What is Power Exactly?

Since I'm focusing on metrics lately, I figure it is probably important to discuss what power actually is, since many athletes may not really understand it.

If you’re reading this blog, it’s likely because you have purchased a power meter and want to know how to use it to maximize your training. One of the biggest things you’re probably wondering is, “What is power exactly?” and “How does the power meter actually calculate it?”

Remember that HR is an input metric? Power is an output metric, and one of the most important output metrics there is for training.  Power is a work rate, measured in watts. Work is the basis here, and it is important to understand the actual work being done is the movement of your body and bike.

When you apply a force to the bike through the pedals and crank arms, the bike moves you. If you apply a force and don’t move, no work has actually been done. In other words, force times distance equals work. We can express this with the following equation where Work is W, Force is F, and D is distance:

W = F x D

We know that Power is a work rate, so the equation for work simply needs to be divided by time to be a rate. This gives us:

P = (F x D)/T

If you think back to all the story problems you did in elementary school, you know that distance is equal to rate of speed, or velocity, times the time you travel at that speed, or:

D = V x T

Now comes the algebra you have always wondered if you would ever actually use in your lifetime outside of school. We will substitute this equation for D into the Work equation:

P = [F x (V x T)]/T

Now we have Time on the top and bottom of the fraction, which allows them to cancel each other out. This leaves us with:

P = [F x (V)]

And this leaves us with our basic equation to define power:

P = F x V

In basic terms, this means power is equal to the force you apply, times the speed at which you apply it. When riding our bike, this means how hard you press on the pedals, and how fast you turn the pedals. Power meters measure or estimate the force we apply, based on the brand and model you use, and then simply use the cadence value to multiple and get the work rate.

The more fit the athlete, the higher the work rate they can produce, or the more efficiently they can produce a certain work rate, (watts). 

Coach Vance

The Most Overrated Training Metrics

Continuing with the theme on Training Metrics, here are the two most OVERRATED metrics for athletes and training.

Volume

This is likely the most overrated metric in all of endurance sports. Remember, intensity is the key, not volume. Certainly there is a bell curve of the amount of volume which will help stimulate maximal adaptation, and that bell curve is dependent on many things for different athletes, the most important being the individual athlete’s previous training history, and individual training response. How you can figure out the right amount of volume for you or your athlete is the entire purpose of technology and training. Technology allows us to dial in training stress specific to our bodies and goals, in terms of volume and intensity.

Heart Rate (HR)

If volume is the most overrated metric in all of endurance sports, heart rate is the second most overrated metric. No one ever won a race based on the heart rate they achieved. HR is measured by beats per minute, or bpm. How high your HR can reach doesn’t mean a thing, but you’ll hear athletes brag about the bpm they reached in a workout or race. In truth, if you take an out of shape, overweight individual, and have them go for a jog, their HR will likely be higher than that of a fit individual. HR plays a role in determining a few important metrics we will discuss, (see my Efficiency Factor post), but HR by itself doesn’t really mean much.

I realize for a lot of you, this sounds earth-shattering. Why wouldn’t you pay attention to HR in the workout or in the race? How am I supposed to judge how I’m doing? What if my HR gets high? What if it doesn’t get high enough? The answer is, it doesn’t matter. HR is variable from athlete to athlete, and even day to day within the same athlete, sometimes due to training, sometimes due to things which have nothing to do with training.

The main issue with athletes getting so hung up about HR is that it is a metric which truly doesn’t mean anything by itself. My wife can reach heart rates over 200 bpm in a run workout, while I can go as hard as possibly and never break 185 bpm. Does this mean she is faster than me? No, of course not.

You probably noticed that when you start an interval, heart rate lags behind, as it takes awhile to catch up. If you’re doing very short intervals, say 15 seconds or less, there isn’t enough time for HR to catch-up to truly represent the intensity of the effort. It’s just an input metric, communicating how your body is responding to the stress you’re giving it in the moment. You can’t do much with that.

Output metrics on the other hand, such as the pace you run at, mean something. If I told you I did a run at 150 bpm, you wouldn’t really know what that means. Was it a fast run? A slow run? But if I told you I did a run at 6 min mile pace, now you understand how fast that is. Output is the entire point of performance and competition.

I want to be clear about HR though, as you should collect HR during just about all training sessions. Sometimes you should actually pay attention to it during the session, but those sessions will be outlined later on by me here. Otherwise HR should be given no attention during a session. It is important to collect it for later analysis, but otherwise don’t let it dictate the workout, and NEVER let it dictate your racing.

Coach Vance

Recovery as Part of Training?

I was the guest co-host this morning for the TrainingBible Coaching podcast, which is a great show on training by TBC Coaches Adam Zucco and Scott Iott. You can actually listen to the podcast here:
http://trainingbible.libsyn.com/how-does-a-professional-triathlete-train-base-training-2-0-and-goal-mile-13

I was asked by Scott today to describe what a typical week for me was like as a professional triathlete, back when I raced and trained full-time. I hadn't really thought about that in awhile, and it seemed to hit me that everyone has always wanted to know what my "training" was like, but I have never once had an athlete ask me what my "recovery" was like.

In the podcast we discussed what the week looked like, and how many hours of training I did, but the conversation turned to me actually describing all the hours I put in which didn't show up on the power file or in the Garmin run data, and that was the recovery and preparation, which honestly were quite the commitment, and probably best allowed me to actually accomplish and maintain the level of training I was at in workouts.

For example, in the podcast I discussed these things and how many hours per week their commitment were, which don't show up in the "hours of training" on TrainingPeaks weekly summary.

Naps - 1 hour per day, 7 days per week = 7 hours
75 min massage each week = 1.25 hours
Rolling on the TP Therapy kit for 20 mins before each run, 6 days of running = 2 hours
Rolling every night to help advance recovery each night, 30 mins = 3.5 hours

This alone is 13.25 hours per week of training which is never posted in my training log as "training", but were just as important to the performance as training was. Oddly, 13.25 hrs is more time than many athletes spend training in a week, and that was my minimum commitment to recovery alone each week. When I was really tired, those naps might stretch to 2-3 hours, or if I was battling some slight injury, I was at ART appointments getting some specific areas more attention, which were 30 mins each session.

Maybe what we need to start doing as athletes and coaches is start prescribing recovery time, as much or nearly as much as we prescribe training time.

Coach Vance

Buckman Road - Your own metrics

I'm in Chicago this weekend for TrainingBible Coaching's annual meeting, where we meet as a group of coaches from different areas of the country, and different sports even, (cycling, triathlon, running, combinations of these), and share ideas, discuss different training topics, new technology, and more.

Ryan Bolton, a 2000 Olympic triathlete for the US, is a TrainingBible Coach who gave a free lecture to the community here on the run training group he leads in Santa Fe, New Mexico, which includes many of the top  male and female Kenyans racing the US marathon and half-marathon circuit, (his top female just took 5th at Chicago marathon this year in the mid 2:20's.)

Given that my recent posts deal with metrics, and understanding them, Ryan mentioned a run workout he has the athletes do, where they run a tempo workout on a tough road called Buckman Road, which happens to sit at 8,000ft elevation. Buckman Road may not mean much to you and I, but to Ryan, it is an excellent metric, that after an athlete completes the effort, he can estimate very precisely what their marathon time will be.

We all have our own metrics, much like Ryan created. For you, it might be your neighborhood run loop, where you know when you run it within a certain time, possibly without even trying that hard, or even if a tempo effort, Maybe it's a hill or climb near your house, that you've done a number of times and you're testing your fitness to beat the record you have set.

The important thing is that you have a metric that matters to you, because you probably haven't had a power meter your whole biking life, or a GPS your entire running career, but you know what fast is to you. And when you can break through with that metric, your confidence will soar, and your satisfaction and motivation for training will likely improve as well.

Now imagine when you start looking at more metrics, from data you've collected for years. You can probably guess how much you're going to improve your daily training.

So what is your own personal metric?

Coach Vance

Efficiency Factor Metric in Cycling Training

The ability to measure your progress toward your goals is IMPERATIVE in high-level sport. As the sport of triathlon has grown in popularity, and the depth of high performing athletes has improved, from elite to even the age-group level, the margin of error which can be allowed in training while still performing at a high level, has dwindled significantly.

One of the biggest reasons has been the improvement and emergence of training technology, such as power meters, GPS, and most especially training analysis software. With more data to analyze, we've even come up with metrics to assess training which didn't exist just a few years ago. When training is better analyzed, and mistakes, plateaus or injuries are avoided, training becomes more consistent and new higher performance levels are achieved.

Talent will get you far, but attention to the details of training will get you to your potential. The metrics provide the details of your training.

One of those metrics which has emerged in the recent past is Efficiency Factor, (EF). EF is simply the watts produced per beat of heart per minute, or EF = Watts/HR. So if you can produce 200 watts at 100 bpm, your EF is 2.0.

This metric does an excellent job at assessing aerobic conditioning, especially if you use your HR monitor with your power meter. If you begin the aerobic base-building phase of your training with some easy rides, by the end of the phase you should see the power you can produce at easy, aerobic efforts, increase. Or you should see that for the same power output, your HR is lower.

This time of year is perfect for tracking your EF, and seeing if you're improving your aerobic efficiency. It gives you something to judge the quality of your training, build your confidence with, and get some satisfaction from all the effort you put in through the winter.

This metric isn't very reliable for assessing training on hard rides, such as group rides with attacks, or big climbs, hill repeats, etc. You will have long recovery periods, sitting in, attacks of high output, etc. These have too much variance in a workout to really give you a consistent stimulus to base any inferences on of EF for the effort.

How do you assess this? TrainingPeaks will do it for you, just click on the "Map & Graph" button for your workout, and it comes up in the metrics on the right. (See example below).

(Click on image to enlarge)

Start tracking this metric now, and get your aerobic base strong for 2013!

Coach Vance

Estimate Your FTP - Field Tests

Some athletes like to get metabolic testing done to find out lactate thresholds, threshold power and VO2 max. Honestly, I don't care about lactate threshold or VO2. I think testing in a lab can be fun, and that data is interesting sure, but it isn't important really.

FTP, or Functional Threshold Power, is important. It is extremely important if you want to better understand the training stress you are under as an athlete, improve strategizing and pacing during endurance events, and predict your performance.

FTP is simply an estimation of the best power output an athlete can do in an hour. This is NOT related to heart rate, as this is about output, not what your heart does. This about the watts you can produce, which equates to performance. HR does not equate to performance, everyone's HR is high who is competing hard.

So how do you estimate FTP, if not in a lab. Field tests are the best estimation tool in my opinion, because they are easily repeated and replicated, with results that can be trusted, based on years of experience from many coaches. The key is just simply having a power meter on your bicycle.

Here are the 3 common field tests I do with athletes....

1. 30 min SOLO time trial - The key part of this is solo, where an athlete does a 30 min interval as hard as they can go, on a flat stretch of road, and take 100% of the average power value for that 30 min interval. The reason it needs to be done alone and on a flat stretch of roads is competition and climbs inflate the number.

2. 30 min trainer time trial - Much like the test above, this one is simply done on a trainer. The results of this are usually a little lower than out on the road, but if you are consistent with this test, this test will be fine.

3. 20 min trainer time trial, minus 5% - This test estimates FTP quite well, and is probably a bit easier mentally than the 30 min version on the trainer. After the 20 min TT, you take 95% of the average power for the interval.

Which test you choose to do doesn't matter so much as being consistent with the follow-up testing you do. If you do a 20 min trainer TT test in the winter, that is what you should do in the summer months as well, even if the weather is better.

Once you have this value, you can now begin to track and better understand your training. I hope to discuss different training metrics over the coming weeks.

Coach Vance

New 70.3 Podium Training Plans on TrainingPeaks

If you're using a power meter and GPS with HR monitor, and looking to take advantage of what TrainingPeaks has to offer for training feedback, check out my new 70.3 Podium Training Plans with Power and GPS.

If you're looking to try and qualify for Vegas 70.3 Worlds, or do really well in your local race, this plan will help you get there. I have listed it as a single 25 week plan, which can be changed to 24 or even 23, with different plans for Saturday races, and even Sunday races. If that is too long, which for many athletes might be, the plan is divided up and available as a Base Plan, and another as Build and Peak.

What makes these plans "podium"? Well, I know the training load and effort it takes to be prepared to do well in one of these events. I also know what specificity is, about how long the specific phase should last, and these plans give the athlete specific guidelines for specificity, in terms of TSS, Intensity Factor, and race preparation details. The plan also gives guidelines on the metrics to follow, and if you haven't reached a certain a threshold or mark, how to adjust the plan accordingly. The hours are right in line with what it takes to be successful and contend for a podium spot as well.

If you don't use a power meter, then I would suggest some of the other plans I offer, but if you do, this is right up your alley. Best of luck!

Coach Vance

30 Indoor Trainer Workouts Posted at @TrainingPeaks Store

If you're looking for something to break the monotony of indoor trainer rides thru the winter weather, then you will want to check out my indoor trainer workouts for sale in the Exercise Library section of TrainingPeaks.

The workouts range from 36 to 90 mins, and I give intensity prescription for zones, (power or HR), perceived extertion, (RPE 1-20 scale), and even some Critical Power value ranges. If you use a power meter, that will be perfect for this, but even those using HR or RPE will enjoy this.

I also list the workouts by goals, if you wanting to do some sprint work, endurance work, or other needs.

For those of you looking for something for the really LONG indoor rides, I have one in this which is a great set I use with my athletes to break-up those 4 hour rides on the trainer, while still working on the endurance needs of the athlete.

Enjoy, and if there is more demand I will create even more of them. Thanks!

Coach Vance

Analyzing Ironman Run Training Prep - Part 2

(Click on image to enlarge)

The last post was rather popular, and sparked some email conversations from readers, and got me wondering about some other things. Some suggested that execution or heat/conditions from the races probably had more effect than necessarily judging the performance strictly by run split time. Others suggested that specificity of the run training mattered more in the weeks preceeding, rather than the volume of miles run. 

I agree with all those statements, and I believe there is not one clear cut answer to find out what we should do next, what training this athlete has responded well to, which race performance was actually best, and more. 

Before we get started with some analysis on this, let's define some of the items above:

NP = Normalized power from the race

IF = Intensity factor of the ride, (NP/FTP)

VI = Variability Index, (how well paced was the ride, steady = 1.00 or close, big variance = 1.05+)

bTSS = Bike Training Stress Score, the stress the bike put on the athlete, faster/harder bike will have 300+

rTSS = Run Training Stress Score, the faster run should have higher rTSS, as the athlete is able to hold faster pace, relative to their threshold

It is absolutely true that the training must be SPECIFIC to prepare the athlete, I can safely say that each of the 12 weeks leading into the races for this athlete was specific to Ironman. So if the training was specific in it's intensity and designed adaptation, then the type of training is consistent and isn't going to skew the data interpretation.

From this, what I want to see as a coach is, was there a mileage that gave us the most benefit? Was there a mileage number which was high, and not really any better than the lower mileage of specific training? If I can pinpoint a number for this athlete, a bell curve where I can keep the mileage range, and instead of doing more run miles, maybe do more bike or swim? 

Also, one thing I am considering with this athlete is that their highest mileage times have always come in the weeks preceeding their Ironman event. What I manipulated the timing of that volume to come before the 12 week out mark starts? Now the athlete comes in strong, and I can lower the volume, increase intensity. Definitely something I am considering. 

Some might say he ran great when he was just doing 32 mi/wk in 2008, why not go back to that? The main reason is that this was a new stimulus to the athlete back then, and expecting to get the same result is probably not realistic. But certainly it is strong evidence that mileage volume isn't the biggest determinant of run performance in an Ironman.

You can see that in 2011, we decided to do the most volume we have, thinking that would be the new training stimulus on the athlete, and perhaps give him the breakthrough he needed. You can see that didn't happen. He flatted in the race, but still, the run was not what we had hoped. 

As some have suggested, running at Wisconsin or in Florida is not the same as running in Kona, and the performances may be equitable, considering the conditions. This is always something which must be subjectively considered with analysis of the data, along with place in AG, course being in favor to an athlete's strengths or weaknesses, and even the mindset of the athlete. 

If you asked me, the athlete's best race all-time is probably Kona 2009, when he was 8th in his AG there, against stellar competition, in hot conditions. This takes into the account all the subjective things, and the fact this was a peak, championship event. His next best performance was his 8:59 at FL the year after, (because of the the significance of the 9:00 barrier), and the third best was probably IMWisc this year, where he just raced hard and well against a tough field, just missing a top 20 overall finish.

One colleague told me he thought VI mattered more in Ironman than even IF or TSS, but this athlete's two highest VI's we have were his fastest and third fastest runs. Also TSS seems to have very little reflection on his run times, as he either runs 3:13-14, or 3-3:05. Missing the bike data from Florida 2010 is a bummer, as the unit malfunctioned in the race and the data is incomplete, didn't want to draw conclusions from incomplete picture. So is it that this athlete handles courses which require higher VI better than steady state, flat courses? Could be. 

A lot of information to consider, and as a coach, reflection on the past is very important if you want to set the right path ahead. 

Coach Vance

Analyzing Ironman Run Training Prep

(click on image to enlarge)

How much should you run in training for Ironman? It's a very common question, with the very common answer of, "Well, it depends." It depends on goals and run ability, and even lately I'm reminded that it depends on what you've done in the past. Experience is a great teacher, and the body tends to respond well to new stresses and fresh stimulus.

The athlete whose training is shown above I've worked with for 5 years, going from 11+ hour Ironman to the results you see, and this year we did something quite different, we raced 2 Ironman events in about 14 weeks, (Wisconsin and Cozumel). He podiumed at both events this year, and qualified for Kona, which leads me into planning for 2013.

When this athlete and I talked, we both agreed we would need a new approach if we want to accomplish getting on the podium in Kona. He believes he needs to run sub 3 hours off the bike in Kona to accomplish this goal. Well, after 5 years, we have tried a number of different approaches, and with 5 years of data we can look back and see the different approaches we've tried, what seems to have worked best, and how we might change it to accomplish running sub 3 off the bike. I had an idea in my mind of what we've actually done, and I have the Performance Management Charts, but I wanted to dive in a little deeper and examine the volume we've done in the past, and see the bigger picture.

I was able to go into TrainingPeaks and get all this run volume data in one chart, for the last 5 years. It is showing me as well that I have certain tendencies as a coach, and perhaps I need to try something different, or perhaps I am missing something which may be the breakthrough he is looking for.

I'm not going to share the plan for him based on the data in the chart, (that will be a work in progress anyway), but when I was putting this together, I found it interesting, and worth sharing. Many athletes read this blog, and there are certainly some great things to learn from the data within it, especially what type of run volume a perennial Ironman podium contender has done in his prep. I plan go back and do the same with some other metrics, might share those here as well.

Coach Vance