CompuTrainer’s Coaching Software versus 3D Software: Assessing value for interval training

The CompuTrainer comes with three software options for loading rides: 3D software, Coaching Software, and the Real Course Video. Each of these packages has advantages and disadvantages for the particular type of workout you want to complete on the CompuTrainer. My “everyday” training is done using either the 3D software or the Coaching Software, saving my Lake Placid RCV for “special” occasions :). So, I thought I’d offer up my thoughts about the relative advantages of the two packages, specifically with respect to interval training.

Until last week, I followed the prescription in the Performance Improvement Gurantee (PIG) program, and created interval courses using the Coaching Software to match the required intensities for each week of the program. For example, if the program called for two 10-minute intervals at 95% of my functional threshold power (FTP) and four 5-minute intervals at 100% of my FTP, I would plug in the numbers to create a course that would push me to the prescribe wattage.  While the Coaching Software is valuable for creating specific courses that match the exact level of intensity you want, I had a few issues with this approach for intervals, and I have since switched to using the 3D software instead. Here’s why: aesthetics and spin scan.

3D v. Coaching Software: Aesthetics and Spin Scan

From an aesthetic standpoint, the coaching software doesn’t offer a simulation of the road, like the 3D software does. This is what you see while you ride:

True, this software is packed with second-by-second graphic representation of your effort. But, let’s be honest, it’s not quite as visually stimulating as what you see when you use the 3D software, which looks like this:

And, while I do loathe that cheating metal man, he does keep me motivated, and helps me to push beyond barriers I thought I couldn’t break. So, I’ve made my peace with the metal man, and I like to ride with him.

Even so, the aesthetic issue is a minor one because during a gut-busting interval, I’m not looking at the screen anyway. I’m usually head-down, frothing at the mouth, screaming for my Aunt Sally to come and rescue me from the painmaker that is the CompuTrainer.

There is a more important reason to use the 3D software: the Coaching Software doesn’t offer spin scan analysis. As I wrote recently, that spin scan analyzer is an important tool for gauging efficiency of form – especially when you are tired, at the end of your third 100% of FTP 10 minute interval, for example. For me, spin scan is a key advantage of the CompuTrainer over a standard trainer.

Again, while the Coaching Software serves its purpose, I want those spin scan numbers. So, 3D software it is.

Individual intervals

In addition to switching over to the 3D software for my intervals, I’ve also made some other changes. And, please, don’t laugh at me while I explain.

When I set up my intervals in the Coaching Software, I would include them as part of one continuous ride. So, when I finished, I only had average and max data for the entire ride. Here’s how the CS report looks:

The graph demonstrates I maintained a fairly steady wattage for the first three intervals, but it looks like I fell off the rails for the final two. (I remember this workout – it was excruciating…) Yet, I don’t have the precise data for each individual interval. I can see that I averaged 169 watts for the entire ride, but because this was a mix of both hard effort and active recovery, I have no way of knowing exactly what my averages were for each interval. While riding, I try to keep track by looking at the screen, but this was far from the level of precision I know I can get from the CompuTrainer.

So, last week, it occured to me that I should do each interval as a distinct ride, which would allow me to see the data that was specific to each interval.

Duh. How long have I been riding the CompuTrainer – and this strategy just occured to me now?

Throughout the past few months, when I would look at the large number of rides included with the 3D software, I thought to myself, “I wonder why they have so many short rides [i.e., 1-6 miles] loaded into the 3d software? Who’s doing such as short ride?”

Uh, yeah, they sound like perfect distances for repeated intervals, don’t they? (And, I have a PhD? I’m single-handedly providing enough evidence to support the book sense-common sense dichotomy.)

Last week, I finally wised up. The plan, after warmup, was to ride 3×10 minute intervals at 95% of FTP, with 5 minute active recovery, followed by a cool down.

I selected a 1.9 mile loop course (easyloop.3dc) that had moderate elevation changes, from -2.0% to 3.7%. I didn’t want a course that had steep downhills, as I find it too challenging to maintain wattage on the downhills. I also didn’t want too-steep uphills, as this may break the continuity of the rhythm of the interval. So, this loop seemed just right, to quote Goldilocks.

I set the software to permit two laps (at right), and did my warm up to ensure that would be enough distance for a 10 minute interval. As I completed the two laps for each interval, the software permitted me to save each interval as a separate performance report. Then, I simply had to press “start” when I was ready to go again. It worked like a charm!

For those of you who like the graphic display of the Coaching Software, you can still review your 3D data using the coaching software, by selecting the reports found in the “rider performance” folder (Not the “reports” folder).

There were key advantages to this new approach to keeping track of my interval efforts. I was able to tell instantly that while I was maintaining relatively consistent wattage across each of the intervals (210, 208.1, 209 watts, respectively), my heart rate was increasing just a bit, from 159.6 bpm in the first interval to 161.3 bpm in the third interval. This increase is hardly catastropic, but it’s cardiac drift nonetheless. While the science is not 100% certain about causes of cardiac drift, it could be a signal of less-than-optimum hydration or increases in core temperature–or likely both.

I was also able to tell that my pedaling efficiency slipped a bit from the first to the third interval, from an overall spin scan number of 76.1 to 74.3, with my right leg continually less efficient than my left leg (a recurring theme for me…). Interestingly, however, it was my left leg, not my right leg that decreased in efficiency. My right leg stayed in the 73 range, while my left leg went from 78 to 75.

All of this data was important information to have, and I’m looking forward to having more precise data for comparison in the weeks to come. It’s just 10 weeks to go until Ironman Lake Placid, and while I’m closer than I was 3 months ago to realizing my dream goal of a 17 mph average, I’m not quite there yet. There’s plenty more intervals to come.

Do you have particular preferences for CompuTrainer software? I’d love to hear your tips and tricks.

Comments are closed.