Weekly Distance: 200km (+77km)
Peak 5 Min Power: 295
Peak 20 Min Power: 247
Peak 60 Min Power: 225 (NP 245)
Highlight of this week: Um. Not a good week.
Goal for next week: No refined carbs.
On plan this week, the sessions are focusing on cadence rather than power so the intensity isn't there and working on leg speed is a bit 'boring' :-)
Weight loss stalled, not due to lack of exercise, but too much eating. I'm being good and eating 3 good meals a day, but also polishing off chocolate bicuits, bars etc isn't a pro-athlete regimen.
Must try harder.
Here are some charts...
Oh, speaking of charts, Damien Grauser has coded the Heartrate based TRIMP metric for Golden Cheetah. It isn't published yet but I was playing with it over the weekend and updated the performance manager and other charts to plot it. I thought it would be interesting to plot a HR (TRIMP) based PMC against an Power (SKIBA) based PMC to see how they aligned.
Lets just say, I'll be wearing my HR strap on every ride from now on... I think the results bear close examination and potentially provide some new insight between power/hr for tracking performance and fatigue...
And as requested in the comments, here is a comparison of TRIMP vs Coggan metrics, rather than Skiba metrics:
10 comments:
Mark,
That PMC comparison using TRIMPS vs. Skiba's xPower doesn't surprise me. I find that xPower (especially as coded into GC) very often gives me dramatically lower values than what I see with NP for the same intervals. In fact, many times I'll see xPower LESS than average power for significant intervals...which I find to be a "head scratcher". So, seeing as how HR and xPower both tend to be somewhat "damped" as compared to NP, it's not surprising to see a PMC using those as the basis to be fairly similar. What does a TRIMPS vs. NP based PMC comparison look like?
I too would like to see the other metrics plotted...
:D
g
Hi TnA,
Duly added, if anything TRIMP is closer to the Coggan Metrics!
Cheers,
Mark
All-righty then...next question...what was the composition of your training during that time span? I'd be willing to bet there wasn't very much level 5, 6, and 7 work done during that time frame, right?
Remember, it's in the areas above VO2max that HR doesn't adequately reflect the "load"...
Looking at my stats I went from 1hr at L5+ to 19hrs at L5+ per month. So it did increase, but as volume increased.
I didn't do interval sessions that focused on L5+, in fact aside from SST the only L4 focused work was monthly FTP tests.
So certainly, prolonged work at "higher-intensities" was missing all year.
The TRIMP algorithm that Damien has coded up uses AvgHR for the workout, but he is working on a version of TRIMPS which takes into account time in zone for higher intensities too -- so would be interesting to compare for someone who trains more at those higher intensities?
Maybe that will be me, this year :-)
Aah...so your daily/weekly IF (Intensity Function = NP/FTP) didn't vary a whole lot then it sounds like.
Yeah, if that's the case, then your observation is pretty well expected IME.
Fair! And in fact, I lied coz my L1 zone is 0-30w which I use to spot excessive freewheeling (I live in a hilly area). So my actual vo2max+ work is really low.
Your points make sense, it will be interesting to see if the 'zonal' TRIMP that Damien is working on will be as valid for folks with a greater load at L5+.
I know for instance that as you hit higher heart rates it applies a bigger factor when calculating points.
In that last comment I should explain that I have ADDED an extra zone for freewheeling.
Mark,
how do you display Coggan CTL?
Ciao,
Stefano
Hi Stefano,
Unfortunately I have coded the coggan metrics in my own local version.
Sorry,
Mark
Post a Comment