![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#91 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,784
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#92 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,569
|
Quote:
But to be real clear. I do put aside test days occasionally but not very often and then it's typically a Monod style test. Ideally your FTP is continually climbing during the season making it a moving target. I know some folks that schedule a testing day every third week or so in hopes of pinning down that moving target. I'd rather be training more than testing or at least use tests that provide decent training intensity and volume. Tracking long intervals and other methods that use existing training data don't interrupt training but you can still track changes in FTP. Sure a full blown test, ideally in the form of a 40k TT, is great from time to time and it can confirm what the other data suggests. The thing about dedicated test days is that folks want to do well so they usually rest up a bit beforehand, IOW they taper for their tests. Then the tests themselves even if they feel hard like a full lab VO2 Max test to failure, don't necessarily provide that much training but folks are beat afterwards and tend not to follow it up with more time on the bike. So it can be a bit like entering race and recover mode, you back off prior to the test in hopes of good results, the test itself may be hard but probably not real long and then you try to resume regular training. Sure it's worth it from time to time but there are other ways to get good FTP estimates that don't interrupt your regular training. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#93 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Draper, Utah
Posts: 539
|
Quote:
). After a 10 min warmup I began at Tempo and proceeded to visualize myself in a race. Within a few minutes I was riding at my FTP... so I decided to continue for an hour . Despite not being overly fresh, a rather short warmup, a nasty side stitch half way through and taking a few minutes at low L3 to recover from it, my 1 hr NP came to just 3 W short of my current FTP. Since it was indoors and I didn't taper for it, nor was I super motivated, I'm happy with that result. I suspect my real FTP may be even higher now.Oh, and after 5 min recovery I did 40 more minutes at L3. You're right Dave, you can't rest on your laurels after only 1000kJ of work and let a silly test interupt your training. Not on a Saturday. ![]()
__________________
blog |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 110
|
74kg...315ftp=4.25w/kg....new cat 3 racer...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#95 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 699
|
Quote:
I'll agree to disagree on that statement.... ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#96 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 994
|
Quote:
but why this fascination with 1 hr power? unless i'm doing lots of 40k TTs all year, who the hell cares? seriously... if i can get my FTP within 3-5%... i'd say you can approximate by 5-10W to set your training zones (which are approximations themselves... everyones actual zones will be slightly different than what is predicted by those zones) that's good enough.. really easy to know if you are off the mark because you just won't be able to complete it or it will be too easy.. so you adjust.. or use that Monod (sp) approximation etc why not use your 20 min power as your test? people do those all the time so no special training/testing session is necessary and since it incorporates more anCap it's probably more indicative of all round road racing fitness... i use 20min and 10min power as well as just my perceived endurance performance for longer rides and day over day performance as my indication of fitness.. as well as plugging number into Mondo every so often my interpretation is WAY too much over think here... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#97 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 995
|
Quote:
we are Borg. Be careful ![]()
__________________
rmur |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#98 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 994
|
Quote:
c'mon man, you are not Borg... you're supposed to tell me how i'm going to be assimilated... and how my uniqueness will be incorporated into the collective and all that... Borg? yeah, right! ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#99 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,569
|
Quote:
-Dave [edit]P.S. Actually I agree with you in terms of just tracking 20 minute or power for whatever you do as your regular long training intervals. It's my primary way of tracking fitness and I know it's rmur's as well, something he often refers to as "working power". So yeah we may be pretty anal but it sounds like we're using similar methods to track power progress.... Last edited by daveryanwyoming : 02-04.-2008 at 06:34 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#100 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,624
|
Quote:
Because 20 min (and even 30 min) is so short that the results can be significantly influenced by changes in anaerobic capacity as well as by changes in aerobic fitness. The result is that some people may be misled into training the wrong way, and/or not understanding the real relationship between how they train and changes (or not) in 20 (or 30 min) power. Indeed, even you seem to implicitly recognize this fact, in that you use the Monod approach to differentiate between changes in critical power and changes in anaerobic work capacity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#101 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 994
|
Quote:
isn't this just as likely to be the result of just blindly taking FTP as THE test of racing fitness as well? a 1 hr test is just, far too long to provide a proper indication of anaerobic work capacity (an extremely important component in the repertoire of competitive cyclists).. mightn't someone foolishly think they are truly prepared as well as they could be for racing, but in fact have a gigantic hole in their fitness and as a result their potential by only looking at FTP..? you are right and this is the point of my post.. taking 1 power reading for duration x is not enough to know where you are at... that's goes for 20min and even for power at another duration, even if it has a fancy acronym like FTP... otherwise known as 1hr maximal power.. but if i was going to take 1 test it wouldn't be 1 hr power, it would be 20 min power for the reason i gave in the previous post... it's practical because i do the all the time and it probably more accurately predicts all round road racing fitness but notice i routinely take power readings at two durations 10min and 20min (2 data points).. and also less frequently at 5min and 1min.. 15sec is also another reading i take note of.. these are all done in the course of my regular training though... and then i use monod periodically to extrapolate to other duration not typically found in my training (like 1 hr TTs)... doing this, by FAR, has more utility than just looking at FTP as the gold standard for racing fitness. and yet there is this intense fascination, obsession actually, with knowing this number, and knowing it to accuracy x,y,z... what's even more crazy is most will take that 20 min number to estimate the 1 hr number... if you are going to do that, why not just forget about the 1hr number and use the 20 min number directly? but some will say... well you don't really know it because you haven't done a real 1hr test... it's crazy!! i'm sitting here in my chair having a good belly laugh... and why not just use what you can historically do for a duration to guide the intensity you train at those durations for instead of some rough estimates of what those values should likely be that you find in a table online? yeah, yeah, yeah.. good for the newbie starting out, but why are people who have been riding with power meters for years doing this? FTP... if you can estimate it to +/- 5-10W that's fine.. outside of that... who the hell cares? and what of 15sec and 1 min, 5min, 10min, 20min or 67.5min power? why am i suddenly reminded of the Fight Club movie when i hear people talking about the intricacies of FTP...? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#102 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Northumberland. UK
Posts: 183
|
Quote:
![]() PB
__________________
What do you mean your legs are hurting? Give it some welly man! Visit My Training Weblog |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#103 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,178
|
Lately as my FTP test I just turn off the music and do a 3x20 based on RPE this puts me at about 98% FTP so I ad 2% and I'm in the ballpark. Testing really is training or is it the other way around.
Quote:
__________________
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. http://www.earnharts.com/html/reala...ecific.asp?id=3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 995
|
Quote:
__________________
rmur |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#105 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,624
|
Quote:
You seem to be completely missing my point: my argument is that if you want to use power data as a surrogate for measurements of physiological attributes that influence racing success, you need to pick durations that give you as "clean" of result as possible. In terms of metabolic fitness, that means using a test that is sufficiently long (e.g., ~60 min) that the results are minimally impacted by changes in anaerobic capacity. Conversely, in terms of neuromuscular power that means using a test sufficiently short (e.g., 5 s) that the results are minimally impacted by changes in muscle fatigue resistance under such conditions (which can actually also be termed "anaerobic capacity"...but nevermind). Using durations that are either too short or too long can lead to problems, because you can't readily determine the mechanisms (and hence type of training) accounting for any improvement in power output. Anyway, given that 1) you use the Monod approach, and 2) I've stated from the outset that the ultimate reference is always to the athlete's own unique abilities, I don't think our perspectives are all that far apart...I was just explaining why I don't think a 20 min (or 30 min) test alone is a very good choice upon which to base any decisions, training levels, etc. Again, it seems that you agree w/ me, in that isn't what you do. |
|
|
|
|