Tracking imporvements

dazzTurning

Hi

I am fairly new to cycling. I have a Allez road bike with 25mm tyres. I ride about 5 hours a week and use HR and Speed when out riding.

I have no idea if I am improving or not. I sometimes feel like Im fast and then someone comes flying by me looking like they are putting no effort in.

My aim is to start racing in the summer. 4th Cat's initially and maybe some time trialling.

How do people work out if they are getting better or not? I used to do alot of weight training, and it was very easy to tell. I could lift bigger weights! But with cycling, sometimes on the same road, with the same HR I can be much slower or faster than another day!

kajjal

I found using Strava and my Garmin edge 500 helped as that way you overall time , speed, date etc is recorded along with other information. You can then track your speed / time over full rides and segments within your rides and compare yourself to other riders while trying to beat their times. For me this was very useful at getting faster and being able to cycle long distances. Just be a bit careful as some people get carried away with it and ride dangerously , taking huge risks to beat times.

Other things to watch for are wind, cold , wet and mud will have a real impact on your speed. In the summer you will be faster just due to the conditions. There is a twisty, steep downhill run near me and my winter times in the wet / mud are much slower than in the hot, dry summer conditions.

chrisw12

Most expensive, but most accurate get a power meter. Lots of ways to track improvements then but as a simple example, do a 20min test, repeat a few weeks later and you'll see if you've improved.

Or find a nice long climb preferably wind sheltered and time yourself. Again repeat as needed.

Find/make a nice circular route with no lights/stops and ride it often. As you get better, you should see a pattern of improvement. Most people will have a few stock rides they'll do, if you make them circular then wind will be less of a factor although it's still a bug factor.

Ride with other people who are stronger than you and who try to drop you. When they don't drop you, you're improving.

dazzTurning

Thanks. PM is a bit too expensive for me. WIll keep chipping away!

BrandonA

I upload all my rides to Garmin Connect. Within there I can view a summary of miles ridden, time taken and average speed for all rides in a given week, month or year. I can therefore clearly see that my average speed has increased from when I started riding. This could be down to the effort I put in but I think I give it my max everytime so the improvement is most likely down to me getting fitter and therefore faster.

If you do a regular circuit you could create a segment in Strava. Then each time you ride it you can compare your times to previous efforts.

Alternatively, if you have a spare cash you could get a power meter.

Team4Luke

dazzTurning wrote:

Hi

I am fairly new to cycling. I have a Allez road bike with 25mm tyres. I ride about 5 hours a week and use HR and Speed when out riding.

I have no idea if I am improving or not. I sometimes feel like Im fast and then someone comes flying by me looking like they are putting no effort in.

My aim is to start racing in the summer. 4th Cat's initially and maybe some time trialling.

How do people work out if they are getting better or not? I used to do alot of weight training, and it was very easy to tell. I could lift bigger weights! But with cycling, sometimes on the same road, with the same HR I can be much slower or faster than another day!

answer is in your question, you are only riding presently, you need to train.
time trialling-easy simple way to have some fun and measure your time, evening 10's sign on line (need to be a member of a club though) good place to start.

dw300

Step 1. Do a benchmark ride.
Step 2. Do benchmark ride again several weeks or months later.
Step 3. Observe improvement.

Tom Dean

Mighty improvements there dw300. 0.01W/kg! :P

OP the best repeatable test you can do on the road is timing yourself on a long hill. Don't get too bogged down in testing though or trying to beat your times on every ride. Ride at a mix of intensities that you can sustain while being challenging at the same time. You will improve.

dw300

Tom Dean wrote:

Mighty improvements there dw300. 0.01W/kg! :P

I know! I total blitzed it 2nd time round.

cougie

But look how much lower your HR was !

MartinGT

cougie wrote:

But look how much lower your HR was !

Lower?

I am assuming the lower, i.e second picture is after some training, therefore the HR is higher.

markhewitt1978

Strava is the best for tracking improvements I find. It means you can have benchmark segments of road rather than full rides.

cougie

MartinGT wrote:

cougie wrote:

But look how much lower your HR was !

Lower?

I am assuming the lower, i.e second picture is after some training, therefore the HR is higher.

I'd taken it the other way round - so the higher workout power of 2.78 was vs 2.77 - but I can see why you'd think different.

If it is the other way round then it looks like the trainings not worked. He's having to work a lot harder (higher HR) for the same power ?

MartinGT

cougie wrote:

MartinGT wrote:

cougie wrote:

But look how much lower your HR was !

Lower?

I am assuming the lower, i.e second picture is after some training, therefore the HR is higher.

I'd taken it the other way round - so the higher workout power of 2.78 was vs 2.77 - but I can see why you'd think different.

If it is the other way round then it looks like the trainings not worked. He's having to work a lot harder (higher HR) for the same power ?

Aye, thats true. Come on DW, confess :P

markp80

MartinGT wrote:

cougie wrote:

MartinGT wrote:

cougie wrote:

But look how much lower your HR was !

Lower?

I am assuming the lower, i.e second picture is after some training, therefore the HR is higher.

I'd taken it the other way round - so the higher workout power of 2.78 was vs 2.77 - but I can see why you'd think different.

If it is the other way round then it looks like the trainings not worked. He's having to work a lot harder (higher HR) for the same power ?

Aye, thats true. Come on DW, confess :P

The first ride shown is a rerun of the original ride, which is shown second. dw300 has done the same TrainerRoad workout a second time, after a period of training and hence he has a higher FTP. But, he has done the ride at the same target power levels as the first time he did it, hence the power levels while numerically the same are much lower with respect to his FTP. So, on the ride shown first (the second ride), the TSS score is much lower, and his heart rate is much lower - he isn't having to work nearly as hard to do exactly the same workout.
I think!
To draw an analogy with a route on the road - the original ride is done in ten minutes and you struggle to achieve that time. After training, don't try to do it faster, but do it in ten minutes again. You can do it easily without breaking sweat (lower heart rate and lower TSS).

Cheers,
MarkP

buckles

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Strava is the best for tracking improvements I find. It means you can have benchmark segments of road rather than full rides.

Only if you do the segment when fresh rather than fatigued e.g. at the end of a ride or after a few weeks of intense training, and if conditions i.e. wind speed & direction, air temperature, humidity etc are the same....

cougie

I dont think Strava is much use at all for tracking improvements.
Weather and kit will make a massive difference - even if you were to use the same route each time.

kajjal

Strava works well for tracking improvements as long as you put comments on the ride eg very windy, raining, cut up by mad man in car,man flu, hungover etc.

Today as the wind had dropped I set my fastest time over a hilly loop by a few minutes. Knew it felt fast and Strava prooved it when I got in.Would have been faster but a car got in the way and blocked the road briefly.

MartinGT

Far too many variables IMO to have Strava to track improvement to any accuracy IMO.

I

dw300

MarkP80 wrote:

The first ride shown is a rerun of the original ride, which is shown second. dw300 has done the same TrainerRoad workout a second time, after a period of training and hence he has a higher FTP. But, he has done the ride at the same target power levels as the first time he did it, hence the power levels while numerically the same are much lower with respect to his FTP. So, on the ride shown first (the second ride), the TSS score is much lower, and his heart rate is much lower - he isn't having to work nearly as hard to do exactly the same workout.
I think!
To draw an analogy with a route on the road - the original ride is done in ten minutes and you struggle to achieve that time. After training, don't try to do it faster, but do it in ten minutes again. You can do it easily without breaking sweat (lower heart rate and lower TSS).

Cheers,
MarkP

Nailed it!

Yeh sorry, they're in the wrong order. Graphic was done in a rush. I was about 25-30bpm lower than when I rode that workout a little over a year ago.

Re: Strava .. it's fine for seeing long term improvement, but you need to understand trending and be able to spot it. Things like constantly hitting PRs, or imporvements in HR for a timed section over time. But it's only useful like that year by year really. As someone said .. too many variables.

Just set up a turbo, ride at a noted speed for a noted time, and repeat that every couple of months, and track in a spreadsheet. The only variable is your fitness.

Tom Dean

dw300 wrote:

Step 1. Do a benchmark ride.
Step 2. Do benchmark ride again several weeks or months later.
Step 3. Observe improvement.

Could you not have just posted your benchmark rides? (FTP tests)

p.s. Why have you not updated your targets along with your FTP?

macroadie

dazzTurning wrote:

Thanks. PM is a bit too expensive for me. WIll keep chipping away!

2nd that. Some pm are as expensive as a new pair of wheels

dw300

Tom Dean wrote:

Could you not have just posted your benchmark rides? (FTP tests)

p.s. Why have you not updated your targets along with your FTP?

Tom, that was a 2x20 I did a 13 months ago, when it was a threshold ride. So to actually 'feel' how much fitter I am i tried to ride at the exact same power as that first ride, so the variable was my fitness. The recent ride was set to 88% of my current FTP. It just another way of tracking improvement, but I suppose I'm making about 12% more FTP than a year ago, which I'm happy with.

You know the old saying that it doesn't get easier, you just go faster. Obviously if you just keep riding FTP tests you'll see bigger power numbers, but you don't feel any fitter as the test is always hard since it's based off your previous FTP. But here's my FTP graph if you want to see that .. Scroll down to Power & Weight graph

Tom Dean

Fair enough, although I don't really see the value in doing this, especially since it looks to me like 78% rather than 88%? Nothing wrong with trying something just to see how it feels I guess.

buckles

macroadie wrote:

dazzTurning wrote:

Thanks. PM is a bit too expensive for me. WIll keep chipping away!

2nd that. Some pm are as expensive as a new pair of wheels

I assume this is a sarcastic comment?

If not, which is a more valuable tool when it comes to improving performance - an £800 pair of wheels, or a £800 power meter?

buckles

dw300 wrote:

...the test is always hard since it's based off your previous FTP.

I'm not sure you're supposed to base an FTP test off anything. :?

From what others have said on here, the idea was to ride as hard as you can for an hour regardless of what you've previously been capable of, and the number at the end is what it is.

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying but if you base your FTP test on your previous FTP for example aiming for 15 watts higher, and you achieve that, then great - but how do you know you weren't capable of another 5, 10 or even another 20 watts?

dw300

Tom Dean wrote:

Fair enough, although I don't really see the value in doing this, especially since it looks to me like 78% rather than 88%? Nothing wrong with trying something just to see how it feels I guess.

The workout intensity was set to 88%. I've no idea what you've worked out.

http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/104013-dw300-Eichorn-v1.1

http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/557902-dw300-Eichorn-v1.1

dw300

Buckles wrote:

dw300 wrote:

...the test is always hard since it's based off your previous FTP.

I'm not sure you're supposed to base an FTP test off anything. :?

From what others have said on here, the idea was to ride as hard as you can for an hour regardless of what you've previously been capable of, and the number at the end is what it is.

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying but if you base your FTP test on your previous FTP for example aiming for 15 watts higher, and you achieve that, then great - but how do you know you weren't capable of another 5, 10 or even another 20 watts?

No that's not what I mean. It's just a pacing thing. You know roughly what you are capable of so you ride at that level and lift it as the interval goes on if you are capable.

If your FTP is pretty accurate, and you've trained and grown stronger, it's unlikely you'll jump by more than 2-3%. You might get 20W swings if you've not been training, or haven't testing in months. But the point is to test regularly and if you think you've grown stronger then retest, otherwise you'll not have been getting the most from your training.

TrainerRoad has the 20 minute interval of the test set for a target power of 107% FTP. Which when you multiply the result by 0.95 means if you ride the test along the line you'll improve your FTP by 1.015% which is about 5W for a 300W FTP.

I just try and ride above it enough not to blow my legs, and trying not to drop below it. This will end up very close to the absolute max you can do for 20mins. If you have no guideline at all you'd be far more likely to ride too easy or blow up, since you're so close to the edge in an FTP test.

Tom Dean

dw300 wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Fair enough, although I don't really see the value in doing this, especially since it looks to me like 78% rather than 88%? Nothing wrong with trying something just to see how it feels I guess.

The workout intensity was set to 88%. I've no idea what you've worked out.

http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/104013-dw300-Eichorn-v1.1

http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/557902-dw300-Eichorn-v1.1

210W is ~88% of your initial FTP and 78% of your improved FTP. Hence this:

dw300 wrote:

The recent ride was set to 88% of my current FTP.

is wrong unless I've missed something?

dw300

Tom Dean wrote:

dw300 wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Fair enough, although I don't really see the value in doing this, especially since it looks to me like 78% rather than 88%? Nothing wrong with trying something just to see how it feels I guess.

The workout intensity was set to 88%. I've no idea what you've worked out.

http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/104013-dw300-Eichorn-v1.1

http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/557902-dw300-Eichorn-v1.1

210W is ~88% of your initial FTP (Pretty much, its 88.98%) and 78% of your improved FTP (Yes, 78.4%). Hence this:

dw300 wrote:

The recent ride was set to 88% of my current FTP.

is wrong unless I've missed something? (No, its right, I'll explain below.)

The ride is set to 88% to achieve 210W for the interval.

0.881 (My FTP improvement 236/268 = 88.1%) x 0.8898 (The % FTP the interval was initially ridden at) = 0.784 or 78.4%

So yes, you calculated 210/268 = 78.4%, I understand what you meant now, but that's not what I said (twice). We were talking about different calculations.

dw300 wrote:

The workout intensity was set to 88%.

dw300 wrote:

The recent ride was set to 88% of my current FTP.

Tom Dean

...so the more recent ride was set to 88% of your old FTP, not your current FTP!