un possibile riassunto generale di zone e riferimenti fisiologici. Può essere utile
va ricordato, però, che sono costrutti +/- arbitrari per includere passaggi di stato o "soglie" che non sono puntiformi ma appunto +/- graduali -dipende da cosa identificano- transizioni di stato (a cui va aggiunta la variabilità circadiana).
PS l'FTP indicata nello schema è quella "Wko4-5" ossia aggiornata come parametro a
mFTP+FRC cioè concetti (e loro sostenibilità) del tutto simili a CP+W'
(gombloddo!! sono stati travisati anche loro e hanno pure scritto queste cose nel libro 3^ edizione...ma evidentemente qualcuno se l'è perso cit.
)
Vedi l'allegato 261943
)
Andrew Coggan
13 mar 2002, 17:18:00
a
[email protected]
I'm sure most people here remember the classification scheme I
proposed:
http://www.topica.com/lists/wattage/read/message.html?sort=&mid=901936066&start=0
When I formulated this, I based the "levels" on 40k TT power, since the
latter correlates highly with lactate threshold, 40k is a standard TT
distance, and one of the better uses for a power meter (IMO) is as a
pacing device in flattish TTs. A suprising (to me, anyway) number of
people, however, responded that they didn't know their 40k power, either
because they hadn't done such a TT, or if they had, they didn't use
their power meter. One simple solution to this issue is to just do a TT
in training (y'all *do* do TTs in training, don't you? <g>). However, an
alternative would be to simply base the system on critical power, as
determined using the method we've been discussing. In essence, this is
really the same thing, because critical power also correlates highly
with lactate threshold (and in fact, you can view critical power as
being your "functional threshold power"), as well as with TT performance
(e.g., Smith JC, Dangelmaier BS, Hill DW. Critical power is related to
cycling
time trial performance. Int J Sports Med 20:374-378, 1999). The
advantage here is that it may be easier to work a few relatively short
time-to-fatigue tests into one's training to track changes in critical
power, vs. doing a full-blown TT. So, in case anybody finds that
approach more appealing, here are the seven levels expressed as a
percentage of critical power (as determined using bouts of 1 to 10 min
duration):
level 1, recovery: <48% of critical power
level 2, endurance: 49-65% of critical power
level 3, tempo or fartlek: 66-79% of critical power
level 4, threshold: 80-92% of critical power
level 5, aerobic power: 93-105% of critical power
level 6, anaerobic capacity: >105% of critical power
level 7, anaerobic power: N/a
The verbal descriptions and perceived exertion guidelines I gave
previously would remain the same, but the heart rate ranges would need
to be expressed as a percentage of heart rate at critical power (which
will be closer to maximal heart rate than 40k heart rate). I won't
attempt to derive new heart rate guidelines, however, since there will
be some individual variability (again, see my initial post), and the
whole point is to have a power based scheme anyway.
Note that this "translation" from 40k power to critical power is based
on the assumption that you can sustain 85-90% (mean 87.5%) of your
critical power for a 40k. This assumption is based on somewhat limited
data, so there is room for a little variation in the above percentages.
However, it does make good sense, in that leve 5, aerobic power,
overlaps 100% of critical power. This is what you would expect, since
critical power as determined using bouts of 1-10 min duration is going
to close to, although somewhat lower than, power at VO2max.
Anyway, I thought that some might find this alternatve formulation
useful...it is, though, essentially just another way of expressing the
same ideas (i.e., training by power with levels defined relative to
lactate threshold).
c era una volta coggan che faceva pure le percentuali con la critical power
