Another FTP protocol question..
davey d
Posts: 41
All being equal as long as you use the same testing protocol each time you retest then you will be able to see the effects of any training you have inbetween.
From what your saying about routes etc is not easier to do a test on a turbo, popular one to do is a 20 min max effort on the turbo and use approx 95% of average output. This is only a gauge but much better to be repeated once a month to see how your progress is.
From what your saying about routes etc is not easier to do a test on a turbo, popular one to do is a 20 min max effort on the turbo and use approx 95% of average output. This is only a gauge but much better to be repeated once a month to see how your progress is.
0
Comments
-
madasahattersley wrote:I tried doing this when I first got my power meter about this time last year, then used that number to get an estimated FTP. I soon realised that I could do about 50w more on the road than on the turbo, so never went back to it. Also from what I've read, actual FTP can be anything from 88-98% of 20 minute power, which is a pretty wild range!
Q. Which one of the power meters is correct ? If you use one of them to make a calculation then you must stick with that one so you can monitor an an improvement or loss. However, you can still use the other method by using a correction factor. I.e. just add the or subtract the difference of power. Also, can't you use the power wheel on the turbo and see the differences?...................................................................................................
If you want to be a strong rider you have to do strong things.
However if you train like a cart horse you'll race like one.0 -
It's not secure, especially if using port 21. Better to use scp if you can.0
-
I knew this would happen sooner or later.markhewitt1978 wrote:It's not secure, especially if using port 21. Better to use scp if you can.25% off your first MyProtein order: sign up via https://www.myprotein.com/referrals.lis ... EE-R29Y&li or use my referral code LEE-R29Y0 -
madasahattersley wrote:davey d wrote:All being equal as long as you use the same testing protocol each time you retest then you will be able to see the effects of any training you have inbetween.
From what your saying about routes etc is not easier to do a test on a turbo, popular one to do is a 20 min max effort on the turbo and use approx 95% of average output. This is only a gauge but much better to be repeated once a month to see how your progress is.
I tried doing this when I first got my power meter about this time last year, then used that number to get an estimated FTP. I soon realised that I could do about 50w more on the road than on the turbo, so never went back to it. Also from what I've read, actual FTP can be anything from 88-98% of 20 minute power, which is a pretty wild range!
FTP is a means to an end not an end in itself.
It has three main uses:
A - A measure of your current potential
B - Set training zones
C - Estimating fatigue of workouts and consequent recovery demands.
Normalised power was introduced as a way to help with the last. Rides can have the same average power but have big differences in terms of training stress. The more variable the more stress.
By definition normalised power is greater than real power so folks like to use this for bragging rights in comparing the size of their FTPs. However the relationship is hazy at best and especially so if your ride includes times when you come to a full stop and rest for a bit.
So best advice is as above and have a shorter test of real power that you can repeat regularly and reliably. While the relationship to FTP will be a bit variable it will serve perfectly adequately for as a performance test to measure progress. It will also be OK for setting zones, these are a range and in any case the final test of whether they are "right" or "wrong" will be determined by your capacity to complete the workouts based on them.
If you actually spend a lot of time training in a different environment e.g. indoors then best advice is have 2 different tests. If they give widely differing results as you have found (especially if the same measuring device is used) this should be something to investigate.
as an e..g. I have such a situation, I can produce 30-40W more over 20minutes upright compared to being in a TT position. Neither of the FTPs calculated from this is "right"/"wrong" they are just different.
I want to sort this out over this winter, so I have 2 sets of tests/zones one for upright, one TT and am working on identifying why they are different and, hopefully, bringing the TT power up as a result.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
I used to have two FTPs too, one TT one road. The TT positions was really fast, if I changed it to increase power the corresponding reduction in aerodynamics was greater so I was slower...Insta: ATEnduranceCoaching
ABCC Cycling Coach0 -
Luke I would just do a crit race which doesn't have a steep short hill in it, jump off the front and nail it for an hour
Failing that, do a 25 on the bike you want to know the figure for?
I recently did a 55 min chaingang effort with two other guys, I averaged 350w with NP just short of 380, there were not many stops, and there were no sprints out of corners etc, think my max watts were 5-600 which I hit once or twice, so I was told it was quite a robust figure to work with...Do you have something similar around you, or a loop you could do?
Our loop would be hell during the day but we go in the evening and its not too bad, if you could be arsed then going out late at night would make most routes very stop/start free...Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0 -
Suppose that depends on how old school you want/are being told to be about winter, and of course how much time you have to work with.
I've worked all of my zones back from around 375 FTP which seems to be feeling about right when I go and do hard stuff now, and those figures were worked off the NP for that ride. Sadly it seems when I hop on the TT bike I chuck 20-30 watts away
though its clear that me doing lots of tens brought that deficit down to 15 or so watts over 20 mins, but over the full hour in a 25 which I haven't done many of the gap was pretty big. Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0 -
madasahattersley wrote:okgo wrote:Luke I would just do a crit race which doesn't have a steep short hill in it, jump off the front and nail it for an hour
Failing that, do a 25 on the bike you want to know the figure for?
I recently did a 55 min chaingang effort with two other guys, I averaged 350w with NP just short of 380, there were not many stops, and there were no sprints out of corners etc, think my max watts were 5-600 which I hit once or twice, so I was told it was quite a robust figure to work with...Do you have something similar around you, or a loop you could do?
Our loop would be hell during the day but we go in the evening and its not too bad, if you could be arsed then going out late at night would make most routes very stop/start free...
Lol, you forgot the part of the race where you get caught and do a reverse breakaway instead
Just got back after producing some shockingly poor numbers. Was hoping for 360 for an hour and ended up with 340 for just under 20. D'oh!
I guess that's a sign that I need to start incorporating some tempo work. Test today was probably the first time I've gone 'hard' in about 8 weeks, and I felt like a sack of spuds!
I'd hardly call an output of 340w for 20 minutes shockingly poor.
according to the below chart typical 20 min power output for a Cat 1 is about 4.72w/kg which assuming typical 70kg weight is 330W.......
http://texastailwind.wordpress.com/2009 ... -location/
Perhaps you need to give Sir Dave a call.....0 -
American chart, what is anyone to draw from that?
Anyway, he will be 1st cat in no time, and what is poor to one person clearly isn't to another.Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0 -
well I guess going from 5.2w to 4.6w/kg is a blip.......could be a sign of overtraining?0
-
madasahattersley wrote:carrock wrote:well I guess going from 5.2w to 4.6w/kg is a blip.......could be a sign of overtraining?
Various possible explanations I can think of (not excuses of course, I admit I was rubbish today)
-Fatigue from riding 2x as much as usual over the last 5 weeks
-Race bike vs winter bike?
-Not done any Tempo or Threshold work yet, been focussing on endurance
-Difference in power meter readings
-Good weather vs rubbish weather
-Legs having a bad day
-Recent changes in bike set up
That's about all I've got. I'll be interested to see what I can do in a few weeks time for my next test. I haven't yet got the turbo out and done any hard sessions (trying to keep myself mentally fresh for Portugal training camp) but might be worth doing to catch up.
Training with a power meter and power decreasing and not a clue as to why - very entertaining.
Was heart rate normal for that sort of power? Or does heart rate confuse you?0 -
Just to be clear, I'm only picking out the bit I want to comment on, as the rest of your post makes sense.bahzob wrote:By definition normalised power is greater than real power so folks like to use this for bragging rights in comparing the size of their FTPs. However the relationship is hazy at best and especially so if your ride includes times when you come to a full stop and rest for a bit.
Normalized Power isn't the issue with stops, it's how it's often miscalculated that's the issue.
And neither is bragging rights a fault of NP, that's a fault of people who choose to brag about stuff.
The relationship between (1-hour) NP and FTP is not hazy at all. For a hard hour's ride, Normalized Power is far more likely to be closer to FTP than average power, even in the most extremely variable rides. Of course when the effort is quasi-steady state, then the two values converge anyway.
Don't forget, average power (arithmetic mean) is also a mathematical construct and is no more "real" than any other form of mathematical averaging. That's why, for instance, root mean square (RMS) is often used as a measure of alternating current voltage and not a regular average (arithmetic mean). RMS tells us what the the equivalent direct current voltage would be at same power.
It's then a matter of choosing which form of mathematical averaging of cycling power data provides better insight into physiological capabilities. Average Power is useful of course when things are steady state, but is often misleading, particularly when the effort becomes variable in nature, a point you've already made. Hence why other forms of mathematical averaging are used.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm only picking out the bit I want to comment on, as the rest of your post makes sense.bahzob wrote:By definition normalised power is greater than real power so folks like to use this for bragging rights in comparing the size of their FTPs. However the relationship is hazy at best and especially so if your ride includes times when you come to a full stop and rest for a bit.
Normalized Power isn't the issue with stops, it's how it's often miscalculated that's the issue.
And neither is bragging rights a fault of NP, that's a fault of people who choose to brag about stuff.
The relationship between (1-hour) NP and FTP is not hazy at all. For a hard hour's ride, Normalized Power is far more likely to be closer to FTP than average power, even in the most extremely variable rides. Of course when the effort is quasi-steady state, then the two values converge anyway.
Don't forget, average power (arithmetic mean) is also a mathematical construct and is no more "real" than any other form of mathematical averaging. That's why, for instance, root mean square (RMS) is often used as a measure of alternating current voltage and not a regular average (arithmetic mean). RMS tells us what the the equivalent direct current voltage would be at same power.
It's then a matter of choosing which form of mathematical averaging of cycling power data provides better insight into physiological capabilities. Average Power is useful of course when things are steady state, but is often misleading, particularly when the effort becomes variable in nature, a point you've already made. Hence why other forms of mathematical averaging are used.
Agree with all of the above, however I've also seen enough misinformation about this over the years to feel that in the context of this topic, setting a base protocol for testing, its best to be black and white and advise against using NP for such tests. It's not that you ignore NP, you will get plenty of data from rides and it can certainly be used to benchmark the results of a standard flat power test.
To an extent I'd argue some of the comments above support this. It would be a lot easier to understand a trend regarding performance /variation between circumstances/time if it was supported by a set of test results over time conducted under the standard conditions and free of extraneous factors.
Further the difference between that standard figure and NP is in itself interesting additional information and may give an insight into how to train/perform best. If you only every use NP you don't have a standard for comparison and imo are the worse off as a result.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
Oh, I'm in agreement that if you want to know your FTP, there are more reliable means. And also testing needs to be relevant to the specific circumstances of a rider.
Still, I consider the benefits of a good FTP estimate to be significant and worth taking a little trouble. fortunately, for those that choose to use it, the new version of WKO coming out soon will have a means to automatically determine your FTP.
Nevertheless, tracking of longer term trends in longer duration NP (provided the input data and calculations are correct) is quite a valid means of tracking overall progress with fitness, often because it's a reflection of the type of riding you happen to do.0 -
madasahattersley wrote:Bit closer to what I wanted today, 360 with considerably more fatigued legs. Can't think what happened on Tuesday though, must have just been a bad day! :?
Perhaps you tried much harder after the troll bite?0
