Posted: January3, 2005

Cycling: The Road Cyclist's Guide to Training by Power

This article is brought to you courtesy of Training Smart Online – The Experts in Training Program Design. We specialize in coaching athletes for: triathlon, marathon, swimming, cycling, running & more! Contact us at: www.trainingsmartonline.com.

Foreword and acknowledgements

The aim of this guide is to provide some basic concepts and techniques of training in general, and with a power measuring system in particular. It is written for road cyclists who are new to using this type of device, with perhaps no more than a rudimentary understanding of how their body works during exercise, so without being too deeply grounded in the underlying physiological mechanisms of human endurance performance, it is meant to stimulate riders to assess themselves, then help them to develop and administer their own training regime. Now and then, I have strayed into areas only tangentially related to power-based training, such as diet, since they can have a significant effect on power production, but I tried to keep such excursions brief or else merely referential.

To a considerable extent, what I have done here is to gather, review, and set down the principles that have guided me and the training habits I have tried to cultivate in my 20+ years as a ‘serious’ performance (and occasionally competitive) cyclist, and my purposes in doing so may be somewhat selfish. The larger motive, though, has been to fill a perceived need for a basic guide, made available free of charge, which perhaps will offer some fresh perspectives from those advanced elsewhere.

Initial mention of this idea at an internet forum was met with reservations about the “cookie cutter nature of these books and manuals. Each person needs different training.” The purpose of this guide is emphatically not to prescribe any sort of pre-fab, one-size-fits-all plan. A sample plan is included, but it is meant to be customized by you, the rider, in order to design a program that fits your capabilities, goals, and schedule, through training principles and guidelines, functional tests, and experimentation as to what works best for you. Another concern brought up was that “a coach is the best way for an athlete to improve, and . . . a well-educated coach knows how to make adjustments when life intervenes.” This is fine – mostly for the elite athlete. The vast majority of riders, however, are self-coached, and I believe it is important to educate them too, rather than simply tell them to get a coach (and if they do get one, the better informed they are, the better they will understand and carry out any training program). You are capable of coaching yourself, in fact, you may just be your own best coach.

That said, I emphasize that no intent exists here to undercut any of the various fine and highly capable individuals who pursue coaching as a profession, only a recognition that most riders are self-coached, since they either cannot afford, or simply do not choose to hire anyone. On the contrary, a basic understanding of powerbased training will likely help riders see that the experience, knowledge, and objective viewpoint offered by a coach could benefit them, and a brief directory of coaches who are versed in power-based training is included. Educating riders will allow them to have greater confidence in whatever advice they receive, thus making them more receptive and coachable, and may even spawn new coaches from the more technically inclined. Admittedly, the self-sufficient approach has its limitations and is not for everyone, as some riders – perhaps many or most of the best – prefer to save time and leave the mental task of their training plan, diagnosis, and prescription to a coach. Indeed, the author’s recent request for training information from one of this country’s most distinguished competitors brought the response ‘I don’t know, ask my coach.’ For the true professional athlete, who must balance media obligations, demands of travel, and much higher training volume, not to mention competitive pressures, a professional coach may be a necessity. Still, numerous elite athletes are deeply and involved in their training; Greg LeMond once remarked that he didn’t do as well in school as he could have because he was often thinking about his training plan. It is for the rider whose interest in race preparation is just beginning to dawn that this guide is written, in the hope of nurturing that nascent fascination.

I wish to thank Dr. Andrew Coggan for his review of this manuscript and numerous contributions, both as noted within the text, and elsewhere without explicit acknowledgment.

Charles Howe
Olmsted Falls, Ohio

Introduction

Perhaps unique among all endurance athletes, cyclists have the capability of accurately measuring their external work rate, or mechanical power output, while “in the field,” i.e., on the road or track, through commercially available power-measuring systems such as the Polar S-710, Power-Tap, and SRM (Schoberer Rad Messtechnik) Training System. These hold great potential as training aids, since power is an objective measure of the stress load, or intensity, being imposed, and as such directly determines physiological and perceptual responses to exercise. They are particularly appropriate for road cycling, where the resistive forces to forward motion vary greatly from one moment to the next in relation to terrain, wind velocity and direction, changes in speed, and road conditions. Indeed, many react with disbelief at how “jumpy” the current power display is when using any of these devices for the first time, and question the readout’s reliability. This is a result of having become accustomed to the heart rate monitor (HRM) as a gauge of intensity, and being fooled by its delayed response to changes in intensity into thinking that the energy requirements of cycling are relatively steady, however, the accuracy of the power meter (and hence, the variable, or “stochastic” nature of on-road power expenditure) is verified by checking it against any constant-load indoor trainer.

Cyclists have at times taken their cue from distance runners in adopting pacing guidelines to gauge intensity for flat-terrain workouts. The concept of goal pace and date pace was borrowed from perhaps its most widely known advocate, University of Oregon coach Bill Dellinger. This approach may have some reliability at a given velodrome, so long as temperatures do not vary significantly and the air is calm, but is unlikely to be useful on the road, even under ideal conditions, with the possible exception of a standard (and sufficiently steep) uphill course.

The ‘paradigm’ for measuring exercise intensity was changed in the mid-1980s, when accurate, reliable, and affordable HRMs the size of a wristwatch began to reach the consumer market. As becomes apparent when correlated with power, however, heart rate is limited not only by its slow response to changes in power, but also since it can vary widely for a given wattage (much moreso during outdoor cycling, as compared to indoors on a constant-load ergometer) due to physiological and environmental factors. Indeed, had power meters preceded HRMs, the latter might have never been marketed and sold as a separate device.

Intensity may also be gauged by “feel,” or perceived exertion (PE), either on a 10-point scale, or the original 6-20. PE is subjective in nature, with its precision limited accordingly, and yet, perceptual responses to exercise are an important source of feedback during training, since they actually integrate more physiological information than HR. Still, only occasional reference will be made here other than to power as a measure of intensity.

Finally, power-based training has long been possible with a calibrated bicycle ergometer, but the first powermeasuring device for use “on the road” did not appear until 1988, when the SRM system was introduced. It was followed by the Power Pacer (Balboa Instruments) and Look Max One hubs in the early ’90s, neither of which was a commercial success. SRM received a significant boost when it was embraced by several national cycling federations, as well as numerous professional and elite riders, including Greg LeMond, but it took the Power Tap (1998, Tune Corp., purchased by Graber Products in late 2000) and Polar S-710 (2001) to bring accurate and reliable power measurement within reach of most any rider. (Ciclosport models are not mentioned here, since they make only a crude estimate of power, based on weight, speed, and gradient.)

Benefits Of Power-Based Training

1. It eliminates guesswork from gauging exercise intensity. Even those with exceptional “feel” are unlikely to judge their wattage any better than to within perhaps 10%, whereas a power meter is accurate to ±2% or less.

2. It allows fitness to be precisely and accurately quantified and tracked, both daily and over time. Workouts become carefully controlled, and along with a periodized program, training is less haphazard, making peak performances easier to predict. Carefully planned training may also help prevent overtraining and injury.

3. Power meters have other uses, such as pacing during interval training, time trials, and even breakaways in mass start races; aerodynamic testing; and possibly as an aid to dieting and weight control. Previously, wind tunnel testing was necessary to assess air drag, but under carefully controlled conditions, it may be possible to do this in the field.

Still, any advocate of power-based training should have an appreciation of its limitations:

Drawbacks To Training By Power

1. It appeals to the more analytical and technically-oriented. Not everyone is inclined, whether by background or temperament, to take a quantitative approach to training, furthermore, feedback during a ride or race may only serve as an unwelcome distraction, rather than provide valued information.

2. It lends itself to a structured program, while demanding discipline and patience. Use of a power meter and a periodized training plan go hand-in-hand; for many, the planning, structure, analysis, and recordkeeping required by such a system are an added hassle in a sport that is time-intensive enough already, and exactly what they seek to escape from through cycling, while its “training by the numbers” aspect seems mechanical, unimaginative, constraining, and slow to yield progress. Practical considerations, like job and family, may make it difficult or impossible to closely follow any plan, however well-conceived.

3. It is conducive to solitary training. As Andrew Coggan points out below, the levels in his power-based training schema are referenced to “the athlete’s own unique (and current) ability,” which usually necessitates training alone, at least during more intense and structured workouts. Again, this is directly contrary to one of the primary reasons why many riders are attracted cycling in the first place, namely, the shared effort and companionship of training together.

4. Even the most affordable models are expensive. Cycling is a costly enough sport as it is, and many will simply not be able to justify the added expense of yet another “gadget.” Power meters will probably never be priced comparably to HRMs, and like any electronic device, they can malfunction and be unreliable. Still, they are less expensive than many of the latest exotic frames and crazy-light components which seem so ubiquitous, while arguably of much greater benefit.

Energetics of road cycling

Mechanical power output P, expressed as Watts in the international system (SI) of units, is the rate of external work W in Joules, such that P = W/Dt, where elapsed time Dt is in seconds. Since work is the sum of forces
F, in Newtons, resisting the forward motion of the bicycle/rider system through a distance Dx in meters, the previous equation becomes P = (
F × Dx)/Dt, or simply the product of force and the road speed s of the system in meters per second, i.e., P =
F × s. This is perhaps the best way to think of power: how fast you can travel against a given resistive load. Rearranging to solve for speed gives s = P/
F. Thus, two fundamental tasks of the competitive cyclist are to maximize power output through training, diet, and rest, while reducing the sum of forces which resist forward motion, first of all, by minimizing aerodynamic drag, and to a lesser extent, by reducing weight.

An expanded motion equation for cycling is given in the section on aerodynamic testing, and was used to plot the power requirements of cycling (Figs. 1-4), to show how widely and rapidly they can vary, moreso, perhaps, than any other endurance sport, furthermore, this model assumes constant wind speed and direction. Even a rolling 30-second average for a relatively well-paced, flat time trial is surprisingly variable (Fig. 5), let alone 5- second average power for the same race (Fig. 6), or even more so still, for a road race or criterium. It follows that several metabolic pathways, or energy systems, are called upon to meet these demands, with the extent to which each is taxed depending on rider and course characteristics, wind, race type, and pace.

Energy Systems

Muscular contraction represents the conversion of chemical energy to mechanical work, which results from the breaking of a high-energy phosphate bond within a molecule of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), producing ADP (adenosine diphosphate) and inorganic phosphorous (Pi). There are three sources of ATP for the working muscles: 1. The phosphagen system. A very limited supply of ATP – enough for less than 10 seconds of maximal effort – is stored directly in the working muscles, while re-phosphorylation of ADP from phosphocreatine (PC) stores provides enough for about 25 seconds total. This system produces the highest power output levels, and thus is used most heavily during any rapid acceleration, such as in sprinting and in the initial “jump” of a hard attack.

2. Non-aerobic glycolysis. This is the primary energy pathway used for efforts lasting 45-150 seconds. Type II, or fast-twitch muscle fibers, are the locus for glycolysis, with muscle glycogen (stored glucose) the sole fuel source (substrate). Also called the Emden-Meyerhof Cycle, or the lactic acid system, this pathway is capable of producing large quantities of ATP for a very short time, but is much less efficient in this regard than aerobic metabolism, since it does not utilize oxygen. The byproduct of this is lactic acid, or blood lactate, which if allowed to accumulate faster than it can be metabolized or perfused from the working muscles, can result in fatigue, i.e., a rapid drop-off in power-generating capability, as muscle acidity (pH) must be maintained within an optimal range.

3. The aerobic system. Much (19 times!) more efficient than glycolosis, this pathway, known as the Krebs Cycle, provides most of the energy for efforts of 3 minutes or longer. Aerobic metabolism occurs primarily in Type I, or slow-twitch muscle fibers, although there is a continuum within Type II fibers, some of which display characteristics of the former. For fuel, this system relies on fat (which contains more energy than CHO – 9 kcal/gram vs. 4.1 – but is less readily metabolized) at lower intensities, progressing to carbohydrate (CHO) as intensity increases. As exercise duration wears on, there is a gradual shift of fuel source from glycogen stored in the muscles, to blood-borne glucose acquired exogenously via ingested CHO.

The balance of fiber types present (per cent composition) and other muscle physiology characteristics determine the capacity of these systems, and thereby three important functional measures of performance:

Maximal sprinting (anaerobic, or neuromuscular) power. Peak 5-second and average power for an all-out, 25- second effort from a near-standing start. Data should be collected every 5 seconds, preferably less, for this test.

Maximal endurance (aerobic) power. The upper limit or “ceiling” for steady-state power output, this is associated with its physiological determinant, maximal oxygen uptake, or VO2max. No protocol is presented here for a functional equivalent of the familiar incremental (“ramped”), lab-administered test, but the quintessential cycling event suited to a high aerobic capacity (and to a lesser extent, anaerobic capacity) is the individual pursuit. Once considered to have a genetic basis almost entirely, this system’s upper limit is now seen as being more responsive to training than previously thought, through intense efforts of short (3-8 minutes) duration.

Threshold endurance (aerobic) power. This is determined by the fraction of maximal endurance power that can be utilized over an extended period (>10 minutes) of time. It correlates highly with the VO2 reached at lactate threshold (LT), and largely forms the basis for endurance cycling performance. Morphological components which, in turn, associate with VO2 at LT are the proportion of Type I fibers within the working muscles, the extent of muscle capillarization, and the density of mitochondria present, each being adaptations which occur over years of intense training. The respective relationship between VO2 and LT may be likened roughly to that of an engine’s maximum horsepower to its governor, in that the latter determines what portion of the former can be used. As presented here, threshold power is determined simply by average wattage over a 60 minute time trial, or PTT60. This functional test integrates VO2max, the highest sustainable percentage thereof (VO2 at lactate threshold), and efficiency, giving a “bottom line” measure of endurance fitness.

Gross mechanical efficiency is the ratio of how much mechanical work is actually accomplished to the amount of energy that is expended metabolically. Since movement in cycling is mechanically constrained almost entirely within the sagittal plane, cycling efficiency is determined predominantly by muscle fiber composition, being directly proportional to the percentage of Type I fibers present, and typically falls within 20-24%, trending upward very slightly as intensity increases, but falling as exercise duration wears on (most of the other 76-80% is lost as heat). Efficiency improves slightly over years of training, as there is a gradual conversion of some Type II fibers to Type I, and does not appear to be related to smoothness of the pedal stroke. Of the three physiological variables mentioned here, efficiency changes the least (and probably most slowly) with training, VO2max is intermediately affected, and LT responds the most, or is the most “elastic.”

It follows that a rider with a high proportion of Type I fibers will recruit fewer Type II fibers for a given work load, produce less blood lactate, and have a higher threshold endurance power. How much emphasis to put on training each particular system depends on rider characteristics and condition, as well as the demands of the event being prepared for, and is the subject of the section on formulating an annual training plan.

Training principles In any program, certain concepts underlie the training prescription, no matter what rider it is being prepared for. As you review the customizable training plan/log provided as a download with this guide, some of the following trends (particularly 1, 2, and 6) will become apparent.

1. Periodization. The above referenced training program is divided into and organized by periods of time, each with a specific purpose, leading to a planned peak performance. The aim of periodization is consistency and predictability, i.e., to eliminate highs and lows, while preventing overtraining and injury.

2. Individualization. Who are you? How old are you, and how long have you been training seriously and racing? What are your strengths and weaknesses? Where do you live? What is the weather like? What sort of training opportunities does your location afford you? What do your work schedule and other responsibilities allow? What races do you want to do well in, and which do you want to use for training? Since motivation will determine how diligently you will train, which do you enjoy the most? Are you on a team, and if so, what is your role? Individualization, in a sense, is specificity applied to you.

3. Progression. Training plans are often likened to a pyramid, and it is an apt metaphor, since each succeeding week is built on the previous one, up until the peak performance(s). Another analogy is to higher education, where undergraduate courses are the broadest in scope, providing an information basis for more advanced courses, in which general knowledge is applied more narrowly, and in reference to a particular context. Similarly, physical training progresses from general to specific. Meanwhile, training volume – which consists of duration (how long), intensity (the rate of work, sometimes referred to as load), and frequency (how many sessions) – must be increased gradually, consistently, and incrementally.

4. Overload. Training adaptation, and hence improved performance, occurs in response to carefully applied, steadily incremental stress loads which challenge the body and moderately fatigue it (see Seth Hosmer’s fine summary of the workout/recovery cycle for more). In response, and after adequate rest/recuperation, the body’s plasticity allows it to “overcompensate” and reach a higher level of fitness. It is in quantifying the imposed stress load, especially at higher intensities, that power-measuring devices are most useful.

5. Specificity. It doesn’t get much more basic than this: to get better (i.e., induce adaptation) in any one aspect of the sport, you must train (stress) the systems which underlie it in a way that mimics what will be experienced in the event being prepared for. In other words, to get ready for time trials, do long (20 minute) repeats at threshold intensity on a course like the race route (the actual course is best, if possible); to be able to bridge gaps, or prepare for prologue TTs, shorter (3-8 minute) intervals at ~105-120% threshold power are indicated; to improve at climbing, climb hills similar to those you will encounter, etc. Thus, beyond an initial period of general conditioning, intense training needs to be in reference to a particular context. A broader concept may be simulation, which includes specificity but goes beyond it in attempting to duplicate race conditions, as well as physiological demands, as closely as possible. What is the general lay of the course, and what are the particular characteristics? Where does the road narrow? What are the road conditions? What is the weather forecast? Is it likely to be rainy, hot, cold, sunny, cloudy? Have you prepared in these conditions? What are the prevailing winds, and where are they most likely to be a factor? What time of day do you normally train, and when does the race take place?

6. Tapering and peaking. Strategic manipulation of the training cycle to produce peak performance for selected events, this is used to enhance or accentuate overcompensation.

7. Evaluation and analysis. Race analysis is not covered here, but periodic testing and careful record keeping of relevant workout and race data are essential to assessing progress.

8 .Rest, recuperation, and diet. Progress, i.e., improved fitness, cannot be achieved if there is not sufficient time and rest between workouts, particularly intense sessions. Brief comments on diet will be included later on, since it is such an integral part of both on-bike performance as well as recuperation.

9. Strength and flexibility are properly identified as components of fitness, rather than training principles, and although they rate mention here any sort of stretching or resistance training program is beyond the scope of this guide, and will only be touched on.

Power-based training levels

By Andrew Coggan, Ph.D.

In developing the following schema, I have drawn from a number of sources, including Peter Janssen’s Lactate Threshold Training, The Cyclist’s Training Bible, by Joe Friel, and the British Cycling Federation’s training guidelines (developed by Peter Keen), in addition to my own background in exercise physiology and experience of training and racing with a Power Tap hub since 1999. I would also like to recognize all the people who responded to my initial request for power data, as that has helped me to verify and refine the system. I’ll begin by describing the various ‘levels’ in the system first, followed by a table of the adaptations induced by each, then move to a discussion of some of the details.

INTENSITY AVG.	POWER*	AVG. HR*	PE	DESCRIPTION
Level 1 Active recuperation	<55%	<68%	<2	“Easy spinning” or “light pedal pressure,” i.e., very low level exercise, so as to minimize muscular force requirements; too low in and of itself to induce significant physiological adaptations. Minimal sensation of leg effort/fatigue. Requires no concentration to maintain pace, and continuous conversation possible. Typically used for “active recuperation” after strenuous training days (or races), between interval efforts, or for socializing.
Level 2 Endurance	56-75%	69-83%	2-3	“All day” pace, or classic “long slow distance” (LSD) training (note that “slow” is in relation to the very high intensity, intervalcentered training programs that were popular at the time the term was coined in the 1970s). Sensation of leg effort/fatigue generally low, but may periodically rise to higher levels (e.g., when climbing). Concentration generally required to maintain effort only at highest end of range and/or during very long rides. Breathing is more regular than at Level 1, but continuous conversation is still possible. Frequent (daily) training sessions of moderate duration (i.e., 2 hours) at Level 2 possible (provided dietary carbohydrate intake is adequate), but complete recuperation from longer workouts may take more than 24 hours.
Level 3 Tempo	76-90%	84-94%	3-4	Typical intensity of fartlek workout, ‘spirited’ group ride, or briskly moving paceline. More frequent/greater sensation of leg effort/fatigue than at Level 2. Requires concentration to maintain alone, especially at upper end of range, to prevent effort from falling back to Level 2. Breathing deeper and more rhythmic than Level 2, such that any conversation must be somewhat or very halting, but not as difficult as at Level 4. Recuperation from Level 3 training sessions more difficult than after Level 2 workouts, but consecutive days of Level 3 training still possible if duration is not excessive and dietary carbohydrate intake is sufficient.
Level 4 Lactate threshold	90-105%	95-105%	4-5	Just below to just above TT effort, taking into account duration, current fitness, environmental conditions, etc. Essentially continuous sensation of moderate or even greater leg effort/fatigue. Continuous conversation difficult at best, due to depth and frequency of breathing. Effort sufficiently high that continuous cycling at this level is mentally taxing – therefore typically performed in training as multiple ‘repeats,’ ‘modules,’ or ‘blocks’ of 15-30 minutes duration (totaling 30-60 minutes). Recovery between efforts need be no longer than required for a mental break or to turn around. While consecutive days of training at Level 4 may be possible, such workouts should, in general, be performed only when sufficiently rested/recovered from prior training, so as to be able to maintain intensity.
Level 5 Maximal aerobic power	106-120%	>106%	6-7	Longer intervals (3-8 minute, with 2:30-5:00 recovery) meant to raise VO2max. Strong to severe sensations of leg effort/ fatigue, such that completion of more than 30-40 minutes total training time is difficult at best. Conversation not possible due to often ‘ragged’ breathing. Should be attempted only when adequately recovered from prior training – consecutive days of Level 5 work generally not desirable even if possible.
Level 6 Anaerobic capacity	GE 121%	n/a >	7	Short (30 seconds – 3 minutes), high-intensity intervals designed to increase anaerobic capacity. Nearly complete recovery in between. Heart rate not useful as guide to intensity due to non-steady-state nature of effort. Severe sensation of leg effort/fatigue, and conversation impossible. Consecutive days of Level 6 training rarely attempted.
Level 7 Neuromuscular power	n/a	n/a	**	Very short (<25 seconds), very high intensity efforts (e.g., jumps, standing starts, short sprints) that generally place greater stress on the musculoskeletal rather than metabolic systems. Complete recovery in between efforts. Power useful as guide, but only in reference to prior similar efforts, not TT pace.
*As % of average in a 60 minute time trial. **Maximal

TRAINING LEVEL EXPECTED PHYSIOLOGICAL/	TRAINING LEVEL
PERFORMANCE ADAPTATIONS	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Increased plasma volume		Y	YY	YYY	YYYY	Y
Increased muscle mitochondrial enzymes		YY	YYY	YYYY	YY	Y
Increased lactate threshold		YY	YYY	YYYY	YY	Y
Increased muscle glycogen storage		YY	YYYY	YYY	YY	Y
Hypertrophy of slow twitch muscle fibers		Y	YY	YY	YYY	Y
increased muscle capillarization		Y	YY	YY	YYY	Y
Interconversion of fast twitch muscle fibers (type IIb --> type IIa)		YY	YYY	YYY	YY	Y
Increased stroke volume/maximal cardiac output		Y	YY	YYY	YYYY	Y
Increased VO2max		Y	YY	YYY	YYYY	Y
Increased muscle high energy phosphate (ATP/PCr) Stores						Y	YY
Increased anaerobic capacity (“lactate tolerance”)					Y	YYY	Y
Hypertrophy of fast twitch fibers						Y	YY
Increased neuromuscular power						Y	YYY

Discussion

Average power during a 60 minute (40 km) time trial (PTT60) provides a logical basis for training levels since it is roughly the duration of the former standard (and still common) time trial distance of 40 km, and because it correlates very highly with power at lactate threshold (although, if you define LT as a 1 mmol/L increase in blood lactate over the baseline observed during low-intensity exercise, it will be some 10-20% higher), the most important physiological determinant of endurance cycling performance, integrating VO2max, the percentage of it that can be sustained, and cycling efficiency. (Indeed, beyond the first few seconds of exercise the entire powerduration performance curve can be described quite closely using just two mathematical parameters, representing anaerobic capacity and power at lactate threshold, respectively.) While shorter efforts might be more convenient, 1 hour was chosen because it corresponds roughly to the former standard TT distance of 40 km, and because it is only slightly less than that generated during shorter TTs. In theory, one could derive specific correction factors to be used with data during shorter TTs (e.g., power during a ~20 minute TT will be ~1.05 times that of a 40 km) in order to fit such data into the system, but given individual variation in the exact shape of the power-duration curve, day-to-day variability in performance, and the breadth of the specified power levels, this may only convey a false sense of precision. Somewhat along the same lines, one could base a system on laboratory-derived measures, such as lactate threshold itself, but relatively few people have access to such measurements, as opposed to simply going out and measuring their own power during a TT. Conversely, one could dispense with using one single ‘anchor’ measurement, and simply reference all workouts back to the maximum power that an individual can generate for that duration (i.e., Friel’s ‘critical power paradigm’), however, such an approach requires much more testing than simply using average TT power, while providing little, if any, advantage in actual practice, in my opinion.

There is about a 3-5% tolerance to each training level, e.g., if your Level 1 recovery rides are up to 58-60% instead of <55%of your “true” threshold (40 km) power, because you have estimated the latter from a shorter test, it really will not make any difference. Any more than 3-5%, though, and things do begin to change significantly, meaning that the percentages used to set the training levels would have to be adjusted, from which arises the question, “what is the shortest TT during which your power will be no more than 3-5% greater than what you could sustain for a 40 km?” The answer will vary somewhat between individuals. For instance, my own power for a ~20 minute TT is only about 4% higher than over 40 km, so my it would work pretty well for me personally, however, my power-duration curve is “flatter” than the vast majority of people out there; one study, for example, found that average power during a 20 km (not 20 minute) TT was 107% of that during a 40 km TT. Consequently, I am leery of basing training levels (using my system, without any adjustments) on the results from anything shorter than a 30 minute effort.

A compromise had to be made between defining more levels, to better reflect the continuum of physiological responses, and fewer, for simplicity. The seven levels specified were considered the minimum needed to adequately describe the different types of training required to meet the demands of competitive cycling. Even with seven levels, though, the range within each is somewhat broad, but this should not be a major disadvantage, for several reasons. First, there is obviously an inverse relationship between power output and the duration that power can be sustained, thus, it is axiomatic that shorter training sessions or efforts will be conducted at the higher end of a given range, whereas longer sessions or efforts will fall towards the middle or lower end of a given range. Second, since power is a more precise indicator of exercise intensity than, for instance, heart rate, workouts should still be adequately controlled despite the seemingly large range in power within each level. Finally, as with all training systems, exercise prescriptions should be individualized, in this case taking into account the power the athlete has generated in previous similar or identical workouts . . . the primary reference, therefore, is not to the system itself, but to the athlete’s own unique (and current) ability. In this regard, the present classification scheme should be viewed primarily as an overall framework, not a detailed plan.

The suggested heart rate ranges must be considered as imprecise, because of individual differences in the positive y-intercept of the power-heart rate relationship. That is, even when power is zero, heart rate is not, with differences between individual in this ‘zero power’ (not resting) heart rate significantly influencing the percentage of average 60 minute TT heart rate corresponding to any given power output. Because of this, I do not believe it is really useful to try to derive power ranges from heart rate ranges (as Friel’s initial attempt to do so readily shows). Expressing heart rate as a percentage of the range from that at zero power (derived by back- extrapolation of the linear power-heart rate relationship) to that at PTT60 – akin to the Karvonen formula for heart rate reserve – corrects for this individual effect and allows you to more precisely specify the levels based on heart rate, however, I rejected this approach as simply being too complex, especially given that this is a powerbased system. Nonetheless, I have derived guidelines for heart rate (as well as perceived exertion) from power data, such that can be used along with power to help guide training.

Guideline values given below for perceived exertion are from Borg’s 10 point category-ratio scale, not the original 20 point scale that is probably more familiar to most people, since the category-ratio scale explicitly recognizes the non-linear response of many physiological variables (e.g., blood and muscle lactate), and thus provides a better indicator of overall effort.

LEVEL	SENSATION
0	Nothing at all
½	Extremely weak (just noticeable)
1	Very weak
2	Weak (light)
3	Moderate
4	Somewhat strong
5	Strong (heavy)
6
7	Very strong
8
9
10	Extremely strong
**	Maximal

Since perceived exertion increases over time, even at a constant exercise intensity (power), the suggested values or ranges are for relatively early in a training session or series of intervals.

While this system is based on the average power during a workout or interval effort, consideration must also be given to the distribution of power within a ride. For example, average power during mass start races typically falls within the range defined as Level 3 (‘tempo’), but races are usually more stressful due to the greater variability (and therefore higher peaks) in power. Similarly, due to soft-pedaling/coasting down hills, the same average power achieved during a hilly (or even mountainous) ride will not reflect the same stress as an equal average power achieved during a completely flat workout. To some extent, the variability in power is taken into account in defining the various levels, especially Levels 2 and 3 (training at the higher levels is likely to be much more structured, thus tending to limit variations in power). Nonetheless, a workout consisting of, say, 30 minutes at Level 1 (as warm-up), 60 minutes at Level 3, and another 30 minutes at Level 1 (as warm down) would best be described as a tempo training session, even though the overall average power might fall within Level 2 (‘endurance’).

A final caveat: defining various training ‘levels’ is only the first step in developing a training plan; what matters as well is the distribution of training time or effort devoted to each level. Discussion of such follows shortly, but two points I wish to emphasize are: 1) I believe that training should be highly individualized, to account for each athlete’s unique abilities, goals, and state of development (e.g., age, training background), and 2) compared to some, I tend to place more value in training at Levels 2, 3, and 4 – indeed, what many consider to be ‘junk training.’ In that regard, my philosophy apparently parallels that of Peter Keen, or at least how his ideas are reflected in British Cycling Federation training guidelines.

“It seemed that all my past life was but a preparation for the hour and trial at hand.” – WINSTON CHURCHILL, 1940

Proof may be lacking from a scientific standpoint, but there is little dispute among those who practice the art of coaching that periodized training works, in that it makes performance predictable and helps prevent overtraining, even injury, by budgeting total duration and the distribution of time spent at each training level in a measured, gradually progressive fashion. Every workout is indeed a preparation for just one or a few races, and this approach is not without its drawbacks, since it may create too narrow a focus, and the seeming success or failure of the entire year may judged on a couple performances. Additionally, and as discussed in more detail shortly, there will almost inevitably be disruptions to the training plan at some point.

Time periods in the customizable plan/log provided here are referred to as “phases” (4-16 week periods), “cycles” (3-6 weeks), and “weeks,” which seemed less confusing than the more familiar “macrocycles,” “mesocycles,” and “microcycles,” respectively. Daily workouts are derived by breaking down each week’s duration according to the time allotted to each intensity level, with some examples of this to follow.

Each phase has a different name and purpose. The off-season (“Maintenance”) is for mental relaxation, fun, a break from competition and perhaps even from riding itself. Cycling need not be entirely discontinued, but is usually supplemented through cross-training, i.e., aerobic activities such as running, cross-country skiing, skating, etc., as perhaps strength training. Muscles, tendons, and joints are allowed to recover and rebuild from the racing season through this “active recuperation” process, rather than by total rest. Bicycle fit and medical issues should also be resolved at this time.

Controversy exists as to whether weight training ultimately makes any difference in road cycling performance (as opposed to track cycling); it is likely that similar results can be achieved through ‘strength training on the bike,’ and Level 7 workouts can be done year round, since no lactic acid is produced. Nonetheless, if a program is undertaken, conventional wisdom generally holds that multi-joint movements, in no more than 20 repetitions, should be used to strengthen cycling-specific muscles without adding mass, with maintenance throughout the year. Weight training is generally not recommended for children under 16, or prior to the closing of the growth plates. For a complete discussion of an annual plan, see Joe Friel’s The Cyclist’s Training Bible.

Phase I (“Preparation”) is a 16-week building-up, or “base” period; no time is budgeted in Cycle 1 for Levels 4-6, nor is threshold testing carried out in these first 4 weeks (a loss of 5-10% is fairly typical over the winter, depending on the type and level of activity maintained), which may be neglected depending on the level and type of activity maintained throughout the off-season. Testing is otherwise carried out once a month, usually in the first week of each cycle, although to a large extent, training becomes testing, and testing is training. For consistent and reliable test results, make sure you are rested, neither sick nor recovering from sickness or injury, and avoid extremes of temperature (especially heat) and wind. Flat terrain is recommended, but rolling or even hilly will do if the same course is used each time (average power on a rolling/hilly course, or in windy conditions, is usually somewhat less than for a flat, windless test of similar duration). In your first test, just as in the initial, transitional period of power meter use, you will likely need to use PE and HR guidelines to gauge intensity, while monitoring power, but by the second test, power should guide pace. A useful practice to help gauge intensity may be to adopt a standard set of interval durations for training at each level, e.g., 90 seconds, 3, 5, and 15+ minutes.

Wattage is raised incrementally each week throughout Phase I, until a target value is reached. For instance, if 300 W was your peak PTT60 the previous year, a value of 270 W might be initially assumed or determined by test, and this would be increased by 5 W every other week, until 300 W as reached at the end of 12 weeks. Hill training is generally avoided in the early part of Phase I, and while intervals workouts during this period should be challenging and difficult, it should always be possible to complete them. So a typical week in this Phase I might be broken down something like this:

Week 7 (3rd week in the second of three 4-week cycles) Total hours in cycle: 32:00 (8% of 500 yearly hours) Weekly hours: 9:16 (29% of cycle)
DAY OF	DURATION (hr:min) AMONG TRAINING LEVELS							COMMENT
WEEK	2	3	4	5	6	7	RACE	(times in min:sec)
Monday								Day off
Tuesday	0:30					90 s		Jumps: 3 X 0:10; sprints: 3 X 0:25
Wednesday	1:00	0:08		0:20	0:06			3 ¥ 2:00 (flat) @ 125% PTT60 4 ¥ 5:00 (flat) @ 115% PTT60
Thursday	1:30							Recuperation ride
Friday	1:00	0:06	0:50					3 X 16:30 @ 100% PTT60
Saturday								Day off
Sunday	3:00	0:42						Endurance ride, w/ 2 X 21:00 @ 80% PTT60
TOTALS	7:03	0:56	0:50	0:21	0:06	0:02
%	75 %	10%	9%	4%	1%	0.5%

Time spent at Level 1 is not budgeted, but is used as needed for recovery; for Power Tap users, duration there and at Level 2 can be accounted for using HR guidelines and a heart rate monitor (separate from Power Tap), with memory zones set accordingly.

Training becomes more specific in Phase II, tailored to upcoming competition, and can include training races, while each cycle’s taper becomes more pronounced. An old bromide runs, ‘Train your weaknesses, race your strengths,’ and indeed, events you wish to peak for should be chosen to fit your abilities, but your strengths may become less so if you do not train them, too; weaknesses should be trained simply to minimize them as much as possible, not with a goal of rapidly transforming yourself into a different kind of rider.

The most specific way to prepare for any race is to train on the actual course to be used, but this is often impractical or not possible at all. The next best thing is a course map and profile, but if it is unavailable from the race organizer, a way to “remote-view” the route and terrain is with on-line U. S. Geological Survey topographic maps at Topozone.com, or with Topo! interactive software. Here is a profile of a local 36 mile circuit race held annually on the second or third Sunday of May, used by many as one of their “A” races for which they attempt to peak:

Read the rest of this paper ( in PDF format ) from TrainingSmartOnline.

This artilce has been reprinted with the permission of Peter Mauro and TrainingSmartOnline.com.