Average watts

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

midlandsgrimpeur

Well-Known Member
The terrain has a big impact. Rolling terrain as the OP describes is the most difficult to stay in zone. When I was training properly - lots of Sweetspot (roughly upper zone 3 in a 5 zone model iirc) I would tend to use long hills or very flat circuits, but if I were in rolling terrain I would have to really push it downhills and drag my brakes where necessary to stay in zone. Fwiw Stephen Seiler says that intensity discipline is one of the thing that separates the professionals from most amateurs.

Yes, when I previously had a bit of coaching I was on a strict regime of 60-90 min tempo rides 3 times a week as part of it. I had to stay within a 15-20 watt parameter which was a PITA. Like you, it was hammering it on downhills and then crawling up hills to stay in zone!
 

midlandsgrimpeur

Well-Known Member
The thing is, Pog's zone 2 isn't quite the same thing as a normal person's zone 2. :laugh:

I saw one video on this subject and the person seemed to be giving the impression that they needed to be riding only in zone 2. As if any forays into zones above would poison the whole thing. Sure I can understand the logic of putting in many hours of Z2 to build an endurance base, but I can't see the harm in pushing beyond briefly when conditions call for it.

Yeah, his is perhaps a few watts higher 😂

We had this conversation back on the old BR forum. From what I have read Pogacar does literally stay within that zone exclusively, whereas like you say, I was also saying to people that it really doesn't matter if you go in and out of zones, a strong core of Zone 2 & 3 will give a good endurance base.
 
OP
OP
esoxlucius

esoxlucius

Regular
Pogacar is on a different planet compared to us mere mortals. But when you also take into consideration he's also on a different planet to the vast majority of his fellow pros too, you soon realise he's a generational freak.

His training alone surely can't put him at the level he's at. People talk about the benefits of having a great physiological advantage too. Whatever it is he has an abundance of it.

Although his palmares isn't there yet I have no doubt that, barring serious injury, he will surpass Eddy and become the true GOAT, some say he already is!
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
TBH even the guys and gals that we've never heard of in pro conti teams with names like ZPF-Springi-Betshop-Girdle-Mastic (the teams not the riders) are on a different planet to mere mortals. Never mind the Remcos, Vinnies and Pogs.
 

midlandsgrimpeur

Well-Known Member
Pogacar is on a different planet compared to us mere mortals. But when you also take into consideration he's also on a different planet to the vast majority of his fellow pros too, you soon realise he's a generational freak.

His training alone surely can't put him at the level he's at. People talk about the benefits of having a great physiological advantage too. Whatever it is he has an abundance of it.

Although his palmares isn't there yet I have no doubt that, barring serious injury, he will surpass Eddy and become the true GOAT, some say he already is!

Yes, all pros just operate on a different level of physiological parameter's. Having done lab testing it is really interesting as you get a clear idea of what your ceiling is and also just how big the gap is between an amateur and a pro, and also the gaps between the varying levels of pro cyclists.

There was a study a year or two ago which took long term training/racing date from about 180 Pro Tour and World Tour professionals. The power differentials between the bottom 10% and the top 10% were significant. I know for pro racers things like tactical nous and the strength of a team play a large part in getting results (Mark Cavendish is a great example of someone with relatively modest power numbers but an exceptional ability to win), so power alone is not the deciding factor, but it was interesting to see what kind of level these guys are at.
 
OP
OP
esoxlucius

esoxlucius

Regular
I once read an article and somebody said pro cyclists, or any other top athletes for that matter, are born that way, which I found puzzling, until you get a basic understanding of what's needed to succeed.

The training is a big part obviously but the physiological side, your VO2 max potential as an example, is something you are born with. You already have it within you to be a top athlete if all your physiological stars align.

The stars certainly were in a favourable place for Tadej.
 

Pblakeney

Senior Member
TBH even the guys and gals that we've never heard of in pro conti teams with names like ZPF-Springi-Betshop-Girdle-Mastic (the teams not the riders) are on a different planet to mere mortals. Never mind the Remcos, Vinnies and Pogs.

The point that appears to be being missed here is that you should only measure your fitness against yourself. Progress, good; decline bad.
Comparing yourself to a pro is simply silly. Unless you aspire to be a pro.
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
The point that appears to be being missed here is that you should only measure your fitness against yourself. Progress, good; decline bad.
Comparing yourself to a pro is simply silly. Unless you aspire to be a pro.

Far from being missed, that is 100% my point. What professionals do is broadly irrelevant to ordinary people.
 

midlandsgrimpeur

Well-Known Member
The point that appears to be being missed here is that you should only measure your fitness against yourself. Progress, good; decline bad.
Comparing yourself to a pro is simply silly. Unless you aspire to be a pro.

Very true, but part of the problem is the sheer amount of content out there related to training, and the number of people who present themselves as coaches. Most of what gets passed on to amateurs (often through cycling websites) is a slightly simplified version of what pro's do and is way too intensive for most amateurs. If you don't know any better you are susceptible to a lot of bad advice.
 
Top Bottom