| Schedule | |||||||||
Updated 1/11/07: 1 Saturday class January 12 at 10 am. Prices: January 2008 Class Schedule
Gold Pass :
Winter Seasonal Pass :
Sign-up Options:
**Saturday classes: Some classes are added and will be announced for rainy Saturdays. As classes fill quickly, you may reserve a bike by:
FAQ How do M2 Revolution’s CycleOps Indoor Cycles and classes compare to a standard spin fare? This is really an apples and oranges comparison. Spin bikes provide no measurement of work output, your primary fitness variable. Most do not even have cadence counters. Standard spin bikes seats tend to be oversized and squishy. I have always been amazed that the “Spin World” in all these years has neglected the two most important workout factors in a spinning or cycling class: work output (watts) and cadence. Only at M2 Revolution do riders have the technology that allows them to address the critical factors in properly organizing a workout – measured work output (watts) and cadence. Voila! Classes at M2 Revolution are organized around an individual’s fitness, and which can be easily measured with the CycleOps Indoor Cycle. There is no inane jumping up and down, doing pushups, or any of the other silliness that seems to populate the Spin world. In short, classes are not a random exercise experience. Riders will be able to see their fitness grow as they generate higher power all within the context of a varied 50-60min class. My experience is that riders of every ability enjoy seeing tangible fitness gains. In order to instruct at M2 Revolution, instructors will have been trained/certified by M2 – standard spin certifications do not sufficiently qualify an instructor to teach at M2 Revolution. How are classes at M2 Revolution different than a computrainer class? CycleOps versus Computrainer is a more appropriate comparison than to a spin bike, and it boils down to new technology versus old technology. M2 was a pioneer in using indoor cycling devices, including computrainer, for performance training. A two-time professional Ironman Champion, and one of the stronger cyclists in the sport at the professional level, indoor cycling sessions (50-70min twice per week) using either a windtrainer or computrainer were critical aspects of M2’s own training. As a coach, M2 has long been unique in insisting that his athletes use either this device or other such devices that gave approximate measurements of work output. However, with the advent of the CycleOps Indoor Cycle, a rider now has access to superior technology and a better workout experience. M2 Revolution chose the CycleOps for its riders because of its advantages in these areas:
Convenience With the micro-adjustability of the CycleOps allowing a rider to exactly replicate any position, there is no need to go through the hassle of any of these bike logistics. Accuracy in Measurement For science and data enthusiasts, the CycleOps is the most accurate measurement device available. The CycleOps Powertap hub features 8 strain gauges that precisely measure the torque and resulting power being generated by the rider, accurate to +/- 1.5% - Computrainer relies instead on an algorithm to calculate wattage. Although the Computrainer is reasonably accurate, M2 prefers very accurate, as in the CycleOps. Uniformity and Accuracy from one Indoor Cycle to another Where the CycleOps technology directly measures the work output, a rider can ride on any CycleOps Indoor Cycle and be assured that the primary fitness variable (work output = watts) is accurate and consistent from one device to another. On the other hand, a single Computrainer unit will generally be consistent from one workout to the next, but will often vary considerably from one unit to another. In a home environment where one rides the same device each time, this variability of rider data is perhaps not an issue – data might not be accurate but it is at least consistent. However, in a group class environment where one often rides different devices, one is left wondering if increases or decreases in wattage are accurate, and whether one is truly gaining (or losing) fitness. Taking Power to the Roads - Consistency and Accuracy in Measurement For the rider that wants to take training to the next level and train with power on the roads, CycleOps uses the exact same technology and device, the Powertap hub. Once again, with the CycleOps you have accuracy and consistency in measurement. Thus, the wattage that you see in your indoor cycling class will be the precise wattage that is measured on the roads, and vice versa. Ability to incorporate Standing The CycleOps Indoor Cycle has an important advantage over the computrainer where it is very easy to incorporate standing efforts into a workout. Anyone who has ridden a computrainer device will know that the ability to incorporate cycling specific standing efforts is marginal at best. With the CycleOps Indoor Cycle, standing efforts of any kind, long and rhythmic, or short and intense, are just as if you were out on the roads.
Resistance Mode and Pedaling feel Riders will quickly discover that the pedal stroke on the CycleOps has a much smoother feel than that of riding on the computrainer. The weighted flywheel gives one the sense of cruising down a freshly-paved road. On the CycleOps Indoor Cycle, riders apply resistance as they would on their own bike, by turning a grip shift and increasing or decreasing the work effort. Increasing or decreasing cadence has the same effect on work effort, just as on the roads. Computrainer users who ride in ergometer mode do not experience this realistic relationship between cadence and work output – the workload is the same regardless of cadence. Although ergometer mode simplifies resistance a bit, not having work output increase/decrease with cadence is unnatural and not at all related to what one experiences on the road. M2 believes that a rider realizes greater training benefit by practicing with CycleOps’ more natural resistance where cadence and smoothness of pedal stroke are directly related to work effort – just as on the road. How long do classes last? Classes generally last 50-60 minutes. Longer 1.5hr sessions are reserved for riders with a very high degree of fitness and who are seeking an epic indoor workout. Riding 1.5hrs should not be done on a frequent basis as it becomes tedious and improvement is stifled. The vast majority of riders (Ironman candidates, Century riders, fitness enthusiasts, etc.) can better improve their fitness by sharpening their effort to fit within a one hour time frame. It is always interesting to see the 2-3hr epic spin sessions, where much of the time is random movement with little resistance - punching air so to speak. Were these riders able to measure their work effort as at M2 Revolution (average wattage, kilojoules), their sense of workout heroism would be largely deflated, and they might better consider how to accomplish the same amount of work in a fraction of the time. What about using HR for training? Use of Heart Rate monitoring can be an interesting reference on training effort, but it is important to note that it is an indirect measurement, and thus of secondary relevance. In the absence of the technology that now exists on the CycleOps Indoor Cycle to measure work output, HR-based training was the next best way to try and understand work effort. While an interesting reference, there are important limitations to making HR-based training an effective training tool. Examples of these limitations are the following: ** HR can be affected by things other than your work effort – heat, hydration, stress, quality of sleep, and duration of work effort. ** HR measurement does not immediately reflect one’s effort – thus HR monitoring provides limited or no usefulness for shorter intervals where there is considerable delay in HR response to a particular effort. ** The relevance of HR in increasingly diminished as the duration of exercise increases. Athletes will observe that HR will simply drift up over time, even though RPE will not necessarily have changed. ** HR can be a better indicator of effort for some athletes, less so for others. Having worked with hundreds of athletes, it is interesting to see how for some athletes HR is consistently tied to watts/RPE, and for others much less so. ** Steady HR > Diminishing Work Output Of course, a rider can begin at a lower HR in anticipation this # rising and thus attempt to better effect a sustainable pace/effort. Yet, it is plain to see that it would be far more effective to directly measure the task at hand - work output in watts - thus eliminating guess-work and extraneous variables. ** Establishing Useful (credible) HR training zones HR training that involves arbitrary numbers (220, 180 minus age, etc.) might be methods, but they have little to do with determining an optimal training course. It is bewildering to see a group of folks out on the roads practicing “HR restricted” rides, where they all must observe the same artificial HR ceiling. Oh well, at least one can say that it is a method. For more on this subject, readers can refer to the M2 article, Tall Tales on HR Training. |
