Thursday, May 29, 2014

Data Details

As mentioned earlier, I use power data in my bike training, and I think everyone should. It allows precision and repeat-ability in workouts, and provides unerring pacing feedback in races.

I'm shooting for a critical power (or one-hour power, or threshold power...) of 200 watts for the Tahoe half IM. That will allow me to race at 160w or so and, hopefully, get off the bike inside 3 hours. I've been encouraged by my Powertap powermeter head unit -- I've had some 2+ hour rides at 160 +/- watts, and this morning's 1.5 hour workout came in at 168 watts (normalized).

But then I loaded the power file into the Apollo Raceday software (sold by Phil Skiba) and the NP came in at only 156 watts for that ride. What the heck...?

It turns out the Powertap head unit ("Joule") computes average power and normalized power by dropping out any periods where power is zero. So, in effect, the NP = 168 figure was what I was doing while pedaling, without taking into account not-pedaling. Why does this matter?

Because the whole point of NP is to take into account hard and easy riding segments, and the fact that harder segments are A LOT harder than easy segments. But the easy segments must still be accounted for since they serve to pull down the average -- and they serve to help us not be so tired. We need to include the zero segments in order for NP to work.

After a long phone call with Powertap tech support, the Powertap folks acknowledged that no, the basic Joule head unit does not have the "include zeros or not" switch that most powermeter head units have. That won't work for me...I need the accurate figures.

So, the company agreed to let me return my basic unit and pay a discounted upgrade cost for the more advanced Joule GPS unit that has the required setup switch. Plus -- it has GPS. I don't why I might need GPS on a bike computer, but I guess I'll find some use for it.

So, anyway...if you have a powermeter that includes the NP computation, set it so that it includes zeros.

But...here's a tip...if your computer does NOT have NP calculations, set the average power display to leave out the zeros. Am I contradicting myself? No...based on long experience, the average power on a rolling or hilly course without zeros ends up being pretty close to the actual NP computation. You can use that no-zeros AP on your display to approximate the actual NP of your ride, in real time. I did it for several years and had great results with that little trick.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Going Long(er) -- The Sunday Run

My priority for the first half of my training cycle (15 weeks left till taper week) is to develop the basic stamina and endurance to do the distances at a comfortable steady pace, over and over. I feel that I never did enough proper long runs in the past, and never had that "all day" stamina, no matter how easy I ran. That will not happen again!

My long run yesterday was 2:30 total; about 2:20 of that actually running. I have no idea the pace -- pace was not the goal. Just keeping it moving was the goal, and I feel great about the result. I was able to pick it up for the last 20 minutes (pushing HR about 10 bpm higher than it had been throughout the first two hours). I didn't really start feeling leg fatigue until the 2 hour mark.

The run took a lot out of me. The Sunday chores around the house were tough and I needed a nap mid-afternoon. But I felt great by evening and feel 90% recovered today. No running today -- just a nice swim workout and some general fitness maintenance work on the weights.

This is hugely encouraging. I've only been back running for 4 weeks and my feet feel great and I feel great.

The plan is to stay on top of these long runs, pushing them out to 3+ hours on a regular basis. In June, I will start doing a mid-week brick with 2 hours on the bike at a good tempo, followed by a 1 hour run.

I do need to take care of my running pace at some point -- I am still painfully slow. I will start finishing the mid-week runs with quick, smooth strides to re-learn some running economy. That has helped a lot in the past. While VO2max workouts are not essential for long-course racing in terms of metabolic fitness, I favor such occasional workouts for the simple purpose of teaching my legs and nervous system how to run quicker.

To run faster, even at easy effort levels, requires us to spend less time in contact with the ground. That has to be practiced and learned.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Bike Setup II

I found some old pics on Slowtwitch of my tri bike setup. The pics below were almost my final position...I lowered the saddle 1cm, moved the saddle forward 2cm (from 3cm in front of bb here to 5cm) and dropped the armpads another 1cm.

The hump in my back is my morphology -- it doesn't go away no matter how I sit on the bike.

So...don't ask me to make it flat...



This setup, with a wheelcover on back and a Zipp 808 on front, is very fast. I know of few people to this day who've attained my bike splits on my meager power output. 2:40 at Oceanside on 184 average watts...5:30 at Davis IM on 142 avg. watts.

First Time in the Pool

I swam my first swim laps in 8 years. The only other time I'd been in a pool over that time was swimming the anchor 25y freestyle in the Family Medley Relay at our neighborhood pool (which we won, thankyouverymuch).

I had a plan to do a simple 10x100y workout on whatever intervals felt easy. I touched out the first one in 1:20, swimming what felt like very easy. Just focusing on form. Took a 20 sec rest and started the second one.

By midway through the second one, I could not even hold form. Holy crap, am I out of swim shape. I ended up doing 50s and 25s, with a few breaststroke laps thrown in. I got the 1000y done but, dang. That was not what I expected.

Oh well. Stick with it and it'll come around. I'm working toward doing a few benchmark workouts of 10x 400m in a long-course pool. If I can nail one of those workouts by early September, touching in 6min, I'll be set.

Got on an accurate scale for the first time in a while. 181lbs (I'm 5'11").

Goal weight for race day is 165. I've raced at 158, but that's just not realistic this time around.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Run Training

I mentioned before that you should buy a copy of Dr. Phil Skiba's book, Scientific Training for Triathletes. It's not just for triathletes...it's for all endurance athletes. Read that, then get yourself a copy of Dr. Jack Daniels book, Daniels' Running Formula. The Daniels book is the simplest, easiest to understand method of figuring out run training. Plus, it reminds me of my favorite recovery drink.

The key to Daniels, and what makes it so perfect for the amateur runner/triathlete, is the VDOT system. The VDOT tables provide racing and training paces that relate to an athlete's overall fitness level. For example, let's say you ran a rested 10k in 45 minutes. You would look up that 10k time in the tables, and get your VDOT number. That number for you is 45.

You then look up the various training paces for a VDOT of 45. Your easy/long ("E/L") run pace should be 9:16 min/mile. Your threshold (T) runs should be at 7:27. You'll also see that your marathon, or M, pace should be 7:57. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, that M pace is your target half IM pace. If you can run a 45 minute 10k, you should be able to run a 1:45 half IM split. If you can't or don't -- you either failed to build sufficient stamina in training, or you rode too hard on race day.

My advice is: Until you've got years and years under your belt and have proof that you know better, stick to the Daniels tables training paces. I see two fails on a regular basis:

First, people do not do sufficient volume, or a sufficiently long weekend run, to hit the E/L VDOT pace. If you run a 45 minute 10k, and cannot run 2-3 hours every Sunday at 9:16 pace, you do not have the stamina required to execute your race plan. Don't bother trying to get faster until you can hold that long run pace for as long as you feel like it, every time out. This is serious stuff -- the run leg of a long course race is like doing the second half of an open run event twice that long.

Do not neglect long-run stamina.

Second, people do threshold runs too fast. A good threshold workout done once a week is 4x or 5x 1-mile repeats. These are done at the T pace from your Daniels VDOT line. Again, our 45 minute 10k racer has a T pace of 7:27. That will feel slow for the first few of the mile repeats. T pace is meant to be the pace you could hold for about an hour. So think about it...if you're doing mile repeats that take 7-8 minutes each, and only have to run at an effort you could hold for an hour -- these should not feel terribly stressful. It is far too tempting to do these far too hard. DON'T.

Stick to the plan. Get yourself a GPS pacing watch, or use MapMyRun or another phone app. Until you've got some serious experience, you will otherwise do T workouts too hard.

I haven't done a running event yet, so I'm estimating my VDOT. I have a lot of experience with pacing and perceived exertion judgement -- I had the benefit of doing 5 years of run training on a flat route that had mile markers on the ground (the Pacific Beach and Mission Bay Strand in San Diego). At the moment, I estimate my VDOT to be around 35. That puts my long run pace at 11:15 and my T pace at 9:07. And...puts my target half IM pace at just 9:46, far short of my goal of 9:00.

I did my first T workout last night -- 4x 1-mile with 2-3 minutes walking between reps (and 10 minute EZ running before/after). The course was slightly downhill for the first two; back uphill for the second two. I did:

9:15
8:25
9:25
9:10

So, that is about right. From a "feel" perspective, the first two felt easy and I to stay disciplined the keep the pace slow enough. By the last one, my legs were feeling pretty worked. But, my breathing did not get to the point where the "stopping wish" was strong. I stayed in a zone where I was breathing hard, but felt that I could sustain that breathing effort for quite some time. This morning I feel well recovered and capable of doing a good hard ride tonight.

That is key to a T workout -- do not overdo it. You need to be back up and at it the very next day.

As for my E pace -- I had a very satisfying 90 minute run last Saturday at 11 minute pace. I was able to lift effort a bit over the last 20 minutes. This coming weekend, I do my first 2-hour effort. Again, the goal here is to be able to complete that run at the target pace, without taking on so much fatigue that I can't do my long ride the next day.

Get familiar with Daniels' VDOT system. It works, and it has solid science behind it. If you don't get the book, you can use google and find some online VDOT calculators that will help you target your training paces.

Monday, May 19, 2014

Training Rides

If you are not yet fluent in the hows and whys of training, I highly recommend you stop scouring the internet and Slowtwitch for the facts, and order Dr. Phil Skiba's excellent book, Scientific Training for Triathletes. It's not a training guide, per se, but rather an accurate and thoughtful summary of what training does to the body, and how different types of training affect performance adaptations. It is a collection of "first principles" that every endurance athlete needs to understand, even if they work with a coach.

This short volume cuts to the chase and gives you all the basics. You still have to figure out how to use it, but figuring that out is a lot easier once you understand how your body works.

My bike (and run and swim) training plan will be my attempt to use these first principles to my best advantage. I am a "volume-limited" triathlete. I do not choose to maximize my potential since I have a good understanding of the time commitment involved, and I only have so much time I'm willing to budget to this activity.

I'll be riding 3 times per week; about 90 minutes twice during the week; up to 3-4 hours on Sundays. Given that time budget, what is the best way to use the time? Firstly, it is certainly going to do me no good to go out and spend all 6-7 hours of my weekly riding doing "low heart rate" or "steady" efforts. The training stimulus is too low. There is nothing wrong with the Gordo Byrn/Mark Allen-approved approach of long, easy/steady efforts. It's just that, in order for that effort level to pay off, you have to do many more hours than I will do.

So, my weekday efforts will be at 90-95% of P60. A typical ride will consist of 15 minutes easy effort to get to the part of my route where I can put my head down, then at least 60 minutes of good hard riding. I call these ABP rides -- Always Be Pushing. The training stimulus is high -- building metabolic fitness for higher power output (specifically, raising power at lactate threshold to a higher percentage of VO2max). Since the rides are relatively short, recovery is quick and I can do these rides a couple of days apart.

Sunday rides will be longer and will target my power output capacity and my endurance/stamina. There is no substitute for long hours in the saddle if you have to race long hours. The run leg of a half IM is like doing the second half of a marathon...so you have to train for a marathon. Likewise, since the bike stage of a half IM needs to be finished with your legs still fresh, you need to train for a 112 mile ride in order to pull off a good 56 mile ride. My Sunday efforts will not be easy -- but they won't be hard either. More on the order of 75-80% of P60.

With that approach in mind, I am happy with my first Sunday ride. 2.5 hours at 150 watts (NP). I finished feeling good and have recovered nicely this morning. I'll push the duration of that ride out to 3.5 hours next Sunday, and going forward. In late July and in August, I'll push out to 5 hours a few times. Power output will follow my fitness level -- hopefully upwards. These long rides need to be in the 165 watt range in order for me to meet my goals at Tahoe.


Monday, May 12, 2014

Bike Setup

In past years, I have raced and trained mainly on a Mandaric "DE" (for Dan Empfield) TT frame. This has a 81 degree seat tube angle, short and low top tube...all with for the express purpose of riding low and flat. My bike position in 2005-06 was among the more radical out there. My aerobar armpads were 22cm below the saddle for racing. I could sit at 20mph on only 140 watts.

Today, far more people have figured out the benefits of punching a smaller hole through the wind and the flat-back position isn't considered so radical. I intend to return to this position for the September event. Aerodynamics is important for all racers, but is even more important the slower you're going. All else equal, slower racers gain more time from aero improvements than faster ones. It's just math.

The problem with a fully-committed racing position is that it is a horrible every-day riding position. It's just not safe. You can't see continuously up the road -- you have to "spot." Pedal for a few moments, look up the road. Head back down for a few seconds, look up the road. Repeat. In addition, so much weight is on the front of the bike that you can actually achieve an unintended endo in a panic stop. I did just that once and separated my A-C joint.

Hence, my compromise training position, as shown below. This pic is from 2006, but the bike setup is the same today. The idea here is to have the same leg-torso angle as on the race bike, just rotated back so I can be more balanced and see where I'm going.


I will race on the Mandaric frame, with everything rotated forward and down. On the Soloist frame shown above, the saddle is 3.5cm behind the bb. The race setup will have the saddle nose 5cm in front of the bb.

The other change I made was to acknowledge that my power is down about 50 watts from 2006. Since I live in a hilly area (East SF Bay Area), I need to be able to comfortably climb hills. So I swapped out the 12-27 cassette that I usually ride for a 12-32, and changed the inner chainring from 36 to 34. I hope I don't have to stay with this setup for too long, since a Dura Ace rear derailleur can barely handle the cog size. But -- bike gearing is a function of the rider's power output. Mine is low, so I need small gears.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

First Ride Report

First ride report. Well, second ride...the first was 20 minutes last Saturday to make sure my bike still worked.

I bought a new PowerTap wheel and handlebar computer head. I used one from 2002 till I quit, and sold the setup to some nice person on Slowtwitch. It was the old wired setup, and the new one is wireless. Very nice.

So, some observations and some backdrop for using power in cycling.

First, I am an unabashed fan of using power output as the key effort measurement in cycling. (Likewise, I use pace in running.) I wear a HR monitor from time to time for cross-checking my perceived effort, but power output is what matters.

I am also an unabashed fan of the "normalized power" paradigm developed by Dr. Andrew Coggan. You can google "Coggan normalized power" to find the details on the algorithm. The notion is that increasing power output does not linearly increase the stress or load on our metabolism, but rather increases that load to the 4th power of power increases. IOW -- going 5% harder is (1.05^4)-1 percent harder, or 21.5% harder. At very low efforts (toodling around town), you might not notice it so much. But in racing and training conditions, it makes a big difference. Within a given ride, we have periods where power is high and low ... what is the best way of evaluating these into an "average?"

So, for purposes of evaluating a workout, I will record not the mathematical average power (AP), but the normalized power (NP). In a very real sense, AP is "how fast did I go" and NP is "how hard did I ride." And training adaptations arise from "how hard did I ride."

A further extension of the NP construct is to relate NP to "threshold power," defined as power that could be held in an all-out 60 minute effort (P60). The ratio NP/P60 is the relative intensity of the workout -- "intensity factor" in the jargon, or IF.

Finally, we know that training stimulus is a factor of both the intensity of the workout, and its duration. Leaving out the "why" (google it), multiply the square of IF by the duration (in hours) of the workout, and we get the training stress score, or TSS. Keeping track of TSS on a day-to-day basis is a proven way to manage training stimulus and recovery. I'll skip the details on that...it's all out there if you want to explore more.

A key benefit of using TSS is that it allows an athlete to relate, say, a long steady ride to a shorter harder one. A 90 minute ride at a relative intensity (IF) of 90% has a TSS of 122.

A 120 minute easier ride at an IF of 78% also has a TSS of 122. Interesting. What we are saying here is that these two rides are roughly equivalent in terms of training stimulus and stress. If you only have 90 minutes, ride at an IF of 90 instead of 78 and you'll get a workout roughly similar to the 120 minute ride. This is not the only consideration in structuring your workouts, but it is near the top.

I don't think that the TSS construct does a good job of "equalizing" intense short-interval sessions, such as a sprinter might do, with the longer efforts that a triathlete or 40k specialist might do. But within the confines of reasonable triathlon bike training, the TSS paradigm just flat-out works. More than a decade of real-world application has proved it beyond any doubt. It works.

So, back to my ride...I rode 1:05 at an NP of 162 watts [EDIT: I later learned that I had not "zeroed" out the powermeter. The ride was likely under 150 watts]. I can only estimate my FT at this time, but if it's 180 watts then my TSS was just 87. Not much of a training load, but I gotta start somewhere.

Of more interest is that my AP was just 144 watts. As said above, NP is "how taxing was the ride" and AP is "how fast did I go." In an ideal world, AP=NP so that we get as much speed out of our metabolic effort as possible. AP will move lower and lower relative to NP the more variably I ride. We call ratio NP/AP the variability index, or VI. Generally speaking, a VI above about 1.03-1.04 is costing a rider speed. My VI on this ride was 1.13 -- downright horrible, and an indication of just how much my cycling skills have eroded. It takes experience, practice and focus to keep VI down on a rolling terrain ride. I will need to regain those skills.

Monday, May 5, 2014

It's Gotta Be the Shoes

One singular piece of news from week one. To quote Spike Lee's Mars Blackmon character:

It's gotta be the shoes.

In '01 to '03, I had increasing problems with my knees and lower legs. Tried various things, but what seemed to work best was to get out of high-heeled running shoes and into racing flats and other "low-drop" shoes. Over the next several years I ran a few thousand miles in these shoes; set all my PRs and had no injuries (other than a tibia stress fracture that I didn't even know I had until an Xray for my severed ACL showed the healed bone scar. And, oh BTW...I ruptured the ACL in my right knee in 2008. No surgery then or now. It seems to work OK.).

I developed a very good mid-foot strike. I don't over-pronate and these flat shoes felt and performed great for me.

I became a strong devotee of the minimalist running movement. High-heeled, badly designed running shoes were hurting more people than helping. But then my plantar fasciitis hit in the fall of '08 (just prior to the ACL rupture), and I adopted the standard cure of the minimalist crowd: Go even more minimal.

And this is the downfall of many a "movement." If it isn't working for you, it's not because it doesn't work. Because it works *by definition.* If it's not working for you, it's because you're doing it wrong. You need to do it more, and better.

Accepting this "wisdom" (despite routinely rejecting it in other parts of life), I got even flatter shoes, with even less cushioning. I went all the way to running in thin sheets of plastic tied up my ankle like a primitive sandal. Nothing helped, so I gave up and quit running.

Vowing to give it one more try, decided to take a radical approach and try the Hoka shoes. While still made with minimal heel-toe drop, they have HUGE cushioning. Particularly in the forefoot.

There is a certain ridiculousness to these shoes. The look funny, they feel funny. But, damn. They work. I went from zero to a 24-mile week with no leg pain, foot pain or other issues. I got tired, sure. I haven't run more than a dozen times in 5 years! But think about it...no running for 5 years and I easily clocked a 90-minute run on Sunday. Nice and slow, of course. But I got it done with nothing more than routine upper leg fatigue.

I swung my legs out of bed this morning expecting the familiar stab of heel pain from the PF. But...nothing.

The only downside now is that I need to resist the urge to increase mileage too quickly. I'll do another week just like last week, and then push the durations out from there. I plan to run 3 times per week, but those will be two 90-minute runs and 120+ on Sundays. Yes, I know the advantages of more frequency. But this is what I can schedule, so I will make best use of what I can schedule.

For me, the key to long-course triathlon running is long-run stamina. I've done best when putting more miles into fewer runs. "Real" run training is different, as is triathlon running for the fast folks that are winning age groups. They are trying to get fast; I am trying to hold a steady pace and not walk. Only when an athlete has the run conditioning to "not walk" should they worry about more pace.

I'll write more about this later from the perspective of the Daniels VDOT tables.