Note: Gino's articles are supposed to be for ICI/PRO members only. He feels very strongly about this subject and asked that I make it available for everyone. – John
As an Indoor Cycling / Spinning® instructor, you know how important good air flow is. Don’t you? What??? You LIKE your students to sweat buckets!?! It proves how “kick-ass” your class is? Uh… well… not so fast. If that were true, then just build a bunch of steam rooms and saunas and let people sit and sweat. Ah, but it’s not that simple is it? You know they don’t lose real weight that way. It’s just water. But really, it’s worse than that.
Coach Gino gets an assist from a professional statistician.
Let’s Try This Another Way
After testing 14 different bikes, with 6 of them also being repeat tested at least twice, I was pretty disappointed to see the data I reported in our last blog. This was never meant to be just an academic exercise. This had pure practical motivation. I wanted to be able to do real and reasonable competition in class. I wanted to encourage more tantalizing trash talk among my most competitive riders. I wanted to let some of my “little old ladies” throw it down against some of the guys who think bigger is better. I needed the bikes to be on an even scale to do this in good conscience, and handicapping them against a reputable objectively measured power meter seemed like a no-brainer to do just that.
But alas, the numbers from my work up to this point lead me to a conclusion I simply had not anticipated; that each bike within itself may vary day to day with regards to what power it will display given the same force being applied. This was an assumption that myself and many other “defenders of calculated power” have held on to for these past 4 years or so – that it doesn't really matter if the power is accurate compared to what would be measured with a real power meter, as long as that power was consistent. In other words, we could know if our training was making us better or not by pre and post testing on the same bike. It would simply generate a relative value so we could know if we improved a lot, a little or not at all. Each year at Winter Training we would assign bikes so that we could be assured of this “fact”. This was indeed the fundamental assumption that prompted the entire notion that a handicap could indeed be created, if we had a objective way to get at power simultaneous to seeing the bike's power display.
Unfortunately, as you could see from the numbers reported the last time, they varied so much within the same bike, from one testing episode to the next (even despite painfully recreating the same circumstances of a consistent rider, environment, time of day, method of execution and all the like), that this assumption was not true for at least 50% of the bikes. Undaunted by this surprisingly sad turn of events, I started to ask around for an available statistician that might be interested in this research. I wanted a more experienced extra set of eyes and less personally invested perspective so that they could let me know if I am doing something wrong. Was I measuring the wrong way, perhaps working with false assumptions, not controlling enough variables, etc. I didn’t want to give up just yet — I had already invested too much time and energy.
3 More Bikes Tested, 3 Times Each
One of my regulars referred me to Sarah who is both a cyclist and teaches statistics at a nearby university. We met a couple of times to discuss what I had done so far, and she spent some time and thought on the issue, and created a new protocol. We would focus on just 3 bikes, took them out of commission so no one else would ride them, made sure she conducted/directed me as I rode/tested each bike. These trials would be done on three different days, in random order as generated from a random table of numbers. This video takes us through one of those three sessions.
In the next blog post, we will discuss the results of these 9 trials.
That would be your FTP looking back at you… catch him if you can.
Now that I'm an official Stages Indoor Cycling Master Educator, I figured I needed to create an Audio Profile so you can hear how I teach one of my Power classes. My profile is “Racing Your FTP”.
The goal is very simple; beat your FTP or “Threshold Check” numbers on every set. The ride will consist of two warm up songs, a “Threshold Check”, and three efforts of around 12, 18 and 9 minutes with a 1 minute recoveries after each interval.
I love mixing my class music and I've provide you with the MP3 below. I have also included an actual recording of me coaching this complete class. I suggest riding to this class by yourself, to experience exactly how I present this profile and you'll have a better idea of where & what I'm cuing during the class.
[wlm_private ‘PRO-Platinum|PRO-Monthly|PRO-Gratis|PRO-Seasonal|Platinum-trial|Monthly-trial|PRO-Military|30-Days-of-PRO|90 Day PRO|Stages-Instructor|Schwinn-Instructor|Instructor-Bonus|28 Day Challenge']
Enjoy and please let me know how it works for you as a comment below.
My original objective of the Power blog here in ICI/PRO was to build the case for power precept upon precept, slowly but surely. Good idea, except for folks who already find themselves teaching on power bikes and are anxious to get to the meat & potatoes. So, as the line in Monty Python’s Holy Grail said (whilst preparing to throw the Holy Hand Grenade) “Skip ahead brother…”
The most fundamental principal in power training is that you can sustain higher power output for shorter periods. This is common sense of course, but when trying to train or “hone in” on power levels you will use for different types of riding outside, one needs to identify these time periods, and develop power based on the length of those efforts.
For example, outside of the long mountain passes in Colorado, or Europe, your standard “hill climb” will often be only 3 to 5 minutes. This is also met with generally a steeper grade than those more gradual, longer climbs, and thus there is a measure of power required to climb those that is significantly higher, and requires different training.
In addition, if you race (or simply want to just impress your friends at every opportunity), you may want to develop significant sprinting or break away skills. To do that, you will want power that is even higher than climbing power, but may only be needed for as little as 60 seconds. This may seem quite short, but it is often all that is needed to achieve a real break away, or triumph in a race ending sprint.
Consequently, we have built the Cycling Fusion Power Training system on 3 zones of power; Sustainable Power (7 to 20 minute efforts), Climbing Power (3 to 6 minute efforts) and Explosive Power (1 to 2 minute efforts). These ranges are quite large, and there are 7 power levels within each zone. Rather than bore you with all the details, let’s just jump in and conduct a class that provides a sample of each of these zones.
The class design below is based on the Keiser M3 bike, since it is what we use at my club (Global Ride Training Center) in Pittsburgh. Since we also speak specifically to how we can reset our power numbers, I’ve written this class specifically to this model, and thus I call the class: The Keiser Tour De Power. For those that do not have a Keiser M3, but do have power, simply replace the portion of this workout that speaks to resetting the bike to get your average power numbers for one of the zones, and it will work just as well on any other bike.
Sixteen weeks, countless hours on the bike, more Yoga & Pilates than I thought I’d ever see, and all the 40+ VO2 tests later, the results are finally in. The Winter Training program based on Cycling Fusion Training principles, at Global Ride has produced results that have exceeded even the most ambitious expectations set. These results were not relegated to just the first season participants either. From our newbies to our experienced racers, the numbers prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that This Stuff Really Works!