LT, FTP and 2*20 Question
Comments
-
All my rides go into GC.Training and racing
Edit -I do not target specific pb's -unless ftp testing.Death or Glory- Just another Story0 -
Yes, I believe he's referring to the Critical Power curve in Golden Cheetah. It's the aggregation of all your best intervals over the season rather a specific PB defined by you. It covers intervals from 1 second through to your longest ride. Golden Cheetah then plots each individual ride against this aggregated curve.Trev The Rev wrote:CP curve? Critical power curve? Golden Cheetah? Is this created in software from data downloaded from all your rides, training and racing? Or do you set PBs specifically?
(This CP curve is of course your best single interval. It says nothing of how many intervals you could repeat, and to what intensity.)0 -
fish156 wrote:
Yes, I believe he's referring to the Critical Power curve in Golden Cheetah. It's the aggregation of all your best intervals over the season rather a specific PB defined by you. It covers intervals from 1 second through to your longest ride. Golden Cheetah then plots each individual ride against this aggregated curve.Trev The Rev wrote:CP curve? Critical power curve? Golden Cheetah? Is this created in software from data downloaded from all your rides, training and racing? Or do you set PBs specifically?
(This CP curve is of course your best single interval. It says nothing of how many intervals you could repeat, and to what intensity.)
Do you look at heart rate in Golden Cheetah?0 -
Not often.Trev The Rev wrote:fish156 wrote:
Yes, I believe he's referring to the Critical Power curve in Golden Cheetah. It's the aggregation of all your best intervals over the season rather a specific PB defined by you. It covers intervals from 1 second through to your longest ride. Golden Cheetah then plots each individual ride against this aggregated curve.Trev The Rev wrote:CP curve? Critical power curve? Golden Cheetah? Is this created in software from data downloaded from all your rides, training and racing? Or do you set PBs specifically?
(This CP curve is of course your best single interval. It says nothing of how many intervals you could repeat, and to what intensity.)
Do you look at heart rate in Golden Cheetah?0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:lef wrote:Trev The Rev wrote:Thanks, I'm with you.
I have seen 1 min power improve and 20 min remain static - which was expected given the training I was doing but I was hoping for an improvement over 20 min as a freeby.
One reservation I have about power data (not that I don't think the data should be recorded) is the fact that the watts numbers show power output but do not show how hard the rider is working to achieve that power.
My understanding is heart rate shows the effort, power is the output of that effort. Until recently I though FTP and resulting power zones was everything. However after a change in coaching I believe what is just as (more?) important is how efficiently you are creating that power and what energy systems you are using which other testing has pinpointed.
The longer I train with power I realise though important it is just a piece in the puzzle. At the moment I am mainly using power to ensure that durations are kept constant (almost to the watt when on rollers) yet focusing primarily on specific heart rate zones based on lactate threshold identified from gas analysis and not from a power output.
Interesting. Have you found the relationship between lactate threshold identified by gas analysis and heart rate stable? I assume you would expect lactate threshold to be reached closer to maximum heart rate as you progress and do regular tests to re set the heart rate levels?
I think the whole point of approaching it from this perspective is that they are not stable but vary depending on fitness. I'm not a coach or someone who knows too much about this stuff so excuse me if I get this wrong. So the ramp test confirmed at what point I moved from using fat as a primary energy source to carbs and also somewhere along this line lactate threshold (not 60min HR which is typically static) can be identified by analysing the gases exhaled. HR zones are set from this LT which indeed may change throughout the season which retesting would show. This in direct contrast to setting a static HR that is not related to fitness. This means the training zones are not fixed and change with regards to fitness. Using gas analysis it shows how efficient the rider is at certain intensities which no doubt highlights additional opportunities for training e.g good fat burner yet poor utilisation of carbs at high intensity.0 -
Critical Power is not a curve. It is one value representing the slope of the maximal work-duration relationship.0
-
Got that the wrong way round.lef wrote:My understanding is heart rate shows the effort, power is the output of that effort.
Power is the effort, and heart rate happens to be an outcome of that effort and a few other things as well.0 -
Can't it be considered a curve? CP60 is the singular value for 60 minutes, CP20 for 20 minutes, and so on. Therefore the curve is that line which joins all values?Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Critical Power is not a curve. It is one value representing the slope of the maximal work-duration relationship.0 -
No.fish156 wrote:
Can't it be considered a curve? CP60 is the singular value for 60 minutes, CP20 for 20 minutes, and so on. Therefore the curve is that line which joins all values?Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Critical Power is not a curve. It is one value representing the slope of the maximal work-duration relationship.
Critical Power is not a value for any specific duration, but rather a theoretical estimate of maximal power sustainable over a long period without fatiguing. There is no such thing as CP60 or CP20 etc. There is only one critical power.
In practice though, and when you use maximal tests of appropriate durations (between a few minutes and about an hour), the slope of the work-time relationship is pretty linear, and so the slope of the work-time curve (i.e. CP) is a very good estimate of FTP.
http://www.trainingandracingwithapowerm ... power.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9239986
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15677008
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10496116
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/82878560 -
:?Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
No.fish156 wrote:
Can't it be considered a curve? CP60 is the singular value for 60 minutes, CP20 for 20 minutes, and so on. Therefore the curve is that line which joins all values?Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Critical Power is not a curve. It is one value representing the slope of the maximal work-duration relationship.
Critical Power is not a value for any specific duration, but rather a theoretical estimate of maximal power sustainable over a long period without fatiguing. There is no such thing as CP60 or CP20 etc. There is only one critical power.
In practice though, and when you use maximal tests of appropriate durations (between a few minutes and about an hour), the slope of the work-time relationship is pretty linear, and so the slope of the work-time curve (i.e. CP) is a very good estimate of FTP.
http://www.trainingandracingwithapowerm ... power.html
Err, so are you saying it doesn't exist- but it works quite well?Death or Glory- Just another Story0 -
No, I am saying that critical power as incorrectly defined by an earlier post doesn't exist.mattshrops wrote:Err, so are you saying it doesn't exist- but it works quite well?
CP is a conceptual model describing the maximal work-duration relationship, and when that concept is applied carefully the associated model can provide a sound method to estimate FTP. It can also provide information about a rider's anaerobic work capacity.0 -
Thanks for improving my terminology. (It's important such that people can discuss topics like this effectively.) What I've been referring to as a "critical power curve" is actually a maximal power curve from which is derived a critical power.
[My next task is to understand the impact (if any) of using CP (simply because it's readily available in Golden Cheetah), rather than FTP in defining the intensity of intervals during training sessions.]0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
No, I am saying that critical power as incorrectly defined by an earlier post doesn't exist.mattshrops wrote:Err, so are you saying it doesn't exist- but it works quite well?
CP is a conceptual model describing the maximal work-duration relationship, and when that concept is applied carefully the associated model can provide a sound method to estimate FTP. It can also provide information about a rider's anaerobic work capacity.
Would it be better to do a specific test to find actual FTP rather than estimate it using a conceptual model?0 -
You'll get no argument from me on that.Trev The Rev wrote:Would it be better to do a specific test to find actual FTP rather than estimate it using a conceptual model?
Pithy Power Proverb: "The best predictor of performance is performance itself" - A. Coggan
Keep in mind that not everybody has ready availability of conditions/venue suitable to perform such a test, hence why there are other means to establish a good estimate.
Hence Andy Coggan's "7 Deadly Sins", which I write about here:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/05/ ... -sins.html
and discuss some common mistakes in testing/establishing FTP here:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2009/ ... ftp-2.html0 -
I would suggest:fish156 wrote:Thanks for improving my terminology. (It's important such that people can discuss topics like this effectively.) What I've been referring to as a "critical power curve" is actually a maximal power curve from which is derived a critical power.
[My next task is to understand the impact (if any) of using CP (simply because it's readily available in Golden Cheetah), rather than FTP in defining the intensity of intervals during training sessions.]
i. use a power level or % of a power "anchor point" (irrespective of what you've based it on) as a starting guide only
ii. make sure you are clear about what it is you are seeking to achieve with such intervals, try to avoid doing things that are a bit Bob Cunis*
iii. use prior interval session as a guide to what to do next time. Typically intervals are done such that they are fairly close to what you are maximally capable of for the duration - hence if they were "easy / comfortable" then up the ante next time, and if you cracked, then drop it back a bit next time. They are self correcting like that.
* if you don't get that, then google John Arlott's quote about Bob's medium pace bowling0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Got that the wrong way round.lef wrote:My understanding is heart rate shows the effort, power is the output of that effort.
Power is the effort, and heart rate happens to be an outcome of that effort and a few other things as well.
Ha well that does prove that I indeed don't know what I am talking about :?0 -
Tom Dean wrote:bahzob, all you are doing is a PB test, then training x watts below that, based on trial and error. Why is a 20 min MAX a better basis for 20 min INTERVALS than FTP? I would argue the higher end of the workouts you propose are way over ambitious which suggests you are just plucking figures out of the air.
Overall I think this thread rather proves my opinion.
When you say "all you are doing is a PB test" that's sort of the point. It is easy to conduct and understand the results of.
Unlike most of the blather here. e.g. "Thanks for improving my terminology. (It's important such that people can discuss topics like this effectively.) What I've been referring to as a "critical power curve" is actually a maximal power curve from which is derived a critical power."
Further it can be fine tuned so you prioritise the PBs associated with your event. And for estimating intervals it's more accurate than an arbitrary measure based on a non-standardised test that takes no account of individual variation.
And at the end of the day the only thing that matters are your PBs and how your season's bests compare to these.
As for whether the workouts are ambitious well you don't get better by not being ambitious. There is a simple reason why some people are better than others, they train harder.
As an example of the confusion that using FTP and frig factors cause some idiots have posted elsewhere in this forum that 20 min intervals should be done at 80% of FTP, which is just feeble.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
bahzob wrote:Tom Dean wrote:bahzob, all you are doing is a PB test, then training x watts below that, based on trial and error. Why is a 20 min MAX a better basis for 20 min INTERVALS than FTP? I would argue the higher end of the workouts you propose are way over ambitious which suggests you are just plucking figures out of the air.
Overall I think this thread rather proves my opinion.
When you say "all you are doing is a PB test" that's sort of the point. It is easy to conduct and understand the results of.
Unlike most of the blather here. e.g. "Thanks for improving my terminology. (It's important such that people can discuss topics like this effectively.) What I've been referring to as a "critical power curve" is actually a maximal power curve from which is derived a critical power."
Further it can be fine tuned so you prioritise the PBs associated with your event. And for estimating intervals it's more accurate than an arbitrary measure based on a non-standardised test that takes no account of individual variation.
And at the end of the day the only thing that matters are your PBs and how your season's bests compare to these.
As for whether the workouts are ambitious well you don't get better by not being ambitious. There is a simple reason why some people are better than others, they train harder.
As an example of the confusion that using FTP and frig factors cause some idiots have posted elsewhere in this forum that 20 min intervals should be done at 80% of FTP, which is just feeble.
The problem with your methods here Bahzob is they don't require algorithms and computer software to work out what training to do.
Plenty of people have improved their numbers but fail to set a PB on a real road all year.
I think you can dig yourself a hole if you try to set PBs too often though. Been there done that.0 -
bahzob wrote:Tom Dean wrote:bahzob, all you are doing is a PB test, then training x watts below that, based on trial and error. Why is a 20 min MAX a better basis for 20 min INTERVALS than FTP? I would argue the higher end of the workouts you propose are way over ambitious which suggests you are just plucking figures out of the air.
Overall I think this thread rather proves my opinion.
When you say "all you are doing is a PB test" that's sort of the point. It is easy to conduct and understand the results of.
Unlike most of the blather here. e.g. "Thanks for improving my terminology. (It's important such that people can discuss topics like this effectively.) What I've been referring to as a "critical power curve" is actually a maximal power curve from which is derived a critical power."
Further it can be fine tuned so you prioritise the PBs associated with your event. And for estimating intervals it's more accurate than an arbitrary measure based on a non-standardised test that takes no account of individual variation.
And at the end of the day the only thing that matters are your PBs and how your season's bests compare to these.
As for whether the workouts are ambitious well you don't get better by not being ambitious. There is a simple reason why some people are better than others, they train harder.
As an example of the confusion that using FTP and frig factors cause some idiots have posted elsewhere in this forum that 20 min intervals should be done at 80% of FTP, which is just feeble.
You have a propensity to introduce strawman arguments. Find me someone who suggests that FTP is the only number that matters and that other power-duration values of relevance are to be ignored.
As for the critical power comment, if someone is interested in what it is (or has a misunderstanding about it) then what's wrong with actually learning what it actually is rather than remain ignorant?
The irony is the testing undertaken for the critical power concept "blather" it is precisely what you are on about.
Further, with appropriate testing one can better understand how one is generating their power, and that may well lead you to alter the training. A simple example would be two pursuit riders who currently complete the same event in the same time and with the same power output, yet their individual training and physiological development needs may be somewhat different.
As for doing efforts at a set % range of FTP (or whatever anchor point you choose) then one cannot be critical of that unless one actually knows what the rider is seeking to achieve for that day and how it fits in the context of the rest of their training. Getting 20-min "intervals" at 80% or so of FTP with some short breaks sounds fine by me. Especially if it's a turbo session, between harder days and you need a little opportunity to rest out of the saddle, have a drink, change the track playing in your earphone etc... But if that's the day set aside specifically for threshold power development, then yes they probably should be riding harder than that.0 -
Yet there are some additional insights that can be gained from understanding the data, and which can lead to better/faster progression, so why should we shun it?Trev The Rev wrote:The problem with your methods here Bahzob is they don't require algorithms and computer software to work out what training to do.
If someone is not setting a PB with better power, they sure were not going to set it with less power. IOW the reason they may not have cracked a PB was due to other factors (e.g. environmental conditions or course selection).Trev The Rev wrote:Plenty of people have improved their numbers but fail to set a PB on a real road all year.
Agreed. Constantly chasing power bests in training is not sustainable in several ways, and can be counter productive.Trev The Rev wrote:I think you can dig yourself a hole if you try to set PBs too often though. Been there done that.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Yet there are some additional insights that can be gained from understanding the data, and which can lead to better/faster progression, so why should we shun it?Trev The Rev wrote:The problem with your methods here Bahzob is they don't require algorithms and computer software to work out what training to do.
If someone is not setting a PB with better power, they sure were not going to set it with less power. IOW the reason they may not have cracked a PB was due to other factors (e.g. environmental conditions or course selection).Trev The Rev wrote:Plenty of people have improved their numbers but fail to set a PB on a real road all year.
Agreed. Constantly chasing power bests in training is not sustainable in several ways, and can be counter productive.Trev The Rev wrote:I think you can dig yourself a hole if you try to set PBs too often though. Been there done that.
If they really did have more power, but perhaps all they have done is do a lot of measuring and got a lucky measurement.
I agree understanding the data can have additional insights but converting those insights into meaningful action is the key.
As well as environmental conditions and course selection (if you don't count course PBs) they might have a race position which compromises power more than any aerodynamic gains - particularly if their power data is mostly derived whilst on a road bike rather than their TT bike.0 -
So we can sum up by saying that, even if you have a powermeter it is, in fact, still possible to train poorly. Well butter my ar$e, who knew?0
-
More strawmen, but in any case let's deal with it.Trev The Rev wrote:As well as environmental conditions and course selection (if you don't count course PBs) they might have a race position which compromises power more than any aerodynamic gains - particularly if their power data is mostly derived whilst on a road bike rather than their TT bike.
If you are training for a TT then presumably one does some training in TT position. It's what we here in Australia call following the Sam Kekovich principle.
Keep in mind that with a "useless" data overlord of a power meter one can not only determine how their power output is progressing with training (in TT position) but also their individual aerodynamic properties (and how that might be affected by things like position and equipment changes). One can also readily examine post hoc if they are pacing well or otherwise, and be able to fast track improvements in TT pacing.0 -
Indeed it is, and I see it commonly, even with experienced riders.Froomes Edgar wrote:So we can sum up by saying that, even if you have a powermeter it is, in fact, still possible to train poorly. Well butter my ar$e, who knew?
The difference is, with the data one is able to examine the actual training in reasonable detail (as opposed to what a rider thinks they were doing) to understand what mistakes have been made and be able to take appropriate corrective action. Without it you are left to guesstimating or assuming what might have been going on.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Indeed it is, and I see it commonly, even with experienced riders.Froomes Edgar wrote:So we can sum up by saying that, even if you have a powermeter it is, in fact, still possible to train poorly. Well butter my ar$e, who knew?
The difference is, with the data one is able to examine the actual training in reasonable detail (as opposed to what a rider thinks they were doing) to understand what mistakes have been made and be able to take appropriate corrective action. Without it you are left to guesstimating or assuming what might have been going on.
Where I see the major advantage is in having data which is directly comparable no matter what or where, track, hills, flat TT, turbo, mountain bike, wind, heat, 10 years ago 5 years ago, yesterday. Just wish they were cheaper and more reliable.0 -
If you spent the time you spend inventing power strawmen on the internet in a minimum wage job, you'd have enough to buy 3 SRMs by now.0
-
Froomes Edgar wrote:If you spent the time you spend inventing power strawmen on the internet in a minimum wage job, you'd have enough to buy 3 SRMs by now.
Their price and reliability is a strawman?0
