So, I flew to New York to discover it for myself – the only reasonable way to get the straight poop right? While their numbers do not really measure the metrics we understand as Power in the cycling world, they have accomplished an amazing feat – they’ve created training tools they retrofit to older Red Knob bikes! I started out quite skeptical, but ended up quite impressed. Come follow this journey.

Their little display that is attached to the side of the flywheel does indeed say “Power”, and there is a number that displays, but it is not Power in Watts as you and I (and anyone interested in real cycling power) currently understand it. It is an attempt to measure the combination of resistance applied from the red tension knob, and the estimated cadence or RPM of the flywheel, and report on that combination. First of all, yes, power in its simplest terms is a mathematical function of RPM and torque or force applied, in this case to the flywheel. So, it’s good that it is this combination they focused on. However, the question is how are they measuring these two critical components, and what is the result. Let’s break it down.

Torque
Their display spells it “Torq” for branding purposes I’m sure. This number simply reflects how much resistance you are putting on the fly wheel. I suspect they have something that is measuring the number of turns of the red knob, or somehow measuring the amount of brake put on the flywheel. As you turn the red knob, you see the power go up – even if you are not pedaling the bike. Hence, it clearly is not power. In fact, when I came into the empty cycling room early, each bike had a different power number showing on their custom display. I was ready to call the ghost busters, but instead I asked the Flywheel attendant what it meant, and he told me it was simply how much the red knob was turned or how much resistance the rider last used. While they could have called it “gear” or “resistance level”, I guess it was more chic to call it “torq”… hey, it’s NY city.

RPM
The “measured” RPM however is another story. I saw what looked like a magnet on the side of the flywheel (but I’m not sure it was), so I hoped that they were measuring this much like outdoor bikes measure RPM – with the circumference of the wheel and the number of times the magnet gets passed over. However, that may not be the case, since the numbers seemed a bit low to what my body was telling me. After having a cadence meter on my outdoor bike for 6 years, and teaching with RPM on my indoor stationary bikes for 3+ years, I am pretty in tune with my spinning speed. So I did some manual validation tests:

First, I established a steady number on their meter of 60 RPM, with a steady, smooth pedal stroke. The number held pretty consistent, never varying more than 1 RPM more or less. Once it was steady, I counted the number of revolutions (each time the knee comes up, or the foot hits the bottom of the pedal stroke can easily account for the number of pedaling revolutions), for 10 seconds (using a stop watch) and multiplying the number of revolutions by 6, giving me the RPM or Revolutions Per Minute. I also counted them for 15 seconds, and multiplied by 4 – just to vary the method a bit and see if there would be variations. While the two measurement periods (10 and 15 seconds) did not produce differences, it was difficult to get exact counts at the higher pedal rates. At 60 RPM I was a consistent 10 RPM higher in my manual test than what was showing on the meter. However, when I tested it at a steady 80 RPM those numbers seemed to produce estimates 15 to 25 RPM higher.

Consequently the cadence reported is low by a minimum of 10 RPM and a maximum of 25 RPM. This variation is likely due to this testing in a “manual” way without a mechanical device, but I can assure you, those stated RPM are definitely too low. My gut tells me that if they were validated in a controlled environment with mechanical devices, they would average about 15 RPM or more too LOW.

OK, so we have a torque number that we know is a measure of resistance, and we have an RPM reading that we know is low, but likely consistently so. The big question is where does the number under the heading of “Power” come from?

Power
I had to slow my RPM down to as little as 60 to test the following theory, but any of you who go to FlyWheel can test this for yourself and tell me if you agree or not. As I pedaled at 60 RPM, and set my “torque” or resistance knob to a torq of 15, I saw the power number of 9 come up. So I increased my RPM to 70, and I saw power numbers jumping between 10 and 11. So I increased my torq to 20 and dropped my cadence back to 60, and I saw a power number of 12. Are you beginning to see the pattern? It is simply the multiplication of torq and RPM divided by 100: (torq X RPM) / 100. I further tested this theory by watching and pausing the Channel 7 report they so conveniently supplied on their website. Each combination of torq and rpm shown on the TorqBoard (if you pause each number combination) can be proved out by this formula, But reader beware – this is not cycling power by any stretch – it is simply a number.

Total Power
This is the number that intrigued me the most. What in the world is total power? It’s sort of like asking, how many RPM did you do today. It doesn’t even make sense. But here’s the very cool part. While I did not take the time to figure out their formula on this one (I assume it adds the average power for each minute on a cumulative basis), I found this number to be completely captivating and motivating. WOW, was this a surprise! Here I am, looking down my nose at a completely false set of numbers in absolutely every category and indicator, and yet, the weirdest one of all; Total Power, was driving me on… pushing me to get to 400, then to 450 before the cool down, then I was bummed that I couldn’t hit 500 before the end of class. What just happened there!?!?

Bad Data Is Better Than No Data
At first blush, this heading may seem, well, sacrilegious… maybe even dangerous. Couldn’t bad data lead to terrible conclusions and even worse decisions? In life yes, but when it comes to Indoor Cycling the answer is maybe not.

At the end of the class, it was clear to me what Flywheel had done. They created a way to put tools on the bike, that measure your effort, hopefully in a consistent way. Forget about the purity of each measurement – the fact remains, as I’ve stated in previous blog posts; to wit – if you can measure it, you can improve it. Having some mechanism to measure how I’m doing today, I can subsequently measure how I’m doing next week, and next month, and see if I’m getting stronger, weaker, better or worse. Best of all though, in the moment, it provides some tools for the instructor and immediate feedback for the student. As weird as this sounds coming out of my own mouth… or keyboard… it’s all good!

Rock On Flywheel!
While I won’t even comment on the custom weight holders attached to each bike, and my disdain for contraindicated movements and activities on the bike, I must commend Flywheel for bringing tools into the Indoor Cycling environment – and doing it by retrofitting older bikes. If you can get by all the numbers being mislabeled, inaccurate and in some cases just silly, you may just find yourself working harder than you thought possible, just to get to that next level. Well done Flywheel, keep on flying!

We need to crank this concept up and spread the cycling love! What better place to start than with the day to day leaders; the people who make this thing happen every hour of every day in some corner of the world. Right now, as you read this blog, someone is leading a Spinning® or Indoor Cycling class somewhere in the world. These are the men and women who are in positions to impact the lives of every person who fills a bike seat. They are in a position to either intimidate or embrace, patronize or educate, annoy or inspire, fill a time slot or create an event. If you’ve traveled and taken classes in numerous facilities, you know these dichotomies are not “extremes” as much as they are unfortunate realities of the variation that currently exists.

At the end of the day, it’s not the program, the gym, the bikes, or even the music… it’s the leaders at the front of the class that make the biggest impact. These are our Pied Pipers, poised to take us wherever they want to go… we can only hope that it’s a place we all want to visit again, tell our friends about, and see translated into improved fitness, and skill levels.

So rather than focus on what’s wrong and how to fix it, let’s celebrate what is right and let’s paint the picture for how good this thing can really be when the right leader is at the head of the pack. Cycling Fusion is consequently on a mission to find the best of the best, and have them begin to set the standard for what indoor instruction should be. Regardless of what program or certification they represent, which club they come from, or whose bike they ride on. Let’s celebrate the individuals that do indeed embrace, educate, inspire and create an event every time they mount their bike and turn on the mic.

To that end, Cycling Fusion has created this contest to identify the Top 10 Spinning® or Indoor Cycling Instructors; first in the U.S. and then Internationally. I urge you if you are one of these instructors (or if you know one) to lock arms with us and others across the globe to change the face of Spinning or Indoor Cycling forever.

My buddy John Magowan from ICI/PRO has joined me in this quest, but we are only 2 voices out there. We need your help! Click here to go directly to our web sub-site dedicated to taking contestant applications and sample videos. We can do it!!

Rather than blather on, I’ll simply describe how we arrived at these numbers, and define each of the metrics that we tracked throughout the sessions. Our methods were as scientific as is possible outside of a university setting. We required everyone to do a New Leaf metabolic test (measuring fat/carb burn rates, VO2, Threshold, Heart Zones, etc) one to two weeks before Winter Training began on January 2nd. We also used the first 2 weeks to measure everyone’s baseline power numbers.  Having the Keiser M3 to work with was the absolute key component of tracking and improving our progress for improving Power.  From there, we kept track of these various metrics over the next 16 weeks of training, culminating with a post New Leaf test.

The percentages in the table images represent the amount of improvements each rider has achieved from the beginning of the year to about the middle of April – setting each one up for the cycling season of their lives. I graded anyone with cumulative improvements over 100% with an A, over 200% an A+, and one individual (our most improved rider) had a total of over 300% gain across multiple metrics. The highest degree of improvement in each category are highlighted by a pink cell, showing while they’ve all had huge gains, each person responds differently to training, and thus they vary by which aspect of their riding and fitness improved the most.

Training Load: These are measured in Heart Zones® training load points. Each week riders were required to increase their load by 5%

Threshold: This is their measured heart rate where the body shifts its use of fat in the aerobic energy production system to carbs (actually, glycogen) in their “anaerobic” system. This is also their Lactate threshold, and team members were given lactate tests to double confirm these threshold values.

VO2 Max: The maximum amount of oxygen your body can take in to produce energy

Sustainable Power: The MSP (Maximum Sustainable Power) measured in Watts, for 20 minutes (all tests were done twice and averaged, with 5 min of rest between efforts)

Climbing Power (5 min): The MSP for the Climbing Power Zone. It represents power output for 5 minutes. Three efforts were averaged for each of these.

Climbing Power (3 min): Same as 5 min, only at higher power levels, for 3 minutes of power generation instead of 5.

Explosive Power: This is the MSP for the Explosive Power Zone – which is 1 minute power. Three efforts were averaged.

Pocket Power: During the New Leaf tests, we manually record their power numbers each minute of the test. The power each rider generates while they are within 15 beats of their threshold is their “Power Pocket”. This is similar to Sustainable Power in that it represents a hard effort that should be able to continue for very long rides.

Watts per BPM: This is an efficiency rating. Every Watt of power you produce is at some physiological cost. The heart rate is the easiest way to measure that price you are paying. Hence, the fewer heart beats that you require to produce the same Watts, or the more Watts you can produce with the same BPM (Beats Per Minute), the more efficient you are.

Burn Rate Change %: New Leaf measures how many calories you are burning in each heart zone. As you train your metabolism, the intention is to have your body learn to burn more fat, more often, and for longer periods of time. This preserves your glycogen for harder efforts, and makes you much more efficient at producing energy, especially over longer rides.

Weight: Not everyone attempted to lose weight, but even if that was not the goal, a lighter rider should be able to produce more Watts/Lb, thus becoming stronger and faster.

Unfortunately, they have missed more than the point. If you have read our Cycling Fusion Manifesto, and subscribe to this blog, you already know how much fun riding indoors can be. This alone is a good enough reason to give indoor cycling a second look if you live in a climate that locks you out of riding outside for months on end. However, it’s the performance improvements that are the real draw of indoor cycling. There a number of cycling workouts that are nearly impossible to accomplish outside. This applies to both Heart Zone® centric workouts as well as Power workouts. Many of these workouts are designed to accomplish some of the coveted objectives of higher VO2, greater power, and an elevated threshold.

Here are a few excerpts from some diehard outdoor cyclists who are just discovering for themselves that Indoor Cycling may be the key to their next performance jump:

UK Rider
“…this started me wondering whether there is an argument for doing roller sessions even when you could ride outdoors. The problem with riding outdoors, certainly around here, is that you are often prevented from applying power for various reasons. There’s traffic lights, roundabouts, junctions, cars blocking you, downhills with tight bends etc. Then there’s also uphill parts where it is almost impossible not to go anaerobic. I could post some pictures of graphs of power distribution and quadrant analysis, but I’m sure you get the idea – my power output is much more variable outdoors, so to hit the same average power as I would on the rollers, I actually end up spending a lot of time at much lower power output and also quite a bit of time at higher power output to pull the average back up to where I want it to be.”

USA Rider
“I took 30 seconds off of my 10 mile TT PR last year and was putting out crazy watts compared to the previous year.  In road races I felt like I had an enormous depth of strength and pretty much went on a reign of terror during the spring and won a lot of races. Interestingly enough though as the time changed and I spent more time outdoors I had a smaller amount of total quality time on the bike per week than I had during the winter.  Of course I was racing and doing more threshold, VO2 max work than during the winter, but in retrospect I felt like my fitness went down during the summer.  In retrospect, if I could I would have sent the April version of me to Nationals in July.  I wasn’t bad in July, but I was better in April.”

UK Rider
“One of my points, though, is that outdoor training can be even worse than this, in that interrupting the time spent at the target power with time spent at a much lower power, might have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the training. Accumulating 60 mins of tempo over 3 hours as 5 mins tempo, then 10 mins AR (Active Recovery), then 5 mins tempo, 10 mins AR etc, may not have the same training benefit as a continuous 60 mins of tempo, on top of the inefficient use of time.”

However, all of this does come with a catch of sorts. This caveat pertains specifically to any cyclist who wants to improve their performance outside. If you are content to stay inside and ride, this is only an issue if you are pushing for the next level of fitness, or perhaps cross training for another sport. But for those that enjoy riding in both venues, this is vital to understand. Without a power indicator on your indoor bike, my current feeling is that you are almost riding blind. This may seem a bit harsh or extreme, but I’ve now cycled with a number of Indoor-Only instructors who have asked me to take them outside and give it a try. While they do have to get used the equipment, shifting and the sport in general, they typically lack the ability to climb real hills. The lack of an indicator for tension or power creates an almost artificial ceiling, where it requires a great deal of personal conviction to keep reaching for the next level and making that simulated road that much steeper.

Let’s hope that soon this will be a non-issue, as old bikes get replaced with new ones like the Keiser M3 and other indoor bikes with Power. Members, instructors and indoor cycling advocates of all kinds all need to let their voices be heard if this trend is to take hold and sweep across the nation.

Rather than give you my biased opinion of how good indoor training can be for your outdoor game, I’ll let the captain of our men’s racing team tell you in his words, and then I’ll discuss two midpoint New Leaf metabolic test results with you, one of which appears at the top of this post. Let the facts speak for themselves:

From Chris:
“Alright, I’ll be the 1st to say that I did not know what results to expect when we started the training plan this year.  I had my doubts that anything would be different in my performance once I hit the road.
 
Well, Sunday I finally got out to play for a bit.  I had 2 goals as I left the house:  stay under threshold and don’t wreck(if I did I would have had to hear “I told you so” from the estrogen based life form).
I achieved both goals as I expected, but what I did not expect was how I would feel.
 
It’s February and I felt like it was May.  The legs feel great and the motor to push them is huge. I stayed away from the usual low lying flats due to major snow melt runoff and headed away from the river.  Up.  Who doesn’t love to climb!

Now the climbing legs are not quite there yet, but the base building we have been doing showed.  Even while climbing I felt like I had more if I wanted it, but could then hear Gene yelling to stay disciplined and stick to the plan.
Even the last ½ mile climb to my house up the 10%+ grade of Logans Ferry I was pushing my usual 10mph speed well below threshold.  I pulled in the driveway feeling great. I can safely say my 1st climb of the year up that hill has never felt like that.  I wanted to go back down and do it again.
 
The training is working.  We all need to stay disciplined and stick to the plan.  The results will come.”

Fat Burning & VO2
Part of the requirements for our Winter Training program was to be tested with the New Leaf Metabolic system to establish our baselines. Our 1st goal then was to actually train our metabolism to burn more fat, and to burn it loner. Our 2nd goal was to increase our VO2 max – even before we begin the hard VO2 work. I’ve seen posts on various sites saying you can’t do that; train your metabolism and VO2. I think these posts are mainly done by those that have never been able to get definitive results in their own training plans, because the tools now clearly exist to validate that this is indeed very possible.

The two graphs here are for Nina – the captain of our women’s racing team – any myself. You will see a white line on both charts that shows where the 50% fat utilization is. What stands out is that most of the graph (and thus fat burning) is below the graph when we started the program, and now we are well above the line half way through. That is the burning more fat part.

Secondly, look at the shape of the graph. The deep diving of the first graphs indicate that our bodies were forced to burn glycogen even early in zone 4, where as now we are holding on to our fat burning machines longer, well into Heart Zone 4 before we have to tap our glycogen stores. This is good stuff!

In both manners, Nina’s results are better than mine – she is burning fat more often above 50%, and she is holding on to it longer in Zone 4. Last year she was also able to train with fewer training load points than I did, and still performed at a higher level in Italy. This may be partially due to age (I’m an old fart), but even so, it is a great example of our respective “Response to Training”. This is a training principle that can not be denied. Everyone will respond to training according to a sort of genetically determined response rate. Each person in our 16 week training plan will gain a different amount of benefit based on this individual Response to Training.

Finally, Nina’s VO2 increased 3 points, and mine increased 2 points. Our stated goal for the entire 16 weeks is 5 points for everyone. We are both well on our way there.

To my surprise, we not only had serious cyclists come out (those I expected), but we also had casual recreational riders, and even some who only ride indoors – self called “spinners” who joined us to watch Bicycle Dreams. With such a varied group, I gave everyone permission to leave whenever they (or their cheeky friends) decided they had enough. Since most of our classes are under an hour, I did not expect to get more than half to stay through to the end. Well, this movie was so compelling and emotionally engaging, not a single person left, nor stopped their pedals till it was completely over. I was amazed. That was the inspiring effect this film had on every single person there.

I’ve been interested in the RAAM for a number of years. I even copyrighted an idea I had for a reality TV story where I was going to take 8 people who never rode a bike, and train them to do this as a team… (I ultimately never got any backers). So I went into watching this with a bit of background already established. However, no matter how much you read about RAAM, or how many youtube videos you watch about it, you will probably never get the feeling of doing it like Bicycle Dreams delivered (unless you actually do it yourself).

The producers of Bicycle Dreams provided a tremendous mix of the highs and lows of this incredible race. Even as I type the word “race”, it seems almost silly to call it that. This is so different than any type of race that anyone has ever seen or participated in. RAAM is more like an exploration of in-human endurance, tenacity, desire, sleep deprivation, pain tolerance, and physical assault and abuse of every kind. Yes, believe it or not, people voluntarily do this every year.

I love to ride my bike. I love this country. I want to see this entire country on my bike, from coast to coast… in about 2 or 3 months time though. Doing it in 10 days or less is an accomplishment so monumental, it begs the question – “Who are these people!?!” This is also what this film does so well; showing you just the kind of individuals that decide to ride RAAM solo. They are not professional cyclists and athletes, but yes, they all have cycling backgrounds and extensive experience riding. It is however, qualities much beyond that which separate them from you and me.

If you are reading this blog, you either ride inside or outdoors, or both. Mark my words, this movie will leave an impression on you that you will never forget, and if you are like me, you’ll find it worth watching multiple times. In my case, I plan to make it the kick off film for Winter Training from now on. Whatever pain we put ourselves through to prepare for the upcoming season, it will never come close to what these gladiators do.

One word of caution though. You may never be comfortable complaining about any aspect of your biking again. As the saying goes, don’t sweat the small stuff… and compared to RAAM, it’s all small stuff.

The first thing to do is establish your baselines, and commit yourself to keeping good records. If you don’t keep records of where you’ve been, how will you be able to chart a clear path to where you are going. Also, if you don’t have personal proof that your training methods work, you’re likely to waste a lot of time and energy assuming that what you are doing is making you stronger, faster, fitter, when they could be doing little more than maintaining the status quo.

There is another reason for doing baseline tests. It can provide a weekly or bi weekly goal for what can be an otherwise boring season of base building. While our Winter Training group logs a lot of hours in the saddle during the winter, we use the weekends for baselining and doing a variety of testing to keep us motivated, interested, and assured that our training is working. The weekdays are used for staying steady with our training plan.

Here is a list of all of the baselines we have tested ourselves on so far:

20 min Zone 2, and 30 min Zone 3 Decoupling & Power Slide tests
Explanation: This is Efficiency Testing. What is your maximum power you can sustain without leaving the specified heart zone. As you maintain a heart rate within the zone, does your power slide. In other words, do you have to lower your power to keep your heart rate from going higher and into the next heart zone. This is what we call a “Power slide”. Improve your ability to maintain power, and you improve stamina and your overall average power. The bottom line here is we want to produce as much power as possible, without deterioration, in every heart zone – making each heart zone efficient and sustainable.

2 X 20 Sustainable Power Test
Explanation: This is testing your “functional threshold power”. This should be the power you can sustain (within 5%) for actually an hour or so, but we test it in 20 minute increments since it is more convenient to manage. This is generally the most talked about power metric there is.

Climbing & Explosive Power Tests
Explanation: Testing these types of power is usually done on different days, but since we were just wanting to get a baseline, we testing them in the same 80 minute session. These represent the highest power we can generate for these two types of Power – Climbing (3 to 6 minute efforts), and Explosive (1 to 2 minute efforts).

60 min Zone 3 Decoupling & Power Slide tests
Explanation: This is Efficiency Testing at the highest level. We started at smaller levels (shorter time periods) as we were just establishing our base building routines. However, in Heart Zones 2 & 3, a full hour is customary as a real indicator of long term capability. This tests and trains the mind as well as the body.

Resting Heart Rate
Explanation: As we enter our 6th week of training, it was important to begin to look for signs of fatigue or overtraining. It is vital that we know when and how to increase our normal recovery or restoration time periods. A resting heart rate is an essential element to check, but one must have a “normal” baseline to know what to compare it to. When your body needs more rest than normal, it is quite common for your resting heart rate to be elevated 5 or more beats from its average.

Note: Most people confuse Resting HR with Ambient HR. Your RHR can only be measured while you are still in bed, before you rise in the morning. Your Ambient HR is what your heart rate is under normal, non exercise or physical labor conditions.

Threshold Heart Rate
It should also go without saying that the very first baseline we established was our Heart Rate Threshold (the cross over point between aerobic and anaerobic energy production) – in order to establish all of our heart zones, and set our training plan.

With these baselines set, we are ready to log a lot of hours in our first big phase of training, that of Heart Rate Training with an eye towards Power. This is not a focus on Power, but it is designed to raise our Limiters to better prepare ourselves for the targeted Power work we will work on later.

Finally, having the Keiser M3 power bikes to train on allow us a very convenient way to track every aspect of our development. Without Power on the bike, we could still raise our limiters in our heart zones, but could easily falter in improving our Power. With a class mix of experienced racers to those who have never ridden since they were in grade school, we will see just how effective this tool is at both ends of the spectrum.

Yes, I have the advantage of doing a 12 week course last year, and yes I documented everything like the obsessive, compulsive person I am, but I’ve raised the bar considerably this year. This year we will be turning our notes and research into teaching outlines and repeatable workouts. This year we will be filming all 4 segments to be sold and made available to many others who can’t get to our fantastic training facility outside of Pittsburgh. This year we will be leading other facilities week by week on a journey of cycling development that is typically not done in your local neighborhood YMCA. This year we have said – “Come on in world, there is plenty of room!”

So, next week begins our New Leaf metabolic testing to establish baseline VO2 and Heart Zone® numbers for all of our students. We will set them up with accounts on Fitness Journal so that they can keep track of their workouts, and I can hold them accountable. We will require that they have their race or event selected before the very first session, so that we all know what they are training for. This way, I can remind them every week, that they have purpose and direction for every ounce of effort and every drop of sweat they leave on the floor at Global Ride Training Center.

I am going to create permanent mounts for cameras, recording equipment, and additional accessories for all the filming. I will be creating a new method for editing so that we can have all of our sessions digitized, screened, audio mixed, and published before the next week. We will have to keep a semblance of a normal operation at the club while this goes on every weekend. We will be pressed on every side to be successful individually, and as a group. Oh yeah, and I plan to blog our progress along the way. Do we even stand a chance?

Let’s define power just a little more precisely. It is not simply the amount of “work” you are doing. That is a different measurement. Sure many people say “I worked hard today in class”. You are also admonished by instructors to “Work it!”. In fact, the entire industry uses the term “work out” to refer to exercise. However, when it comes to Power, in terms of work, it is the RATE of performing that work; how fast you do it.

The easiest example is walking up a set of steps. If you walk up the steps, or run up the steps, it’s the same amount of work. However, running will require a different amount of power. To perform the same work faster, requires more Power. Hence, to make a bike go faster, you need more power. The same concept applies to climbing. The same hill will require the same “work” for a given individual, but if they climb it faster, it will require more power.

There is however, an additional “wrinkle” for power. The steeper the hill, the more work required to move the bike up that hill and essentially overcome the forces of gravity (which while constant, seems stronger as you climb steeper hills). Thus, the amount of power required for climbing will also change as the pitch of the hill changes.

So if you haven’t already drawn a rather obvious conclusion, let me draw it for you. If you just ride Rails to Trails, or only on flat terrain, with no concern for speed, then you really don’t need to train with power for your outdoor riding. You may be interested in training with power for all the reasons mentioned earlier for “non-cyclists” – leg strength, toning, fitness, etc. But as it relates to cycling – this is a technique for improving your speed or ability to climb better, or both; plain and simple.

The following are reasons an outdoor rider would want to focus on power in their training:

Power Training will improve climbing, possibly more than any other method for improving this critical aspect of cycling.
The ability to climb, and climb with speed, is one of the easiest ways to separate riders; cometitively and recreationally. While your VO2 and Threshold Heart Rate will limit the upper limits of your power (a subject for later blog), it is not something one can easily monitor. Yes, heart rate can be monitored, and you could do periodic field tests to see if your Threshold has increased, but you would still not have such an easy task of measuring VO2. Thus, you have limiters that can’t be regularly monitored, meaning you will find improving these a bit ellusive. 

Enter the Power meter. Now you can see if you are able to generate more power one class after another. From short timed interval tests, to entire workouts, your power numbers will be a great predictor for how well you will be able to face the steeper climbs once you begin your outdoor riding.

Power Training will help you target very specific types of riding; climbing, sprinting, time trialing, etc.
First and foremost, there is a training principal that we will speak about from time to time, and which has been written about extensively in other books and training resources, and that is regarding the power of training specificity. If you want to get better, stronger, faster at something, you need to practice, or train that something. Of course you need a solid fitness base beneath this sort of specific training, but given that as a foundation, each rider should be able to indentify their weaknesses or objectives, and train specifically for their improvement. 

As an example for power, if you are constantly getting dropped on a specific hill, or if you routinely need to get off your bike on a given hill, you can train indoors on a Keiser M3 or other power bike to be able to overcome that. You can get the grade of the road from a variety of online sources, or your own altimiter, look up the Watts per Pound required on Cycling Fusion’s Power & Speed for Climbing chart, and you will then know your requirements to either get up the hill without having to stop, or getting up the hill with greater velocity. 

Similarly, if you are a time trial specialist, you know that maintaining a given wattage throughout your time trial is key to improving your times. Knowing what watts you’ve generated in past races will allow you to set specific power goals for improvement. 

Sprinters also require a different type of power, utilizing predominantly fast muscle twitch fibers, and power in much higher ranges for much shorter periods of time. Keeping good records of where you start, and setting higher goals is the key to training specificity. 

Power Training will allow you to make comparisons between riders, and to evaluate your relative strength within a given field.
There is such a thing as a “rider’s profile”. It is a way to look at the different types of power an individual can generate, and predict what types of riding events or even races they are best suited for. Power is measured over a duration of time (otherwise there would be no way to determine the “rate” of work accomplished). These times are indicative to specific riding situations. 

For example, a ride (or race) with a lot of short steep climbs will require good power, but for short periods of time. If you know what your 3 minute power is, you can predict the type of performance you might have in that event. Similarly, a 30 minute time trial on a mostly flat course would allow you to just about predict the speed you can maintain on that course, and thus train for something higher depending on what kind of speed is competitive for that event. You might have terrific numbers for sprinting and climbing, but only so-so numbers for the longer events. That not only points out some relative weaknesses in your overall riding abiity, but also helps you see what events you might want to challenge yourself with.

Power Training will help you add leg strength throughout the entire season.
Given you are able to train with power indication indoors, you can now set power goals all year long, not just when your riding your outdoor bike that has the power meter. While I believe some cyclists take this to extremes, and only do power workouts, leaving heart rate training behind like it’s “old fashioned”, I do not advocate that. Both training methods are important for different purposes, and one should never negate the other. All that being said, having power indication on your indoor bike will allow you to continue to increase leg strength and the improvements in power that should follow. It is much more than strength, but with the feedback from the bike computer or console, you can make sure your RPMs or cadence also stays up to create those additional watts. 

So there you have it, plenty of reasons to train with power for both the indoor and outdoor rider. Review these well enough that you can get owner, managers or influential members thinking about why this is attractive to all the members. The easiest way for this to be dismissed out of hand is to let people get intimidated by it, or think it is only for an elite group. While there are many blogs and other resoures on the internet that do fit that profile, good indoor Power Training does not have to be that way. I say let’s bring Power Training to everyone! 


The age-adjusted maximum heart rate formula (also known as the “age regression formula“) was developed a half century ago, at a time when the science of exercise physiology was in its infancy and the technological means to create a more accurate exercise prescription or testing protocol was scarce. The result was that the “220 Minus Age” formula was neither created nor validated based on supported research or clinical testing1. Today, the health and fitness industry continued support of an archaic, unproven formula is (a) potentially hazardous to the public, (b) a severe blow to our effectiveness and credibility, and (c) a tragic undermining of the proven advances and discoveries in exercise physiology over the last half century.

Here ten reasons why “220 Minus Age” gets a failing grade:

1. The formula’s inventor acknowledges its unscientific development.
The equation was created in the early 1970’s by scientists Fox, Naughton, and Haskell who intended it to be a rough formulation and not meant to be representative of the entire population. All subject in the studies referenced were under 55 years of age and male. Although the equation has become accepted and the standard in the literature and is used widely in clinical and fitness settings, its validity is uncertain.

2. There is no scientific research to support it.
There is no scientific validation of this formula. There is simply no research to support it.

3. It is physiologically nonsensical.
There is no physiological reason why everyone of the same age should have the same maximum number of heartbeats in a minute’s time. In fact, we KNOW this isn’t true. For example, as fit individuals age, their maximum heart rate drops very little.4 Research has shown that the maximum heart rate of individuals of the same age can vary by 11 bpm based on many variables especially sport activity.5 Yet this formula claims to scientifically prescribe intensity-based training levels for individuals, even as it ignores their scientifically established individuality.

4. It is useless.
There is a common assumption that any of the equations that predict your individual maximum heart rate will be both reasonably accurate and reasonably useful. Such is not the case with “220 Minus Age.” Intended to guide users to exercise in the right cardiovascular training zones (CVT), in fact, the formula doesn’t accomplish this. “The 220-age formula designed to predict maximum heart rate is useless” according to Carl Foster, Ph.D. and past president of the American College of Sports Medicine, “because it simply is not accurate.”

5. It is elitist.
Don’t believe Dr. Foster? Well, how about trying to convince pro athletes that they should go back to using “220 Minus Age,” if they ever did. Why do we think that pro athletes somehow deserve more accurate training regimens than fitness exercisers? There is value to increased precision, especially for those seeking weight loss or true aerobic benefits from their physical activity.

6. It may be dangerous.
The formula is built into and displayed on the consoles of most pieces of cardio-equipment. But, if followed, it can be dangerous overestimating maximum heart rate in young adults and underestimating it in older people. Using 220-age forces finess enthusiasts, with the air of scientific authority, to exercise at too high or too low a cardiovascular intensity. Similarly, the formula also leads some individuals to exercise at intensities too low to achieve needed health benefits. As finess professionals, we need to ask ourselves if we could be at legal (not to mention ethical) risk for using an equation to prescribe exercise intensity which we have ample reason to suspect is inaccurate.

7. It is an embarrassment.
Savvy consumers can prove for themselves that their Max HR isn’t what the formula says it is, so how much credibility do you think they give training professionals who say otherwise? Yet working this formula is a requirement to pass most personal trainer certification tests. And, worse still, the formula is posted in most health clubs.

8. It allows us to be lazy.
In the early 1990s, I created the original five heart rate training zones, each built on 10% of your maximum heart rate. Those zones were first published in my work, The Heart Rate Monitor Book, and have subsequently been adopted as the standard CVT zones programmed into millions of cardio machines. I acknowledge that at that time, almost twenty years ago, I, too, was unwilling to change and to recommend alternative methods for prescribing CVT zones. Accepted by the ACSM, this mythical formula was just too easy, and it was even then a dogma. I have subsequently confessed my error in recommending the formula and apologized for supporting such a simplistic means of determining such an important value.

9. There are scientifically validated alternatives that are safe and effective.
To the best of my knowledge, at this time there is no equation that has been proven accurate enough in predicting maximum heart rate. None whatsoever. This does not mean that we don’t have any proven means of achieving the same end, because we do.

Sub-maximum testing protocols, or “sub-max tests,” are a straightforward method of estimating maximum heart rate, based on a physiological response to a safe level of exercise stress. One such test, “The Can-You-Speak-Comfortably Foster Test” is scientifically validated by Carl Foster, Ph.D. There are others.
And, yes, I have a business that promotes these alternative tests and protocols, yet I’m sure there are many other means of setting CVT levels that I haven’t even heard of and from which we would all benefit.

10. We have a responsibility to do our best.
Because the estimation of maximum heart rate comes from a professionally supported mathematical formula, it carries an air of scientific authority. If we health and fitness professionals want to continue to be seen as authorities, we need to do our best for our clients, whether it’s easy for us or not. Supporting the use of this outdated formula is simply not the best we can do.

Sally Edwards, MA, MBA
CEO, Heart Zones USA
Applied Exercise Scientist
Author of 22 books on health, training, performance, and fitness
Professional triathlete and runner
sally.edwards@heartzones.com

Heart Zones USA, The Training, Education, Coaching, and Club Programming Company
2636 Fulton Avenue, Suite #100
Sacramento, CA 95821 USA

November 20, 2009