A good read
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Joined
·
2,404 Posts
Thank you for sharing
Joined
·
2,249 Posts
Speakes volumes
aren't all Elite Scandinavians training polarised? I see so much tempo and threshold in her TID. I guess she didn't get the Seiler memo ;-)
Really interesting read and once again proof that Elite training is actually quite simple:
* volume
* training hard means really hard, dark red. It does not matter if 4x4, 4x8 or 4x16. All that matters is that you push hard. Harder than before to spark those adaptions.
Who has written the text, her coach? There is no author given.
Really interesting read and once again proof that Elite training is actually quite simple:
* volume
* training hard means really hard, dark red. It does not matter if 4x4, 4x8 or 4x16. All that matters is that you push hard. Harder than before to spark those adaptions.
Who has written the text, her coach? There is no author given.
My name is Thomas and Annika is my better half. I've been riding since the early 90's but was never as successful as Annika. So I had to come up with something else to do. That something else turned out to be studying which led to a phd-position at the University of Copenhagen with Nikolai Nordsborg. The guy that got me into all this studying and research however is Carsten Lundby. A professor at the University of Zürich, my co-supervisor, a keen athlete and good friend. Today I work as a coach for some talented riders (Simon Andreassen, Sebastian Fini and Andreas Kron among others) and am very much influenced by the time I've spend with both Nikolai and Carsten.
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
It is always very interesting to read what the elite are doing.
She is still spending about 75% in zones 1 and 2 (so under Tempo I assume).
I am familiar with Polarized training, 80/20. Is it not difficult to be completely polarized (80/20) with MTB racing because we spend a lot of time racing around Z4?
I assume you mean Zones 3 and 4 for Tempo and Threshold. Is 17-19% a lot of time?
She is still spending about 75% in zones 1 and 2 (so under Tempo I assume).
I am familiar with Polarized training, 80/20. Is it not difficult to be completely polarized (80/20) with MTB racing because we spend a lot of time racing around Z4?
140lb seems heavy for those power numbers. I would suspect that to win with those numbers that race weight is between 130 and 135.
Joined
·
520 Posts
At first glance 140 at 5'9 does seem a little high considering I'm 5'8 and when I'm 140 I'm still not super lean. I don't know what a top female at that height *should*, but I'd expect less.
I still don't know what kind of insight avg power would give you for an xc race. You are neck deep in this stuff - what kind of np would you expect from her given those avg power numbers?
I actually find average power is a better predictor of placing then NP for XC racing. I have a ton of power files and done regression analysis of both norm and average and found that average watts/kg is a better predictor of finish than NP/kg.
I would expect that her NP for S.A. is 4.5-4.9 watts/kg.
Joined
·
13,080 Posts
I think the Norm Power algorithm isn't that great for mountain biking. Mountain bike racing, particularly WC MTB racing, is super high wattages followed by zero watts. I don't think the algorithm was designed to model that type of racing. Works great on road, but not as good on the dirt.
Joined
·
520 Posts
Interesting, I wouldn't have thought this was the case. I was thinking along the lines of average power not being as useful because if a rider was smoother with less braking, and therefore less accelerating, they would show a lower average power; thus not telling an accurate overall story.
I have never used a power meter on a mtn bike, so I don't have much experience in this area. Thanks for the info.
Edit: I suppose the same criticism could be used for NP - if the rider wasn't smooth and braking too much and having to reaccelerate, then their NP would be inflated.
Comparing the gap between AP and NP could be quire useful to give some insight into the demands and/or how efficient the rider was.
Joined
·
626 Posts
This is interesting to note given Miller's findings (below) that intermittent power seems to predict XCO outcomes better than FTP. And this seems to agree with LMN's observation of high watts/no watts efforts in XCO. I don't know the NP algorithm in detail but my former coach tells me it tracks better to intermittent power than average power; which would lead me to believe NP predicts XC success (intermittent power) more so than Avg Power. I've got more to learn.
Validity of using functional threshold power and intermittent power to predict cross-country mountain bike race outcome | Miller | Journal of Science and Cycling
Hey folks!
I'm the one who wrote the two pieces on Annikas website. I'll have to admit that the last was not as thorough as I would've liked it to be. But hopefully joining this discussion will add a bit.
Regarding NP (as with almost all other concepts coming from TrainingPeaks) I have to say that it is not something we use very much. Very little of the stuff TrainingPeaks put out is scientifically validated. However, this does not mean that it's not usuable in a functional way. It's bit like the argument of "no pain, no gain" as long as you inflict adequate amount of pain you'll improve. And it doesn't matter if you're using one system or the other. But given my background in physiology I like working with models that are openly shared and published so that others can confirm (or reject) the concepts. Hence, the use of CP and not mFTP. The equivalent to NP would be xPower (but then again not the same) and for the marathon race, XCO and CX the xPower is 261, 254 and 200 watts, respectively. In this case the xPower for CX is with the running sections included.
FYI can tell that we're trying to publish (the gruop I'm working in at the August Krogh Institute in Copenhagen) a paper on the physiological demands in XC-mtb. We did a bunch of measurements in and outside the lab and while can't give to much away (since it isn't published yet) I can tell that repeated sprint performance didn't correllate nearly as strong with performance as some of the aerobic measurements. We have a relatively well trained group from the danish national team including Simon Andreassen and Sebastian Fini Carstensen.
I think an important point is that the racing and the course is just as important as say NP. If you look at the numbers from Annikas XCM win last year you need to keep in mind that it was a fast course with a lot of bunch racing. So the dynamics of the race was very different than at XCM Worlds in 2015 (Val Gardena) where the climbs were long and the field was split after a few miles. That would've probably be a very different power file
I'm the one who wrote the two pieces on Annikas website. I'll have to admit that the last was not as thorough as I would've liked it to be. But hopefully joining this discussion will add a bit.
Regarding NP (as with almost all other concepts coming from TrainingPeaks) I have to say that it is not something we use very much. Very little of the stuff TrainingPeaks put out is scientifically validated. However, this does not mean that it's not usuable in a functional way. It's bit like the argument of "no pain, no gain" as long as you inflict adequate amount of pain you'll improve. And it doesn't matter if you're using one system or the other. But given my background in physiology I like working with models that are openly shared and published so that others can confirm (or reject) the concepts. Hence, the use of CP and not mFTP. The equivalent to NP would be xPower (but then again not the same) and for the marathon race, XCO and CX the xPower is 261, 254 and 200 watts, respectively. In this case the xPower for CX is with the running sections included.
FYI can tell that we're trying to publish (the gruop I'm working in at the August Krogh Institute in Copenhagen) a paper on the physiological demands in XC-mtb. We did a bunch of measurements in and outside the lab and while can't give to much away (since it isn't published yet) I can tell that repeated sprint performance didn't correllate nearly as strong with performance as some of the aerobic measurements. We have a relatively well trained group from the danish national team including Simon Andreassen and Sebastian Fini Carstensen.
I think an important point is that the racing and the course is just as important as say NP. If you look at the numbers from Annikas XCM win last year you need to keep in mind that it was a fast course with a lot of bunch racing. So the dynamics of the race was very different than at XCM Worlds in 2015 (Val Gardena) where the climbs were long and the field was split after a few miles. That would've probably be a very different power file
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Join the discussion
