Pacing during a Functional Threshold Power Test

sergen

I've discovered the hard way that Messrs Allen and Coggan weren't fibbing when they stressed the importance of good pacing when doing a FTP test. Having been off the bike for a year I did the test to establish my current FTP but I set my screen up to display only the lap time and didn't look at the 'live' power data at all. I figured that because I'd been off the bike for so long it was pointless to look at power data because I had no idea if I was capable of doing 150 watts or 250 watts - so thought it was better to just try and ride on RPE alone.

Well, a year away from the bike also messes with your RPE as well as your FTP! It was only after I downloaded the file that I discovered I'd gone out way too hard in the opening 5 minutes and the power line just dropped off down for the remaining 15 minutes. I also went out far too hard during the 5 minute 'all-out' effort before the 20 minute test and again the power line just dropped off.

Taking 95% of my 20 minute effort gave me a FTP that was surprisingly low, even by my poor standards of current fitness. But the real give away was the IF for the whole ride which included long periods of very easy pedalling just to get to and from the road where I do the test - 0.9!!

Conclusion - bad pacing does indeed seriously lower your average power!

t.m.h.n.e.t

Are you basing RPE on anything in particular? I'm not going anywhere with that, I just happen to be looking at the simplified Borg Scale 8)

sergen

Just working on the basis that 1 is easy and 10 extremely bloody hard. When I used to cycle 4/5 times a week I remember how easy it was to just 'dial in' to an effort of 250w and hold it without the need to look at a power meter. It was like your body was itself calibrated to recognise the effort and score it according to RPE. But when you've been off the bike for a long time that calibration completely goes. Even though I started both my 5 and 20 minute intervals way too hard I was under no doubt in my head at the time that although the pace was hard it was also sustainable for the duration of the interval.

I'll be retesting again within the next few days - and definitely using my power meter to pace this time. If it feels a bit too easy at the 5min mark I'll start to increase the wattage.

Alex_Simmons/RST

The good thing with threshold efforts is that they are self correcting. You found out you went a bit hard, so now you know you dial it back a bit next time.

Pithy Power Proverb: "Power calibrates PE, PE modulates power" - Charles Howe

springtide9

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

The good thing with threshold efforts is that they are self correcting. You found out you went a bit hard, so now you know you dial it back a bit next time.

Pithy Power Proverb: "Power calibrates PE, PE modulates power" - Charles Howe

It reminds me of pacing for the Concept 2 rowers....

You keep pace for your previous best, and if you feel you have more left in the tank towards the end, you increase pace. The next time, you use your new improved pace as the starting pace, and repeat.
You have your pacing right (and best effort) when there is nothing left to give at the end (as long as you were reasonably fresh for the effort)

jibberjim

springtide9 wrote:

You keep pace for your previous best, and if you feel you have more left in the tank towards the end, you increase pace. The next time, you use your new improved pace as the starting pace, and repeat.
You have your pacing right (and best effort) when there is nothing left to give at the end (as long as you were reasonably fresh for the effort)

That doesn't work though if you're improving - as otherwise you'd always have something left independant of pacing improvements.

And if you're not improving - why bother?

springtide9

jibberjim wrote:

springtide9 wrote:

You keep pace for your previous best, and if you feel you have more left in the tank towards the end, you increase pace. The next time, you use your new improved pace as the starting pace, and repeat.
You have your pacing right (and best effort) when there is nothing left to give at the end (as long as you were reasonably fresh for the effort)

That doesn't work though if you're improving - as otherwise you'd always have something left independant of pacing improvements.

And if you're not improving - why bother?

I guess it depends on how often you perform these routines and how you feel at the end. You also have to use a bit of common sense, as if you know you've made a stepped improvement and you are feeling 'fresh', then you'll adjust your starting pace accordingly.
And obviously, if you 'blow up' - then this doesn't necessarily mean you have misjudged what you are capable of, but have to take into account how you felt before hand etc.

I guess the key is to engage your brain and read between the lines, rather than following advice to the letter. But this might not work for other people; it has been advice I have been given (for more than just rowing), and it seems to work for me (rowing, running, cycling etc)

Trev The Rev

sergen wrote:

I've discovered the hard way that Messrs Allen and Coggan weren't fibbing when they stressed the importance of good pacing when doing a FTP test. Having been off the bike for a year I did the test to establish my current FTP but I set my screen up to display only the lap time and didn't look at the 'live' power data at all. I figured that because I'd been off the bike for so long it was pointless to look at power data because I had no idea if I was capable of doing 150 watts or 250 watts - so thought it was better to just try and ride on RPE alone.

Well, a year away from the bike also messes with your RPE as well as your FTP! It was only after I downloaded the file that I discovered I'd gone out way too hard in the opening 5 minutes and the power line just dropped off down for the remaining 15 minutes. I also went out far too hard during the 5 minute 'all-out' effort before the 20 minute test and again the power line just dropped off.

Taking 95% of my 20 minute effort gave me a FTP that was surprisingly low, even by my poor standards of current fitness. But the real give away was the IF for the whole ride which included long periods of very easy pedalling just to get to and from the road where I do the test - 0.9!!

Conclusion - bad pacing does indeed seriously lower your average power!

One of the problems is working out if your FTP has improved or if you have just improved your ability to pace the test better or if you are just learning to hurt yourself a little more. Has your FTP improved or has your motivation improved? Sooner or later your mind will rebel and you won't be able to push yourself as hard in a test. Your data will show no improvement and you will adjust your training accordingly. Probably doing more training. Excessive testing can lead to breakdown and over training.

amaferanga

Trev The Rev wrote:

sergen wrote:

I've discovered the hard way that Messrs Allen and Coggan weren't fibbing when they stressed the importance of good pacing when doing a FTP test. Having been off the bike for a year I did the test to establish my current FTP but I set my screen up to display only the lap time and didn't look at the 'live' power data at all. I figured that because I'd been off the bike for so long it was pointless to look at power data because I had no idea if I was capable of doing 150 watts or 250 watts - so thought it was better to just try and ride on RPE alone.

Well, a year away from the bike also messes with your RPE as well as your FTP! It was only after I downloaded the file that I discovered I'd gone out way too hard in the opening 5 minutes and the power line just dropped off down for the remaining 15 minutes. I also went out far too hard during the 5 minute 'all-out' effort before the 20 minute test and again the power line just dropped off.

Taking 95% of my 20 minute effort gave me a FTP that was surprisingly low, even by my poor standards of current fitness. But the real give away was the IF for the whole ride which included long periods of very easy pedalling just to get to and from the road where I do the test - 0.9!!

Conclusion - bad pacing does indeed seriously lower your average power!

One of the problems is working out if your FTP has improved or if you have just improved your ability to pace the test better or if you are just learning to hurt yourself a little more. Has your FTP improved or has your motivation improved? Sooner or later your mind will rebel and you won't be able to push yourself as hard in a test. Your data will show no improvement and you will adjust your training accordingly. Probably doing more training. Excessive testing can lead to breakdown and over training.

Eh?

Alex_Simmons/RST

amaferanga wrote:

Eh?

Get used to it. There will be more to come.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

One of the problems is working out if your FTP has improved or if you have just improved your ability to pace the test better or if you are just learning to hurt yourself a little more. Has your FTP improved or has your motivation improved?

It's a moot point though, since the test is "functional" then all aspects that enable one to increase power are accounted for.

As for how much pacing influences final power output - well that depends on how poor the pacing was. But if pacing was only out by a bit, then overall average power from a quasi steady state maximal effort will still be a very good guide and only affect the final outcome by a handful of watts.

If one is concerned that at first attempt pacing was pretty ordinary, then just do it again the following week.

Trev The Rev wrote:

Sooner or later your mind will rebel and you won't be able to push yourself as hard in a test. Your data will show no improvement and you will adjust your training accordingly. Probably doing more training. Excessive testing can lead to breakdown and over training.

No one here has suggested "excessive testing", whatever that is.

However if you mean something along the lines of attempting to set a power PB every week, then I agree that may be counter productive.

Pithy Power Proverb: "Testing is training, training is testing" - Andy Coggan

Or put another way, doing regular interval work is itself a form of testing, even though you may not be doing the intervals at 100% of the maximal power for the duration, indeed I wouldn't recommend it anyway. Doing threshold workouts, such as 2x20-min at 90% of 20-min max power is a very good workout. It will be pretty clear from RPE after a week or three if it's hard enough and needs adjusting.

Trev The Rev

I had in mind people trying to set a power PB every week and or trying to set a PB in a 10 or 25 time trial every week.
I'm pointing out that well motivated athletes will always strive to do better than last time in a performance test and that trying harder can skew results and lead people into thinking they have improved because the data says they have when all that has happened is they have pushed themselves harder.

Best frequency of testing probably depends on the athlete and their longer term goals and where they are in their training..

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

I had in mind people trying to set a power PB every week and or trying to set a PB in a 10 or 25 time trial every week.
I'm pointing out that well motivated athletes will always strive to do better than last time in a performance test and that trying harder can skew results and lead people into thinking they have improved because the data says they have when all that has happened is they have pushed themselves harder.

Best frequency of testing probably depends on the athlete and their longer term goals and where they are in their training..

Apart from learning how to go harder not being valid (keep in mind that training is not just a physical activity), then what you say makes sense. In the end, if you are actually producing more power, then you have improved. It just may be that part of it is down to better pacing, working out how hard to go, and improved fitness.

Testing frequency depends on many things. In the early stages of fitness development, maybe every 6 -8 weeks, then after that you really don't need to do it all that often. With a power meter, you will pick up trends in fitness through regular interval work and PE vs power.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I had in mind people trying to set a power PB every week and or trying to set a PB in a 10 or 25 time trial every week.
I'm pointing out that well motivated athletes will always strive to do better than last time in a performance test and that trying harder can skew results and lead people into thinking they have improved because the data says they have when all that has happened is they have pushed themselves harder.

Best frequency of testing probably depends on the athlete and their longer term goals and where they are in their training..

Apart from learning how to go harder not being valid (keep in mind that training is not just a physical activity), then what you say makes sense. In the end, if you are actually producing more power, then you have improved. It just may be that part of it is down to better pacing, working out how hard to go, and improved fitness.

Testing frequency depends on many things. In the early stages of fitness development, maybe every 6 -8 weeks, then after that you really don't need to do it all that often. With a power meter, you will pick up trends in fitness through regular interval work and PE vs power.

I agree with what you say here. But I'm not sure what you mean by learning to go harder not being valid?

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

I agree with what you say here. But I'm not sure what you mean by learning to go harder not being valid?

What I'm saying is that learning to be able to "suffer" more is part of improving one's performance, as much as actually getting fitter, improving technically, strategically etc.

bahzob

This thread is an example of why I have shifted to conducting a ramp test for FTP and zone calculation purposes.

It's quick to conduct, consistently repeatable and pretty much takes away pacing as a variable. It's especially helpful if your form is shifting quickly.

It's also proved to be a remarkably good predictor in terms of power for intervals ranging from 3 mins to an hour.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I agree with what you say here. But I'm not sure what you mean by learning to go harder not being valid?

What I'm saying is that learning to be able to "suffer" more is part of improving one's performance, as much as actually getting fitter, improving technically, strategically etc.

I agree with you, learning to suffer is a very big part of improving performance. The problem can be that the level of suffering can mask a loss of fitness or a fitness improvement.

danowat

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I agree with what you say here. But I'm not sure what you mean by learning to go harder not being valid?

What I'm saying is that learning to be able to "suffer" more is part of improving one's performance, as much as actually getting fitter, improving technically, strategically etc.

I agree with you, learning to suffer is a very big part of improving performance. The problem can be that the level of suffering can mask a loss of fitness or a fitness improvement.

Yes, learning to cope with the psychological stresses of hard efforts are a big part of improving performance, infact, I'd say that is one of the biggest things I have learnt this year........however........

I don't agree that being able to cope with suffering can mask loss of fitness or fitness improvement, because in my (admittedly limited) experiance, the two go hand in hand, I can cope with the mental stress of pushing hard much, much easier when I have physical form, than when I don't.

amaferanga

danowat wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I agree with what you say here. But I'm not sure what you mean by learning to go harder not being valid?

What I'm saying is that learning to be able to "suffer" more is part of improving one's performance, as much as actually getting fitter, improving technically, strategically etc.

I agree with you, learning to suffer is a very big part of improving performance. The problem can be that the level of suffering can mask a loss of fitness or a fitness improvement.

Yes, learning to cope with the psychological stresses of hard efforts are a big part of improving performance, infact, I'd say that is one of the biggest things I have learnt this year........however........

I don't agree that being able to cope with suffering can mask loss of fitness or fitness improvement, because in my (admittedly limited) experiance, the two go hand in hand, I can cope with the mental stress of pushing hard much, much easier when I have physical form, than when I don't.

Confidence and positive thoughts lower PE.

danowat

And physical form give confidence and positive thoughts , it's cyclic, like I said, the two go hand in hand IME

mattshrops

Trevtherev, If you've gone harder/faster then you have improved. It doesnt matter how much you suffered- does it??
Failing to see the point about that, after all it is an all out effort so your suffering should be at max.

Trev The Rev

mattshrops wrote:

Trevtherev, If you've gone harder/faster then you have improved. It doesnt matter how much you suffered- does it??
Failing to see the point about that, after all it is an all out effort so your suffering should be at max.

Very few people can suffer to their maximum in training or during minor events to the same extent they can when it really matters. I have worked with people who's training levels are so much lower than their 'big day' performance you would think a ringer had been brought in.

In my opinion there are many factors which have nothing to do with fitness but a lot to do with performance. Even in an event like a time trial.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

Very few people can suffer to their maximum in training or during minor events to the same extent they can when it really matters. I have worked with people who's training levels are so much lower than their 'big day' performance you would think a ringer had been brought in.

In my opinion there are many factors which have nothing to do with fitness but a lot to do with performance. Even in an event like a time trial.

I also know people who can go harder in training than they do on race day, until you address race day psychology issues.

But you imply a large difference. Quantify it.

Put it this way - there's no such thing as a race day miracle.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I also know people who can go harder in training than they do on race day, until you address race day psychology issues.

But you imply a large difference. Quantify it.

Put it this way - there's no such thing as a race day miracle.

Alex,

Here is a little thought experiment.

You have 2 riders who have been training well and responding as you would expect. You have them both in for a test and expect them both to have improved over the previous month. All conditions are the same as for the last test, time of day, easy days before the test etc etc.

The day before the test rider 1 was promoted at work and got a big pay rise. Rider 2 got the sack without compensation.

In the test rider 1 had increased his average power by 10 watts. But rider 2 (despite giving his best) was 10 watts down on last month.

You know rider 2 has not lost fitness because of his power meter data over the last month so you also know his mind is not where it should be.

Mind you I have seen people respond differently to stress, some get so angry they perform better than expected to events which would knock others back.

So to conclude, work stress can mask a fitness improvement. I agree there are no race day miracles but I have come across people who are losers week in week out in training but come the big day they beat everyone.

I have also shown, with this little thought experiment, one of the advantages of training with power as opposed to just testing on a regular basis.

Trev.

Alex_Simmons/RST

I'm not discounting the influence of motivation on race day at all (indeed I've said so myself before), but 10W is hardly what I'd race day miracle variance, so I think we are essentially in agreement.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I'm not discounting the influence of motivation on race day at all (indeed I've said so myself before), but 10W is hardly what I'd race day miracle variance, so I think we are essentially in agreement.

Agreed. In fact there is very little of what I have read of your posts where I don't agree with you.