Feb 11
22
Training TO power as opposed to training WITH power
“I have riders doing longer TTs and long training rides with a ceiling power output, in teaching them to TT well I want them to not exeed a certain figure based on their FTP”
I absolutely cringe when I read comments like this, as it goes against basic exercise training principles.
I’m all for putting caps on athletes, BUT you should never put a cap on what every single athlete is aiming to do in basically every single training session = improve aerobic capacity.
Improved aerobic capacity is evidence based through speed, pace and or power, therefore these metrics SHOULD in ALL cases remain variables to allow the athlete to demonstrate improved aerobic capacity on consistent basis, PLUS it will also continue to calibrated an athletes RPE.
The quote above is a classic example of training to power and not with power and training this way will only deny athletes opportunities to display continued and ongoing adaptations to their training.
If your going to cap anything cap their efforts (RPE), that way they still have the opportunity to improve their speed, pace and or power at various threshold and sub threshold athletes. No-body of earth can possibly predict in advance what an athlete is capable of doing in a given training session, other than the athlete themselves. Therefore, putting caps on their potential for aerobic capacity developments is sub optimal and will only hold the athlete back.
People constantly, cap the distances they should be training, the lengths of intervals, volume of training, etc….. then add caps to speed, pace and power………no wonder people have trouble improving from season to season.
For example, the next time you go for a ride, make sure you do 2hrs, with 2 x 40min @ 70% of FTP and cap your uphill efforts at 80% of FTP.
There is so much wrong with this advice;
• They are restricted to 2hr of riding
o What if the athlete had time to ride for 2.5-3hrs?
• They are restricted to 1hr of effort
o What if the athlete was well rested and could manage and extra 40-60min of intervals?
• There efforts are capped.
o What if the athletes FTP was 5% higher, due to being rested as result of sleeping more, having a massage, missing a couple of earlier sessions due to bad weather etc….
o What if the athlete was able to hold 80-90% of FTP and still execute the session without decoupling?
How can sessions like this possibly maximize an athletes POTENTIAL to adapt? These are sorts of sessions that are written by coaches AND are handed out 4 weeks in advance……..food for thought! This is what we call a “closed activity” as opposed to an “open ended activity” in teaching. It’s a bit like asking a question that warrants a yes/no answer as opposed to asking a question that warrants an explanation. As much as possible coaches should be prescribing “open ended” training sessions to give athletes every opportunity to improve and maximize their adaptations.
The take home message or question is this….
If you place a cap on speed, power, or pace, then HOW can you possibly know if the athlete HAS adapted to the training you have given them, if you are unable to measure the changes in aerobic capacity, BECAUSE you capped what should be measured as a variable (improved aerobic capacity)?
If you looking for a really good read, that basically goes into great detail what I’m trying to explain then pick up a copy of Braining Training for Runners, By Matt Fitzgerald…
In summary, I’m not at all against training with powermeter, I’m just amazed at how often people fail to use a powermeter effectively. So if you going to drop a couple of thousand on a powermeter then make sure you are training WITH power as opposed to training TO power.
Hope it helps.
fluro
