Training at FTP

Max Bridges

If training at or just under or just above FTP is so effective, how come so few people improve by racing every week? So many timetriallists seem to lose form as the season goes on yet by definition riding 10s above FTP and 25s at FTP and 50s etc under FTP should be optimal training. Perhaps riding at FTP does not in fact improve FTP? Doing a lot of training at or around FTP seems to work only for a limited number of weeks before stagnation.

Should a Polorised approach be considered?

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

borisface

Isn't this sort of question more appropriate to timetriallingforum?

Max Bridges

borisface wrote:

Isn't this sort of question more appropriate to timetriallingforum?

Plenty of people on here train at near FTP. Probably many do too much of it.

cougie

If you train over your FTP then you will improve your FTP. Works for me.

You cant do that in a race as you'll blow.

BrandonA

form = fitness * freshness

If you are a couch potato you will be fresh but have no fitness, thus have poor form.

If you train you will have a good level of fitness but if you overdo it your freshness will drop, thus have poor form.

There is a good section on this in "Training and Racing with a Power Meter by Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan"

Also, if you are well below your potential you will see larger gains in improvement. If however you are at your maximum (or near it) you can't expect large gains and to some extent you are training to maintain rather than improve.

Tom Dean

People who race every week do so because they want to race every week, not because they want to reach the highest possible peak of fitness at some given point. Who has said that racing every week would be a good way of achieving that? Optimal training for one race and optimal training for lots of races across a long season are not the same.

Why do you assume that those who race every week only train at around FTP?

Regarding your point that racing close to FTP is the same as training at FTP: the intensity may be similar, but the interval length (if you can call a single interval an interval) and volume are very different, not to mention the need to limit training in the preceding days if you want to maximise freshness on race day. Had none of this occurred to you?

Should a polarized approach be considered? - it depends.

Max Bridges

Tom Dean wrote:

People who race every week do so because they want to race every week, not because they want to reach the highest possible peak of fitness at some given point. Who has said that racing every week would be a good way of achieving that? Optimal training for one race and optimal training for lots of races across a long season are not the same.

Why do you assume that those who race every week only train at around FTP?

Regarding your point that racing close to FTP is the same as training at FTP: the intensity may be similar, but the interval length (if you can call a single interval an interval) and volume are very different, not to mention the need to limit training in the preceding days if you want to maximise freshness on race day. Had none of this occurred to you?

Should a polarized approach be considered? - it depends.

Tom, yes all that occurred to me, we seem to agree that racing every week is not the way to build fitness. We also agree that too much at or near FTP is not a good idea. In fact I do think too many people do too much at or near FTP on top of racing. Many do 2 x 20 at or near FTP a few times a week then race every week on top then wonder why they stagnate or go backwards. We agree you need to rest or taper for freshness.

I tend to think a more Polorised approach is better and too many people do too much at or near FTP, not enough level 2 and not enough very high intensity intervals.

secretsqizz

Max Bridges wrote:

If training at or just under or just above FTP is so effective, how come so few people improve by racing every week? So many timetriallists seem to lose form as the season goes on yet by definition riding 10s above FTP and 25s at FTP and 50s etc under FTP should be optimal training. Perhaps riding at FTP does not in fact improve FTP? Doing a lot of training at or around FTP seems to work only for a limited number of weeks before stagnation.

Should a Polorised approach be considered?

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

You need to convince the likes of the Bahzobs and other FTP obsessives on here... you'll lose! lol

ozzzyosborn206

It depends also on what races you are doing every week, if you are doing the same level races you are going to stagnate because you adapt to that level and then do not continue to push, I would bet if you were to race every week but race at a higher level as and when you are able to you would continue to improve.

Max Bridges

secretsqizz wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

If training at or just under or just above FTP is so effective, how come so few people improve by racing every week? So many timetriallists seem to lose form as the season goes on yet by definition riding 10s above FTP and 25s at FTP and 50s etc under FTP should be optimal training. Perhaps riding at FTP does not in fact improve FTP? Doing a lot of training at or around FTP seems to work only for a limited number of weeks before stagnation.

Should a Polorised approach be considered?

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

You need to convince the likes of the Bahzobs and other FTP obsessives on here... you'll lose! lol

FTP obsessives ,, they do exist then.

BenderRodriguez

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

if you are doing the same level races you are going to stagnate because you adapt to that level and then do not continue to push, I would bet if you were to race every week but race at a higher level as and when you are able to you would continue to improve.

I would think that most people don't 'stagnate'. Rather, they simply reach the natural limits of their ability, and once this happens no amount of racing harder events and such is going to change things much.

Despite the traditional fetish that is made of 'work', the level you perform at is largely a matter of what genes you have. Sure, you still need to train to make the best of what you have been gifted but, for example, one's VO2 max will in all likelihood be at 98% plus of what it ever will be after perhaps just 6 months of dedicated training. One's lactate shuttle system can be developed for perhaps a couple of more seasons, and one's efficiency can always be improved, although this give marginal gains.

That said you might be one of the unfortunates for whom training has next to no benefit, no matter how much they do or what form it takes!

Tom Dean

It all depends what you are training for and where you are in your cycle. A high volume of L4 certainly has its place.

I have never heard it recommended for during a busy period of TT racing. I assume Trev has an axe to grind against someone specific on the timetrialling forum but has been banned...

BenderRodriguez

Max Bridges wrote:

I tend to think a more Polorised approach is better and too many people do too much at or near FTP, not enough level 2 and not enough very high intensity intervals.

Maybe, but people like Stephen Seiler who argue for the polarised approach typically refer to elite athletes training 20 plus hours per week. If 4 hours plus of this time is spent doing VO2 max level efforts, that is quite a work load, and complementing this work with more steady-state training makes a lot of sense if the athlete is not to implode. However, does the same still hold for someone training for just 5 hours per week? According to Seiler such a rider should do an hour of VO2 max type training, plus 4 hours of nothing higher than level 2. I am not sure that this would really work better than doing most of the time available around threshold.

Again, remember that even if polarisation is the way most elite level athletes train, lesser beings might not be able to maintain the truly high-level types of intensities such athletes can sustain, so they might need to resort to efforts closer to threshold as the 'next best' option. Given that they aren't thrashing themselves so hard there is probably less need to stick to lower level efforts on their other training days, so once again they will get the biggest return from going harder on these days too.

As to what is best for a rider doing say 12 hours a week, I don't really know but really would like a definitive answer. Perhaps, as ever, it all depends on the individual, so there is no 'right' and 'wrong' answer here.

Max Bridges

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

I tend to think a more Polorised approach is better and too many people do too much at or near FTP, not enough level 2 and not enough very high intensity intervals.

Maybe, but people like Stephen Seiler who argue for the polarised approach typically refer to elite athletes training 20 plus hours per week. If 4 hours plus of this time is spent doing VO2 max level efforts, that is quite a work load, and complementing this work with more steady-state training makes a lot of sense if the athlete is not to implode. However, does the same still hold for someone training for just 5 hours per week? According to Seiler such a rider should do an hour of VO2 max type training, plus 4 hours of nothing higher than level 2. I am not sure that this would really work better than doing most of the time available around threshold.

Again, remember that even if polarisation is the way most elite level athletes train, lesser beings might not be able to maintain the truly high-level types of intensities such athletes can sustain, so they might need to resort to efforts closer to threshold as the 'next best' option. Given that they aren't thrashing themselves so hard there is probably less need to stick to lower level efforts on their other training days, so once again they will get the biggest return from going harder on these days too.

As to what is best for a rider doing say 12 hours a week, I don't really know but really would like a definitive answer. Perhaps, as ever, it all depends on the individual, so there is no 'right' and 'wrong' answer here.

Not just elite athletes, it is well worth reading what Stephen Seiler has to say here.

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

BenderRodriguez

Max Bridges wrote:

Not just elite athletes, it is well worth reading what Stephen Seiler has to say here.

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

I have.

Elite endurance athletes train 10-12 sessions and 15-30 h each week. Is the pattern of 80 % below and 20 % above lactate threshold appropriate for recreational athletes training 4-5 times and 6-10 hours per week? There are almost no published data addressing this question.

OK, he does say a little more but this is largely a restatement of his 'black hole' analogy. Also, he repeats his old mantra that:

training sessions end up being performed at the same threshold intensity.

However, I would think that few cyclists actually do that, what with hills, sprints against mates and so forth.

Then there is still the question of variances in individual response.

Max Bridges

I think the point is that many riders do end up having averaged near threshold and pushed too hard up hills, chasing faster riders etc, then end up too tired to do do their intervals properly. They do fall into the black hole going too hard on their easy days and then not hard enough on their hard day because their easy say ended up near threshold.

By the way I liked your question about TSS over on the other forum. They think you are me on there too.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Max Bridges wrote:

If training at or just under or just above FTP is so effective, how come so few people improve by racing every week? So many timetriallists seem to lose form as the season goes on yet by definition riding 10s above FTP and 25s at FTP and 50s etc under FTP should be optimal training. Perhaps riding at FTP does not in fact improve FTP? Doing a lot of training at or around FTP seems to work only for a limited number of weeks before stagnation.

Should a Polorised approach be considered?

The premise is incorrect, and assumes that the only manner in which one improves FTP is to ride at / near FTP. Fitness is an integral of the whole training picture, amongst other factors. Ignoring all those factors other than the time one might ride at race pace is a significantly incomplete picture.

Gradually losing form in the latter stages of a racing block is pretty normal, and the reasons for it are multifactoral.

Stagnation will happen if training does not change, irrespective of what training you are doing.

The questions (and answers) don't then lead one to assume a "polarised" approach is the right one.

olake92

In reply to the OP, I imagine that most amateur riders don't improve as much as they could because one TT/week is not enough! Two TTs/week is probably still not enough. Aside from those TTs, how much does the 'average joe' train? A long (slow/cafe) ride on the weekend, a TT and a turbo session each week is not enough - 5 good sessions a week with 3 focused on FTP would be better. Furthermore, I guess that many on restricted training hours do not periodise or plan their training for greatest effect. If these riders who don't improve much trained better, they'd improve more!

I would highlight 3 vital components of riding well: aerobic endurance, FTP, VO2 max. Shorter (10-25m) time trials 'mostly' do away with the need for a high VO2 max and aerobic endurance. There are plenty of overweight TTers who set very good times yet would struggle to even finish a long training ride at a decent speed.

I think it would be a bit OTT to decry FTP training as either a waste of time or the holy grail, however, it's worth realising that it's not the only defining factor in cycling fast (depending on what event you're riding).

In terms of road racing, I imagine it's much the same with regards to training time and quality, with the added problem of losing 2 or 3 days/week to tapering, thus lessening available training time. Don't forget, there are plenty of road racers who improve vast amounts while racing every week, because they have their training in order.

BenderRodriguez

Max Bridges wrote:

I think the point is that many riders do end up having averaged near threshold and pushed too hard up hills, chasing faster riders etc, then end up too tired to do do their intervals properly. They do fall into the black hole going too hard on their easy days and then not hard enough on their hard day because their easy say ended up near threshold.

It is true that Seiler has used this as a fall-back position in recent years: that is claiming that when he was originally arguing against training in the 'mediocre middle' what he really mean was to say 'Don't go too hard on recovery days, and ensure you are recovered enough to really go hard on on your hard days'. Now he seems to have gone back to his original position of actually arguing that training around threshold simply isn't effective.

Personally, I think that what is most likely is that any type of training that is predominantly aerobic, from 5 minute plus intervals, to '2 x 20's, to 'sweetspot' to 'tempo' to long, steady 'endurance rides, can all effectively raise one's aerobic threshold as long as intensity is suitably matched to duration. This is simply because one way or another all these activities trigger the PGC-1α signalling mechanism that leads to adaptation. Beyond that what matters is how much time one has available, what sort of events one is targeting, one's individual responses to the various intensities of exercise and the sort of training one prefers to do. (And even here variety is important to avoid staleness.)

Above all, there is no 'magical' method or coaching plan that will turn you in the the rider you wish you were. What counts is your genetics!

Max Bridges wrote:

By the way I liked your question about TSS over on the other forum. They think you are me on there too.

Perhaps that is why no one has answered it yet!

As a follow up it might be worth asking how TSS can be truly useful when it seem to vary for different riders at different intensities, especially given that another thread on the TTF has already led to some raised on high-intensity turbo sessions to admit that they find a couple of hours at 'tempo' pace leaves them knackered. I have the opposite problem when it comes to the toleration of exercise!

Tom Dean

Max Bridges wrote:

I think the point is that many riders do end up having averaged near threshold and pushed too hard up hills, chasing faster riders etc, then end up too tired to do do their intervals properly. They do fall into the black hole going too hard on their easy days and then not hard enough on their hard day because their easy say ended up near threshold.

I expect the many riders who do this will be along soon to thank you for your advice.

BenderRodriguez

olake92 wrote:

I imagine that most amateur riders don't improve as much as they could because one TT/week is not enough!...how much does the 'average joe' train? A long (slow/cafe) ride on the weekend, a TT and a turbo session each week is not enough...

In my experience most competitive cyclists are actually chronic over-trainers. Unfortunately, this can never make up for an intrinsic lack of talent! As Michael Hutchinson puts it in his book on The Hour.

There is a dirty secret about training - one that no one tells because it undermines a fundamental modern belief. It is this: you can't be everything that you want to be. Not so far as sport is concerned anyway. You have to train, but for all but a lucky handful it is not enough. The greater part of athletic ability seems to be genetic rather than trained.

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

I think the point is that many riders do end up having averaged near threshold and pushed too hard up hills, chasing faster riders etc, then end up too tired to do do their intervals properly. They do fall into the black hole going too hard on their easy days and then not hard enough on their hard day because their easy say ended up near threshold.

I expect the many riders who do this will be along soon to thank you for your advice.

A little harsh I think. After Stephen Seiler has built a whole academic career pretty much on the basis of arguing just this!

Max Bridges

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

If training at or just under or just above FTP is so effective, how come so few people improve by racing every week? So many timetriallists seem to lose form as the season goes on yet by definition riding 10s above FTP and 25s at FTP and 50s etc under FTP should be optimal training. Perhaps riding at FTP does not in fact improve FTP? Doing a lot of training at or around FTP seems to work only for a limited number of weeks before stagnation.

Should a Polorised approach be considered?

The premise is incorrect, and assumes that the only manner in which one improves FTP is to ride at / near FTP. Fitness is an integral of the whole training picture, amongst other factors. Ignoring all those factors other than the time one might ride at race pace is a significantly incomplete picture.

Gradually losing form in the latter stages of a racing block is pretty normal, and the reasons for it are multifactoral.

Stagnation will happen if training does not change, irrespective of what training you are doing.

The questions (and answers) don't then lead one to assume a "polarised" approach is the right one.

That is my point Alex, riding close to FTP isn't the only way to increase FTP or the best way. But I think too many people think it is the only or best way.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Max Bridges wrote:

That is my point Alex, riding close to FTP isn't the only way to increase FTP or the best way. But I think too many people think it is the only or best way.

I think you make way too many assumptions about what people think.

bahzob

I'd strongly recommend Bradley Wiggins' "My Time" account of how he won his tour.

It goes into quite a lot of detail about how he trained for the event, one key factor being relevant to this topic.

Referring to his recovery following his 2011 collar bone injury he says "We made a massive discovery. The conventional wisdom in cycling is that you need a decent number of days racing in your legs before you go into a three-week stage race.........but we found out that so long as the training is right you perhaps don't need to race as much as you expect....in terms of workload, in a Tenerife training camp we can do the equivalent of two weeks racing in a Grand Tour but in a much more controlled environment...so the philosophy became: dont go to the race to train, train first, go to fewer races and go there to win."

Max Bridges

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

That is my point Alex, riding close to FTP isn't the only way to increase FTP or the best way. But I think too many people think it is the only or best way.

I think you make way too many assumptions about what people think.

I think sweet spot or training at or near FTP has become far too fashionable.

BenderRodriguez

bahzob wrote:

I'd strongly recommend Bradley Wiggins' "My Time" account of how he won his tour.

It goes into quite a lot of detail about how he trained for the event...

So, what did he do? Loads of threshold, polarised training, 'sweet spot' or what?

BenderRodriguez

Max Bridges wrote:

I think sweet spot or training at or near FTP has become far too fashionable.

Perhaps because many people don't have the time to 'get the miles in' these days?

DeVlaeminck

Interesting article Bender. So let's take your average club road racer, say they have ~10 hours a week to train (maybe some weeks more) and a certain amount of flexibility as to when - it doesn't have to be 8 hours at the weekend and a couple of evenings.

What would people recommend as a mix looking at 2/3 cat racing - which I guess describes many on here?

At the moment I am doing maybe 2 turbo sessions of 2*20 a week - I try and sustain as high a consistent power (on turbo) as I can - feel hard but don't feel destroyed after - would struggle to do 3 consecutive days of these and probably fail to do 4 ( never tried). These sessions are more likely to be replaced by a very fast but quite big group chaingang of 45 minutes plus ride out warm up and back as the evenings get lighter. There is some variation - might do an hour of power on the turbo, some sprint drills or 2*20s on the road.

Weekend I normally do one longish hard hilly group ride - the kind of thing that ends up in a pseudo race - 55-60 miles plus maybe 10 miles roll home from cafe stop after - races would replace that or midweek replace a chaingang.

The rest would typically be fairly easy paced stuff, sometimes I do an hour before a chaingang, a bit of MTBing with the kids or I just do a few hours riding on my own - often in the hills but I'm rarely pressing on full gas.

Max Bridges

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

I think sweet spot or training at or near FTP has become far too fashionable.

Perhaps because many people don't have the time to 'get the miles in' these days?

No doubt that is part of it but I think also many assume spending their limited time available at or near FTP or threshold is more effective because it generates more TSS points per hour than riding at mostly lower intensities most days then doing some very specific intervals at much higher intensities on hard days.

The fashion now is to accumulate TSS points. In the past it was adding up miles. When heart rate monitors came out the fashion was for adding up heart beats, now with power meters the fashion is to ignore heart rate and add up watts and play with mathematical models and power duration software.

There is more to training than any of these mere fashions.

Tom Dean

Max Bridges wrote:

I think sweet spot or training at or near FTP has become far too fashionable.

Do you think the principle of specificity is too fashionable? - since you aim this at TTers, for whom specific training would basically mean L4.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

Perhaps because many people don't have the time to 'get the miles in' these days?

No doubt that is part of it but I think also many assume spending their limited time available at or near FTP or threshold is more effective because it generates more TSS points per hour than riding at mostly lower intensities most days then doing some very specific intervals at much higher intensities on hard days.

It depends what you mean by 'effective'. I would argue that it is a good way to train at certain times of year. In a polarized approach, how effective are e.g. 1 minute intervals in November?

Max Bridges wrote:

The fashion now is to accumulate TSS points. In the past it was adding up miles. When heart rate monitors came out the fashion was for adding up heart beats, now with power meters it is adding up watts and playing with mathematical models.

There is more to training than any of these fashions.

They are ways of quantifying training load. If you have some evidence that anyone thinks they are any more than that, show it. Until then, please stop being so effing patronising.