entire season, and on into the next. I'm going to throw out most of the entertainment value during this article and give you the essentials I consider absolutely necessary to do this time of year to help make your season as a whole a success.

But first I want to share with you the secret of how I have trained for the last 12 years. I'm going to tell you exactly what I have done every winter and spring since 1984. I'm not superhuman, so this secret is not reserved for the genetically superior being. I have a family and other commitments outside of my training even though I do this for a living, and this secret works within those constraints as well. I can be lazy with the biggest slouches, and have also overtrained like the most neurotic type ‘A’ person you've ever met. But this secret has helped me overcome both of these extremes. Do you want to here it? Are you ready for it? The secret is... BASE!

You're probably saying, "Base'? So what? Everyone knows you need a base.”

I know you know you need base, and that you probably don't want to read another article on it because you've already been bored to tears with the topic. But I'm going to give it to you once again anyway, because if you can finally get it right, I guarantee you will have a better overall season than you have ever had in your life. Period! So bare with me, and let's get going.

The number one thing I'm going to ask you to do right now is to put your ego in the vault for the time being. We are talking about no frills base building. This is the biggest determining factor in performance later on. It’s not intricate like threshold work or interesting as are variances on a theme at the track. But it will bring the results you want. Base is the big potato. Without enough of it, all the speed work in the world won't turn your VW engine into a Masarati.

The problem with base work is that it doesn't really feel like you are going 'hard' enough. Base comes from going out for the daily grind at or below your Maximum Aerobic Level. But since it doesn't have the same shock feel of speed work, day to day it doesn't really feel like you are getting anywhere with it. It doesn't satisfy our mind's need to see big jumps and changes in a short period of time. But trust me. It works. Building your base is putting money in the bank for later. The more you put in now, the more there is to take down the road. Speed work draws on that account, and the energy taken out goes to 'buying performance'. Save the big 'bucks' for the big races. Use the big withdrawals to accomplish your big picture goal. Don't let yourself get caught in the anaerobic trap of draining your physical account bit by bit over too long a period of time. If you do, there may not be anything left for the big dance at the end of the year. Have you put your training ego on hold? Okay, then we're almost ready to get training.

But first, let's talk a little science. Your body is a big energy converter, using mostly fat and carbohydrates to move. In action, you change stored fuel into forms your muscles can 'eat' for contraction. This requires enzymes. The more enzymes you have to make these conversions, the quicker the whole process works. More enzymes for energy conversion is like hiring more workers to help on the construction sight. You can saw a thousand pieces of wood, one at a time, or bring in a thousand people to saw thern all at the same tirne. It's obvious which is quicker. In the body, more enzymes makes you more metabolically efficient.

Metabolic efficiency, the ability to convert stored energy into food for muscular activity, is built over time, with the right level of intensity during training. Anything we are doing in triathlons is going to be achieved predominantly with the burning of fats, even in Olympic Distance races. Therefore, as you have heard before, we need to increase our number of fat burning enzymes. You do this by building a base. This requires training at or below your Maximum Aerobic Level. This is the highest heart rate you can train at and still be predominantly training your aerobic (fat burning) systems.

Figure your MAL right now before continuing...

Okay, back to the programme. As you build base, your MAL stays essentially the same within each season. But your pace at that particular heart rate will gradually get faster. You can measure your progress by going to the track once every two weeks and, after warming up, time one mile at that MAL heart rate and see how your speed at that MAL changes. When I first started training this way, my time for the mile on the track was a 7:45. Now, at that very same heart rate, my pace is a 5:25 mile! Same heart rate, very different speed. And it all came from building those aerobic enzymes.

There are three keys to making this base system work.

* The first is to be very consistent in your training. You don't necessarily need mega miles to become more efficient. Simply try, within the constraints of your life, to make an aerobic workout a daily part of your routine. Even training for twenty minutes a day in this zone will make improvements in your pace at your MAL.

* The second condition for maximizing your time spent during the base period is to NEVER train above your MAL heart rate. Remember, this is the time when you are putting money in the bank. Anaerobic work (anything above MAL) takes big chunks out and erodes the base you are building. This is the hardest thing for people to do- to trust that a seemingly moderate effort in training will ultimately enable you to really crank it out at the high end later. Have the patience. You will be doing the fast stuff soon enough, but not now.

* The third key is to as much as possible, keep your lifestyle stress free. That's almost impossible in these times. But try. The reason is that your body reacts chemically to stress in the exact same way it does to anacrobic training. It turns off the fat burning systems and turns on the glucose burning systems. Every time you get overstressed, it's as if you just did a track workout, rnetabolically speaking. So if you aren't seeing any improvement in your pace at the MAL track test, take a look at your lifestyle and see if there are stress factors that might be working contrary to your base programme. And as always, change those that you can and don't worry about the rest. I haven't given really any specific advise on the actual miles you need to be doing right now. That is relatively unimportant in relation to your pace. Don't be fooled by the simplicity of what I have presented to you, I know very few people who have the patience to train their base miles in the way I have just outlined.

In fact, I'm going to present the challenge to you right now. Go to the track this week and find out what your pace is at your MAL, Then for the next rnonth, train consistently at or below your MAI. The actual mileage shouldn't be the main concern. Train roughly the same miles you have been, but without doing anything fast (above MAL). Reduce a few of the changeable stress factors. Then before you read the next month's 220 Magazine, go to the track and do the MAL pace test once again. See if there isn't a change in the positive direction. At that point we can talk about the next phase of your training. Good Luck. I'll see you next month!

two twenty april 1996.

hatone

You can determine the status of your aerobic endurance by looking at your EF (divide NP by average HR) and decoupling data from power. Decoupling is pretty good at gauging how aerobically fit you are over a single ride instead of the amount of data collected over a few sessions (ideally you need to be under 5%).

The test is done over an 8 week period so make sure the variables are the same.

BigFatBloke

There are plenty of sports where fitness is maintained all year. Yes they may peak for major events and take a few weeks off at some point but they compete pretty much all year round.

Fitness is a lot easier to maintain at a reasonable level than it is building up to start with. The older you get the more you need to keep a decent level because you can't take short cuts and just flog yourself into shape because you need more rest and can't hurt yourself as much and recover.

A new or returning athlete does need to build a base first though. An older athlete with years and years behind him will want to do some hard sessions all year round - use it or lose it. But they should be conservative.

BenderRodriguez

SBezza wrote:

I would severely detrain if I spent my training hours in the winter just doing low end endurance work, what is the point. For a fit rider who has been training all year anyhow, there is no need to go right down to low level endurance rides for a big block, there is riding at other intensities that promote improvements in aerobic endurance. Lower level rides are good if you are doing 3 hour + rides, if it is shorter than that then you are not training effectively I would suggest.

Yes, training at different intensities most of the year round is a good thing. However, the balance can usefully be varied to 'push' various factors in preference to others in a cyclical manner.

Also true that lower level rides demand that you to get the hours in if they are to be effective!

Two other things that need to be considered are:

1) Everyone is different, some with thrive on miles and others on shorter, more intense work. Only personal experimentation will reveal what works best for you.

2) What 'works best' is also dependent on what sort of demands your target events will make on you.

okgo

I have 12-15 hours a week that I ride my bike during, a good chunk of that is commuting which I may or may not stop doing, so that leaves me 6/7 hours a week to do something meaningful. To me, that is not doing more of what I already am doing in my commuting.

I am not going to be trying to gain FTP from now til this time next year, as Steve says, I race a lot, thus it gets in the way of building CTL and typically whatever I have FTP wise early season is what I stick at, I have found this year that if I do more short hard stuff I can improve my 3-5 min power, and possibly up to my 20 min power, but the only effective building time for me is going to be Oct-March, and probably Feb/March is limited as I will need to bring my short term stuff up to scratch again, so that leave 3-4 months where I want to gain, not 12 as you suggest.

Nice link but I am a cyclist not a triathlete, specificity and all that.

BenderRodriguez

okgo wrote:

I have... 6/7 hours a week to do something meaningful.

Fair enough, if you are that time limited a polarised approach is probably not for you.

okgo wrote:

...typically whatever I have FTP wise early season is what I stick at...

Given what you have said about your approach to training, that does not surprise me one little bit.

okgo wrote:

Nice link but I am a cyclist not a triathlete, specificity and all that.

The basic physiological principles are pretty much universal for all aerobic sports.

okgo

What I do believe in is that building CTL is the best way to increase your capacity, (many people agree with this, and Coggan does post some good stuff, you may want to look at Dan Lloyds recent tweets backing this up), so as Steve said, for people like him and I who race often, building CTL while still needing to be relatively fresh for a weekend event doesn't really correlate. So winter is a time when I don't need to worry about being fresh for anything and building can commence.

And clearly the principles are not the same, swimmers, rowers etc do not have an easy winter etc, they train hard most of the year from what I've heard, and indeed this what what Kerrison put in place for Sky when he joined, he couldn't (rightly) understand why you needed to ride around at base level for a quarter of the year...

hatone

Everything isn't ALWAYS about FTP. Being transfixed to your FTP readings all the time won't yield the results you want.

For instance sometimes sacrificing FTP in favour of losing considerable weight will result in higher power to weight, especially watts per kg thus you'll be faster, particularly on hilly parcours than being heavier with higher FTP.

There are also ways to determine progress using various analysis as in EF, IF, TSS, NP, KJ, decoupling and your input and output relationship over time, all of which should be included in your training programme.

okgo

I know,I want to lose some weight too, but I am being realistic, I could probably shift 3-5kg max, I may be able to add a few watts to my FTP, if I can do both it puts me in a much better place

hatone

Sure it would.

Get a coach and a SRM (for absolute accuracy).

I'm pretty sure you'll make great inroads to increasing race specific fastness with the above.

BigFatBloke

hatone wrote:

Everything isn't ALWAYS about FTP. Being transfixed to your FTP readings all the time won't yield the results you want.

For instance sometimes sacrificing FTP in favour of losing considerable weight will result in higher power to weight, especially watts per kg thus you'll be faster, particularly on hilly parcours than being heavier with higher FTP.

There are also ways to determine progress using various analysis as in EF, IF, TSS, NP, KJ, decoupling and your input and output relationship over time, all of which should be included in your training programme.

For the benefit of all please can you explain what you mean by EF, IF, TSS, NP, KJ, decoupling and input output relationship over time.

Re weight loss - careful here. Even an elite Tour rider like Wiggins with all the back up and support he gets from Sky is pushing the limits of healthy weight to improve power to weight ratio. Even Wiggins has found it is not sustainable.
If you are losing so much weight your are sacrificing FTP you are going places you should only go with competent medical and scientific advice. If you are overweight your FTP should improve with weight loss anyway.

BigFatBloke

hatone wrote:

You can determine the status of your aerobic endurance by looking at your EF (divide NP by average HR) and decoupling data from power. Decoupling is pretty good at gauging how aerobically fit you are over a single ride instead of the amount of data collected over a few sessions (ideally you need to be under 5%).

The test is done over an 8 week period so make sure the variables are the same.

Coggan and others would argue that heart rate is redundant and misleading at best.

hatone

BigFatBloke wrote:

hatone wrote:

You can determine the status of your aerobic endurance by looking at your EF (divide NP by average HR) and decoupling data from power. Decoupling is pretty good at gauging how aerobically fit you are over a single ride instead of the amount of data collected over a few sessions (ideally you need to be under 5%).

The test is done over an 8 week period so make sure the variables are the same.

Coggan and others would argue that heart rate is redundant and misleading at best.

That's correct if you train with heart rate alone.

Analysing heart rate AND power is by looking at input vs output and how the two compare i.e. your watts are higher yet heart rate remains the same or lower, proving that your fitness is rising (under the same conditions with no variables)

ric/rstsport

if your power has gone up (and your mass stays the same) you're fitter. (if your power goes up and your mass goes down you're fitter). if your power goes up and your mass goes up you may be fitter (depending on the power and mass specifically change).

HR has no bearing on fitness. it just represents how fast your heart is beating, which is only one part of the equation that is cardiac output.

Ric

Alex_Simmons/RST

hatone wrote:

BigFatBloke wrote:

hatone wrote:

You can determine the status of your aerobic endurance by looking at your EF (divide NP by average HR) and decoupling data from power. Decoupling is pretty good at gauging how aerobically fit you are over a single ride instead of the amount of data collected over a few sessions (ideally you need to be under 5%).

The test is done over an 8 week period so make sure the variables are the same.

Coggan and others would argue that heart rate is redundant and misleading at best.

That's correct if you train with heart rate alone.

Analysing heart rate AND power is by looking at input vs output and how the two compare i.e. your watts are higher yet heart rate remains the same or lower, proving that your fitness is rising (under the same conditions with no variables)

To clarify, HR is redundant if you are already training with power.

If you are not training with power, then HR can be a helpful guide to intensity of effort for general aerobic levels but its utility for that purpose declines somewhat when effort is at and beyond threshold power levels and when the effort becomes more variable in nature.

As Ric said, HR is not a measure of fitness (and power/HR ratios are misleading). The productive use of HR is really limited to being a guide to sub-maximal intensity level while exercising, which if you are already training with power means HR is redundant.

The only thing that matters fitness wise is your power output over durations of interest/relevance to you (typically expressed in W/kg terms), whether or not you actually measure it.

Guides to intensity of effort and guides to fitness are different things. Power measurement does both, HR doesn't.

dzp1

But isn't HR a very good guide to what level you're riding at at the time ?

If I'm targeting L2 then I like to see HR around 143, Tempo would be 150, Sweetspot about 162, and I race at about 172

In a well paced effort the power will be up and down (I never train indoors, only on the road), but the HR will be fairly constant, obviously varying with the terrain, but as an "at a glance" guide to what level you're sustaining, I don't see how you can see that with power when its so up and down, but with HR, its bang on right there in front of you.

imposter2.0

dzp1 wrote:

In a well paced effort the power will be up and down (I never train indoors, only on the road), but the HR will be fairly constant, obviously varying with the terrain, but as an "at a glance" guide to what level you're sustaining, I don't see how you can see that with power when its so up and down, but with HR, its bang on right there in front of you.

What's more likely to win you a race - power or HR ?

dzp1

Imposter wrote:

What's more likely to win you a race - power or HR ?

Power obviously. But that doesn't make HR redundant.

I use both.

I just find HR convenient for gauging the "level" that I'm riding at in longer efforts and endurance rides. As explained above !

ric/rstsport

dzp1 wrote:

But isn't HR a very good guide to what level you're riding at at the time ?

If I'm targeting L2 then I like to see HR around 143, Tempo would be 150, Sweetspot about 162, and I race at about 172

In a well paced effort the power will be up and down (I never train indoors, only on the road), but the HR will be fairly constant, obviously varying with the terrain, but as an "at a glance" guide to what level you're sustaining, I don't see how you can see that with power when its so up and down, but with HR, its bang on right there in front of you.

HR varies at a given power output due to a variety of issues, such as temperature, altitude, cadence, extrinsic and intrinsic factors, caffeine, food, etc, etc. Thus, it doesn't really tell you what you're doing unless none of those factors (and others) ever change for you. HR simply tells you how fast your heart is beating - it doesn't tell you what your cardiac output is, because it doesn't measure your stroke volume. It doesn't tell you what else is happening within your body.

HR will/should also vary at a given power output (under constant conditions) with both chronic and acute training loads.

Ric

BigFatBloke

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

hatone wrote:

BigFatBloke wrote:

hatone wrote:

You can determine the status of your aerobic endurance by looking at your EF (divide NP by average HR) and decoupling data from power. Decoupling is pretty good at gauging how aerobically fit you are over a single ride instead of the amount of data collected over a few sessions (ideally you need to be under 5%).

The test is done over an 8 week period so make sure the variables are the same.

Coggan and others would argue that heart rate is redundant and misleading at best.

That's correct if you train with heart rate alone.

Analysing heart rate AND power is by looking at input vs output and how the two compare i.e. your watts are higher yet heart rate remains the same or lower, proving that your fitness is rising (under the same conditions with no variables)

To clarify, HR is redundant if you are already training with power.

If you are not training with power, then HR can be a helpful guide to intensity of effort for general aerobic levels but its utility for that purpose declines somewhat when effort is at and beyond threshold power levels and when the effort becomes more variable in nature.

As Ric said, HR is not a measure of fitness (and power/HR ratios are misleading). The productive use of HR is really limited to being a guide to sub-maximal intensity level while exercising, which if you are already training with power means HR is redundant.

The only thing that matters fitness wise is your power output over durations of interest/relevance to you (typically expressed in W/kg terms), whether or not you actually measure it.

Guides to intensity of effort and guides to fitness are different things. Power measurement does both, HR doesn't.

Alex / Ric,

As cardiac output increases in a linear fashion to increases in power, and this happens as a consequence of heart rate and stroke volume, and at over 60% of maximum heart rate the increase in cardiac output is solely attributable to the increase in heart rate, why is looking at heart rate alongside power redundant or misleading?

Isn't the variability you see at the same power of interest?

Do you have any use for measuring how long after a session heart rate takes to return to resting levels, it being known how it takes longer (20-40 minutes) for heart rate and stroke volume to return to normal resting levels at the end of anaerobic sessions due to a greater demand placed on the cardiovascular system to shunt greater quantities of blood out of working muscles, return blood to the vital organs and clear the accumulation of waste products (lactate & CO2)?

imposter2.0

here we go again...

BigFatBloke

Imposter wrote:

here we go again...

Just trying to understand why Coggan, Alex and Ric and others have no use for heart rate.

I know heart rate is only a response to the effort or power output but surely an athletes response to the power output is as important as the power output?

imposter2.0

BigFatBloke wrote:

Just trying to understand why Coggan, Alex and Ric and others have no use for heart rate.

You had exactly the same conversation with them a couple of weeks ago, in another thread which you also successfully managed to steer off topic.

manxshred

My goals are longer distance sportives, rather than racing every weekend. Next year I plan to go back to La Marmotte and improve my time considerably compared to this year.
I don't have a problem with building endurance, and this year my training allowed me to get around the course with no problems at all, although I did take it a bit too easy.
For me, I would rather use the winter months working on increasing my speed and power, doing shorter harder rides including intervals on the turbo. I will also be out on the MTB for some variety and doing longish road rides when the weather is good.
Once the summer comes around, I will build on this by increasing the duration of my rides and improving my endurance leading up to my events.

BigFatBloke

Imposter wrote:

BigFatBloke wrote:

Just trying to understand why Coggan, Alex and Ric and others have no use for heart rate.

You had exactly the same conversation with them a couple of weeks ago, in another thread which you also successfully managed to steer off topic.

I did not introduce heart rate into the discussion. I notice none of your posts are ever constructive.

It is important people understand why so many experts say heart rate is irrelevant and misleading if you have the ability to measure power.

All I do is test the assertion by asking perfectly reasonable questions. Or are you such a zealous acolyte you think people should just take their word for it?

dzp1

If others choose not to use HR, its not a problem. As I already said, I just find it useful

When you train with HR and power daily, you get to know how they relate, and how they vary between days. Ric is right of course about how it varies from day to day, but generally I know from feel, and from the numbers, when I'm on a high HR or low HR day, it just becomes second nature after 2 years of training with both. And the variance is quite small - when HR is 150 (light to mid tempo for me) I know I've been putting out perhaps 230w for the last few minutes

But this is the crux for me - on a garmin there is no exponentially weighted average of power put out in the last N seconds (~N time constant), yet HR gives you exactly that - it equates exceptionally well to the real world effort level that you're cycling at at the time.

So I use HR in longer intervals and endurance rides as a double check (with power) that I'm doing the session at the intended intentsity. I never train indoors, only on the roads, and not flat either, so in the absence of a power quantity that tells you the level you're riding at at the time, I'll take HR as it does the job just great.

And whats the point in not collecting data? If you have HR and you're familiar with it - when your PM goes fut, or it is back to paligap for a month. you're still using data and systems you're familiar with. I also like tracking power/hr for long intervals and overall sessions, its another good indicator of fitness when you look at the data across many rides.

I also use HR in racing, sure, like Ric says, some days its lower than others - but you see on screen where its going - today is a 171 day, yesterday was a 175 day - ok so if I go below 171 I know I've eased off - maybe time to push harder, or I know I can do 300w and go to 180 on the next 5 min drag and not blow up but if I'm halfway up and it says 180, I'd think twice about continuing at that intensity.

But this is, like power, just additional data to sit alongside "feel". I'd certainly give up HR before power, but like I said, I just find it useful. NP