[Paul B]

That was just grabbed off the web, the one I've got saved is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DjfCpwmLHsxCGvrXDW1JmYPDY9WNWXCR/view?usp=drivesdk

Z4.

[Stabbsy]

Thanks, that’s what I thought from the descriptions. I’ve always used a 5-zone version with FTP (or running equivalent) at the top of 4, so wouldn’t normally split 5-7 out explicitly. Although you end up targeting them via different length intervals/hill reps.

[Paul B]

I had more time to think on this, unsurprisingly when sat on the turbo (more than a little bit bored) and I'm sticking with my initial thought that showing someone their critical force and the % breakdowns required is of limited benefit.

My current programme has a few different workouts that repeat. OK, so there is progressive overload with work periods and rest periods changing accordingly in approx. the same format, but not always. Having just done a session which I've done before, it made me think that this time it felt the living end and what you're offering in the above (via "this is what X should feel like") is almost a one off 'snapshot' of what things should feel like and unlike having a power meter output staring you in the face, you just can't have the feedback often enough unless all your training is on a Tindeq (or a lattice board with these built in to every hold!). What that person leaves with is an impression of what X or Y% should feel like, on that given day. That'll feel different when they turn up for a session and find the kids club using their preffered area for Ancap.

Perhaps it's an improvement when it's in addition to an RPE with session descriptions such as:
If you failed on 5 of 9 sets you got this totally wrong - too hard, try again
If you didn't fail and thought you'd like some more - too easy, try again
You failed on the last rep of the last set - Nice one (good luck doing that again next session)

Well I disagree on that, from my own experience. After some time pissing around on a turbo trainer I'm now pretty confident what zone I'm cycling in based on feel alone, and it turns out to be about right based on heart rate when I get home and look at my phone. I can imagine the same idea being useful in climbing.

Now do the above again but accurately predict your (actual, not estimated) power output, accounting for all of the climatic factors (wind, heat, how much diet cherry coke you've consumed etc.). I'd imagine you won't be able to do it (there are various algorithms that attempt to do this, none are very good).

PS saying you were below threshold doesn't count either if you were out for more than an hour  .

Obviously with that all said, I know you don't go instantly from nothing to the best developed model you can wish for, and the concept is massively interesting (to me at least). I'd be very interested to see whether the TSS and IF models can be applied to a training programme, because when I get it wrong I just break (increasingly leading me to not try all that hard in general).

[teestub]

Sounds to me like you weren’t suitably recovered for your turbo session 😄

[Oldmanmatt]

I did an hour on the treadmill this afternoon.
I normally concentrate on trying to maintain a specific heart rate (130 bpm or around 75% max) and I can usually do that, despite changing pace (if not always during the change if pace) by altering the rhythm of my breathing.
So, I thought I could tell my exertion, at a given pace, by the chant I was breathing. Today, I got distracted. I don’t normally watch tv, but something the kids were watching caught my eye. My heart rate went way off (up), no change of pace, no change of breathing rhythm that I was aware of.
Just a minor distraction is enough to screw with your performance, let alone all the physiological changes your body cycles through constantly.

[remus]

My current programme has a few different workouts that repeat. OK, so there is progressive overload with work periods and rest periods changing accordingly in approx. the same format, but not always. Having just done a session which I've done before, it made me think that this time it felt the living end and what you're offering in the above (via "this is what X should feel like") is almost a one off 'snapshot' of what things should feel like and unlike having a power meter output staring you in the face, you just can't have the feedback often enough unless all your training is on a Tindeq (or a lattice board with these built in to every hold!). What that person leaves with is an impression of what X or Y% should feel like, on that given day. That'll feel different when they turn up for a session and find the kids club using their preffered area for Ancap.

I think the reverse of this is also true. If you measure your FTP on a given day it's only accurate at that point in time and after that there are a lot of factors that'll affect your ability on the day. Perhaps your session that felt like the living end was actually at too high of an intensity (that is, if you could have measured your FTP today it would have been lower) and if you were aiming for a particular % of your 'instantaneous FTP' (i.e. if you could know your FTP at any given point in time without having to do a big exhaustive test) then you would have been better off at a lower intensity.

In my opinion a mix of RPE and metrics is best for getting the correct intensity. I think over reliance on metrics can be counter productive (e.g. third week of your training cycle, "Why can't I aerocap on this circuit like I did in week 1? Must try harder!")

[Paul B]

Sounds to me like you weren’t suitably recovered for your turbo session 😄

I'm pretty sure I wasn't meant to be, but that's part of my point. If I was working off the 'snapshot' I had previously, I'd have backed off (thinking "this shouldn't feel as hard").

I think the reverse of this is also true. If you measure your FTP on a given day it's only accurate at that point in time and after that there are a lot of factors that'll affect your ability on the day. Perhaps your session that felt like the living end was actually at too high of an intensity (that is, if you could have measured your FTP today it would have been lower)

I take your point but see above in reply to Stubbs. I can see where you're coming from with testing, but it's not overly onerous to re-test semi-frequently (perhaps the same is true for climbing?) and there are algorithms looking at anything that includes max. efforts that will attempt to capture this (i.e. you don't physically have to do ramp tests all the time), I think some of these are fairly crude (Zwift just applies 0.95 to any 20-min effort), but there are others that are less so. Peewee might remember the latter (it might be on a GP Lama video)? Regardless, you're still getting feedback continuously through a workout which just isn't possible on anything other than a rung with a Tindeq or similar attached / built-in.

In my opinion a mix of RPE and metrics is best for getting the correct intensity. I think over reliance on metrics can be counter productive (e.g. third week of your training cycle, "Why can't I aerocap on this circuit like I did in week 1? Must try harder!")

Do you expect a large difference then from two groups, both given an RPE scale with:
too easy
just right
too hard
explained thoroughly with session descriptions etc., and the second having the addition of a coach showing them the % of critical force each should expect in a one-off, when considered a month later (and then a season later)?

[teestub]

I'm pretty sure I wasn't meant to be, but that's part of my point. If I was working off the 'snapshot' I had previously, I'd have backed off (thinking "this shouldn't feel as hard").

And this might have been a sensible option if the session felt harder than it was meant to, as if you’re overexerting yourself due to being tired, sick of injured, then you could potentially put yourself in a hole. Alternatively you might have been on amazing form the first time and this session was more like it was meant to feel. Hopefully the power numbers came with some form of relative perceived effort advice to guide you on this 😄

[Stu Littlefair]

What Remus and teestub said.

Also I think you are overthinking this, and fixating on a narrow point. No one is suggesting that if you measure CF/FTP once and get someone to do a single workout calibrated on that basis, they will suddenly have a perfect internal power meter.

My point is merely that some people’s RPE scales are miles off and if you can do one session that you know is - for example - at threshold, then the accuracy of their RPE scale is going to get a bit better

[Paul B]

And this might have been a sensible option if the session felt harder than it was meant to, as if you’re overexerting yourself due to being tired, sick of injured, then you could potentially put yourself in a hole. Alternatively you might have been on amazing form the first time and this session was more like it was meant to feel. Hopefully the power numbers came with some form of relative perceived effort advice to guide you on this 😄

Touché, but there's a difference between a number derived during a test where the advice is to make sure you're fresh AF, and a number during a workout (based on the previous testing) planned by people that know their sh*t. Pick your poison, but the progressive overload isn't only from when they rob your rest to feed your work intervals (week on week), but also in terms of the lack of rest between sessions (day to day):
https://wattbike.com/gb/training-plans

To put it another way, I don't expect to go into every workout (climbing or sat on a turbo) fully recovered and with the massive hike in training load you see in people moving onto energy systems type plans (including paid for plans), I wouldn't expect them to be either!?

My point is merely that some people’s RPE scales are miles off and if you can do one session that you know is - for example - at threshold, then the accuracy of their RPE scale is going to get a bit better

I can get on board with this, I think I suggested 'marginal', I think Barrows said 'useful for most', it's probably somewhere in the middle.

I'm probably coming across grumpy (honestly, it's not intended to be so; it's much easier to discuss things like this in person) but:

No one is suggesting that if you measure CF/FTP once and get someone to do a single workout calibrated on that basis, they will suddenly have a perfect internal power meter.

Well I disagree on that, from my own experience. After some time pissing around on a turbo trainer I'm now pretty confident what zone I'm cycling in based on feel alone, and it turns out to be about right based on heart rate when I get home and look at my phone. I can imagine the same idea being useful in climbing.

The latter quote is implying just that (or that's how I read it) and my point is still that you're gauging a response. Perhaps that was obvious to everyone but me 

Also I think you are overthinking this, and fixating on a narrow point.

Likely so on the over-thinking, but my narrow point is 'useful application'. Do you have data that can be anonymised showing test results for Billy Big Guns and others etc. to widen the fixation a little?

Also, can you see a scenario in the future whereby instead of Lattice score vs. grade you have some kind of CF chart akin to the w/kg chart (or where do you see it going)?
https://www.saris.com/post/blog-power-to-weight-ratio-whats-watts-per-kilogram-all-about

(pink and blue table for any interested lurkers)

[remus]

Touché, but there's a difference between a number derived during a test where the advice is to make sure you're fresh AF, and a number during a workout (based on the previous testing) planned by people that know their sh*t. Pick your poison, but the progressive overload isn't only from when they rob your rest to feed your work intervals (week on week), but also in terms of the lack of rest between sessions (day to day):
https://wattbike.com/gb/training-plans

To put it another way, I don't expect to go into every workout (climbing or sat on a turbo) fully recovered and with the massive hike in training load you see in people moving onto energy systems type plans (including paid for plans), I wouldn't expect them to be either!?

From a coach's point of view the tricky thing is trying to predict external load (work, family, sleep related stress for example) so while they'll try and plan a workout at the correct intensity for where you are in your training cycle (e.g. fresh coming off a rest week or knackered the week before a deload week) you're never gonna be able to get it exactly right all the time, which is where bringing in some RPE in to it helps.

[teestub]

To put it another way, I don't expect to go into every workout (climbing or sat on a turbo) fully recovered and with the massive hike in training load you see in people moving onto energy systems type plans (including paid for plans), I wouldn't expect them to be either!?

Partially covered by what Remus said, but any training plan (whether for climbing, cycling or interpretive dance), that involves a massive instantaneous hike in training volume, is a shit training plan.

[Paul B]

Partially covered by what Remus said, but any training plan (whether for climbing, cycling or interpretive dance), that involves a massive instantaneous hike in training volume, is a shit training plan.

OK, but on a sensible plan, do you expect to enter every session fully recovered? I'm guessing not.

It wasn't intended to imply that Latticers go from low to high load overnight it's just an observation that when people go on energy systems type plans, over time the amount of sessions etc. increases (how they get there, I can't really comment).

From a coach's point...

"...or having their parents move in and finding it's like having adopted two wayward teenagers"?

In response to the query posed, in the ideal world without those stresses, do you expect people to be fully rested session to session? I'd expect not. My point is just because I found a workout hard, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was wrong (or that I was digging a hole). Incidentally, I think I'm pretty darn good at listening to my body these days after teething problems the current UK Gov. would be proud of 

[abarro81]

teething problems the current UK Gov. would be proud of 

[teestub]

OK, but on a sensible plan, do you expect to enter every session fully recovered? I'm guessing not.

I have no ideas what happens on cycling plans, it was Anti who posted previously and seemed to know a decent amount about cycling training, that if your level of recovery isn’t sufficient to hit the targets of the session then you’re wasting your time. Sounds like this wasn’t an issue with this particular session as you hit your power meter goals.

In climbing it would largely depend on what the session is, like if it’s a core or 4x4 session then you can easily do these fatigued, but if it’s a max hang session and your feeling really tired? That ain’t going to end with #gainz.

Incidentally, I think I'm pretty darn good at listening to my body these days after teething problems the current UK Gov. would be proud of 

😄

[Stu Littlefair]

Likely so on the over-thinking, but my narrow point is 'useful application'. Do you have data that can be anonymised showing test results for Billy Big Guns and others etc. to widen the fixation a little?

Also, can you see a scenario in the future whereby instead of Lattice score vs. grade you have some kind of CF chart akin to the w/kg chart (or where do you see it going)?
https://www.saris.com/post/blog-power-to-weight-ratio-whats-watts-per-kilogram-all-about

You can look at the second paper n my GitHub page for that kind of data.

Climbing is always going to be much messier than cycling because there is more going on; flexibility, max strength, movement efficiency etc.

But yes, if your CF is 20% of your body weight it’s time to hit the aero.

[Banana finger]

Something I would love to see would be a sensor which tells you the force through each finger.

It would be great to see how this is distributed between different grips and different people.

It would be really cool to diagnose if certain fingers are overcompensating for weaker ones!

[Carl]

Something I would love to see would be a sensor which tells you the force through each finger.

It would be great to see how this is distributed between different grips and different people.

It would be really cool to diagnose if certain fingers are overcompensating for weaker ones!

Now there's a project idea... Would be good to look at my inevitable 1% pinkie finger contribution!

[Paul B]

I have no ideas what happens on cycling plans, it was Anti who posted previously and seemed to know a decent amount about cycling training, that if your level of recovery isn’t sufficient to hit the targets of the session then you’re wasting your time. Sounds like this wasn’t an issue with this particular session as you hit your power meter goals.

Sorry, working sometimes gets in the way of my attention to detail.

You're probably aware but in ERG mode, on a smart turbo you don't really get much choice. The software you use sets the target power for a target cadence (both with windows of acceptability). If your cadence goes up above what's desired, the software automatically reduces the resistance so your power output over a given time period (30s power?) is correct. If your cadence goes down it does the opposite and increases the resistance.

They're particularly bad for reacting quick enough when the interval is relatively short.

What happens when you turn up unable to hit your number is that you slow down. The software reacts by heaping on some more resistance. You slow down some more. It keeps coming, etc. until you just grind to a halt. Ramp tests end like this (feel free when it's legal to come and experience this joy for yourself).

The only way out of this is tapping out either into a geared mode (where you need to control the resistance manually) and just not getting there, or globally scaling down the efforts.

You can look at the second paper n my GitHub page for that kind of data.

Climbing is always going to be much messier than cycling because there is more going on; flexibility, max strength, movement efficiency etc.

Thanks, at least that's something to do this weekend. I agree it's always going to be much messier (way back on P1). I think that's further compounded by the fact there isn't the equivalent of a power meter to offer continuous feedback (so I still don't see it much more than just a metric but that might just be my blinkers ).

But yes, if your CF is 20% of your body weight it’s time to hit the aero.

 

I'll think I'll leave this thread alone now though.

[Muenchener]

I read the papers, a couple of times, and did some self-testing. Still not entirely clear what the results tell me. I know my 7-second max hang weight, and I now also know that I can do 7/3 repeaters at 42% of that for just under six minutes.

Now what?

[teestub]

You're probably aware but in ERG mode, on a smart turbo you don't really get much choice.

Not used one (my turbo is just some magnets and a fly wheel and a good inch coating of chalk at the back of the garage) so didn’t appreciate that. Kinda interesting in itself as I guess it means that you have to control your cadence or you’re not going to be doing the right sort of ‘work’ for the power output (either too much muscle force at lower cadence, or too much CV input at higher cadence). There’s some climbing analogy lurking in there for overpowering a route or resting up it to achieve the same outcome.

[Steve Crowe]

Interesting thread but a bit confusing.  It seems to me your at risk of over training with a force plate/meter whereas you’re at risk of under training by using a percentage of perceived effort.

[Stu Littlefair]

I read the papers, a couple of times, and did some self-testing. Still not entirely clear what the results tell me. I know my 7-second max hang weight, and I now also know that I can do 7/3 repeaters at 42% of that for just under six minutes.

Now what?

Now do two more sets of 7:3 repeaters to failure at (say) 55% and  65%. You need to be fully recovered between these.

Now plot a graph of load*time against time. If you fit a straight line to it, the slope will be your measure of W’ and the intercept will be your critical force.

[IS2]

Stu, you quote a couple of values, too lazy to seek the exact references but I recall, CF about 35% ( BW?) as good and if CF about 20% BW .. time to hit the cardio. Are these gut feeling / good training knowledge figures or extracted from more formal research?

I got my hands on an Entralpi force plate, which is basically stand on scale with Bluetooth link to training app, and have been using it to work on finger strength. I was intending changing focus and using it to improve forearm endurance as I start training to head ( hopefully) outside again. Obviously not keen on reinventing the wheel hence the interest.

[remus]

Stu, you quote a couple of values, too lazy to seek the exact references but I recall, CF about 35% ( BW?) as good and if CF about 20% BW .. time to hit the cardio. Are these gut feeling / good training knowledge figures or extracted from more formal research?

Percentages are of your max output, not bodyweight. I think the 35-40% range for a good cf score comes from the literature but I wouldn't be able to give you a reference. When we were doing some critical force testing at lattice this is what we were using as a benchmark (easy to remember as I was so far off it )