When is it worth doing an FTP test?

scapaslow

A few questions on these long slow rides:

Do you ignore cardiac drift and just keep at or under the HR target?
Do you set a minimum HR to keep above?
Do you choose flattish routes?

I tried a couple of these rides myself and found it really hard to keep under my HR target - especially on hills. I tend to bash out tempo on most of my rides by default so it required a lot of discipline.

What sort of IF are you getting on these rides? Mine came in at 0.63/0.69

meanredspider

Aparently it's really important NOT to exceed the 70% HR even for a short while. If that means taking a flat route (which obviously makes it easier) then that's better. I've never worried about a lower limit as it has never been an issue. As for IF, I've not done an FTP test so I don't have a reliable IF but I'm guessing that this varies from individual to individual

napoleond

I ignore cardiac drift (I've not really noticed an issue with it at this level of effort tbh)
I choose flattish routes.
I stick between 130-140 as much as possible. I occasionally have a short sharp hill I'll have a dig up to get it done. The rides are all about 'time in zone'.
IF is usually about that, here's the last 1.5hr ride I did. IF 0.66.

http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/7L3FMXL ... UG5Q5JEF3Y

scapaslow

Thanks for the info guys - sounds like i'm in the right area of intensity - maybe drop it a touch.

One of the studies (University of Stirling) i've read got the participants to try and maintain HR at a constant 5 beats below the prescribed HR derived from similar testing to that which Napoleon has described. This was on a computrainer though which would be easier to do than out on the road.

In terms of Coggan/Hunter power levels the most beneficial intensity IMO(from what i've read) would seem to equate to around 50 - 65% of FTP.

Interesting that the low intensity and HIT are not combined in the same session. I'd have thought that the odd Vo2Max interval e.g. going up a short hill would complement the training.

Best of luck with your training.

napoleond

scapaslow wrote:

Thanks for the info guys - sounds like i'm in the right area of intensity - maybe drop it a touch.

One of the studies (University of Stirling) i've read got the participants to try and maintain HR at a constant 5 beats below the prescribed HR derived from similar testing to that which Napoleon has described. This was on a computrainer though which would be easier to do than out on the road.

In terms of Coggan/Hunter power levels the most beneficial intensity IMO(from what i've read) would seem to equate to around 50 - 65% of FTP.

Interesting that the low intensity and HIT are not combined in the same session. I'd have thought that the odd Vo2Max interval e.g. going up a short hill would complement the training.

Best of luck with your training.

If you notice on that last ride I posted there is a little hit of VO2 max.
In my threshold sessions I do my recovery at the Z2 hear rate.

meanredspider

NapoleonD wrote:

scapaslow wrote:

Thanks for the info guys - sounds like i'm in the right area of intensity - maybe drop it a touch.

One of the studies (University of Stirling) i've read got the participants to try and maintain HR at a constant 5 beats below the prescribed HR derived from similar testing to that which Napoleon has described. This was on a computrainer though which would be easier to do than out on the road.

In terms of Coggan/Hunter power levels the most beneficial intensity IMO(from what i've read) would seem to equate to around 50 - 65% of FTP.

Interesting that the low intensity and HIT are not combined in the same session. I'd have thought that the odd Vo2Max interval e.g. going up a short hill would complement the training.

Best of luck with your training.

If you notice on that last ride I posted there is a little hit of VO2 max.
In my threshold sessions I do my recovery at the Z2 hear rate.

It's always tempting but the book I follow really labours the point about not breaking the 70% (to the point, on a run, it suggests walking rather than break it). That said, it doesn't explain this point.

napoleond

Any other time I stick rigidly to it but the short sharp one on that ride I posted I go into threshold anyway even in bottom gear at 50rpm! So I may as well smash over it.

jibberjim

meanredspider wrote:

It's always tempting but the book I follow really labours the point about not breaking the 70% (to the point, on a run, it suggests walking rather than break it). That said, it doesn't explain this point.

I think it's kills the baby mitochondria... at least that's the only explanation I've ever heard given (In Pete Read's black book). It's bunkum of course, but that doesn't matter, no-one needs reasons it seems.

meanredspider

jibberjim wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

It's always tempting but the book I follow really labours the point about not breaking the 70% (to the point, on a run, it suggests walking rather than break it). That said, it doesn't explain this point.

I think it's kills the baby mitochondria... at least that's the only explanation I've ever heard given (In Pete Read's black book). It's bunkum of course, but that doesn't matter, no-one needs reasons it seems.

It maybe related to the release of glycogen from the liver that (it's my understanding) is triggered by exercise of a certain intensity - which is why your blood glucose levels go up initially on harder exercise. Since the purpose of the training is to minimise glycogen use and maximise fat burning, that would be counterproductive.

napoleond

Bit of an update. Things are going really well.
Did a 3hr 30 ride in the hills the other day, Normalised Power was 233w which is what my FTP was in Feb. I wasnt pushing it either, sticking to sweet spot on the climbs and Z2 on the flats.

Just done a Z2 session on the turbo for about an hour and 20. This is what is happening to the power!
I've also lost 5.5kg since Feb test too. May have to retest in a couple of weeks.

hypster

meanredspider wrote:

Here's a real précis of the book I have followed to good effect

http://www.marshallcf.com/assets/book_r ... 0Idiot.pdf

It just talks about running here (that's when I started using this) but does cover cycling in the full version. There are two broad concepts for training Hard and training Easy

1. It leads to more fat burning adaptation
2. The Easy days allow you to recover for the Hard days

I like it for it's simplicity and I've found it effective.

An interesting read and I have a couple of genuine questions.

1. In some ways this concept of training at low intensity goes slightly against intuition so I would appreciate your thoughts on this. The reason why I say it goes against intuition is because on the one hand you are training at a low intensity to promote fat burning adaptation but on the other hand you are (presumably) riding at much higher intensity in an event say where you would be burning more glycogen (or would you still be burning proportionally more fat?) I get the fact that easy days allow you to recover for hard training days.

2. In a later post you say:

It's always tempting but the book I follow really labours the point about not breaking the 70% (to the point, on a run, it suggests walking rather than break it). That said, it doesn't explain this point.

I worked out my recovery HR from the formula to be around 145 bpm. I live in an area of Essex which isn't exactly hilly but does have rolling countryside. On today's ride for instance which was quite windy as well I was struggling a lot of the time to keep my heart rate below 160 and I wasn't pushing at all. I wasn't trying to restrict my HR to 145 bpm but I was monitoring it having read the document you linked to. I think it would be very difficult at times to ride at such a low level of effort.

Do you also think it's worth buying the John L. Parker book?

meanredspider

I think I get what you're saying

Firstly, I plan to limit my HR on my AD6 ride to about 140bpm. My PM suggests I can put out around 200W at that HR so that's in fact what I'm going to target (I know, from experience, that adrenaline on the day makes HR a bit unreliable especially at the beginning). Secondly, though, by training your body to burn more fat, it's more able to use fat at higher intensities to supplement glycogen (or so goes the theory) delivering more fuel and for longer. Certainly I'm able to ride harder for much longer after training this way.

On your second point (and living for the last few years in the Highlands and commuting up some pretty long steep hills, I understand it), the book says that, if keeping your HR below the 70% means walking rather than running (it focuses on running), that's what you should do. Normally, you can ride up some pretty steep hills keeping your HR low provided you go slow enough.

Would I suggest buying the book? Not sure - because there's really not a lot more to it than that. The book only has 30-40 pages of discussion and theory - the rest is training plans (mostly for runners though there is some cycling)

hypster

meanredspider wrote:

I think I get what you're saying

Firstly, I plan to limit my HR on my AD6 ride to about 140bpm. My PM suggests I can put out around 200W at that HR so that's in fact what I'm going to target (I know, from experience, that adrenaline on the day makes HR a bit unreliable especially at the beginning). Secondly, though, by training your body to burn more fat, it's more able to use fat at higher intensities to supplement glycogen (or so goes the theory) delivering more fuel and for longer. Certainly I'm able to ride harder for much longer after training this way.

On your second point (and living for the last few years in the Highlands and commuting up some pretty long steep hills, I understand it), the book says that, if keeping your HR below the 70% means walking rather than running (it focuses on running), that's what you should do. Normally, you can ride up some pretty steep hills keeping your HR low provided you go slow enough.

Would I suggest buying the book? Not sure - because there's really not a lot more to it than that. The book only has 30-40 pages of discussion and theory - the rest is training plans (mostly for runners though there is some cycling)

Thanks for that. Kudos if you can get up AdH with a HR of 140 bpm, especially the lower part which is pretty steep I think. I've never worn my HR monitor up there but I'd be surprised if my HR got below 160 bpm but then again I am 1.95m and 82 kg. It's always been pretty warm when I have done it as well so that's another factor but it might be a bit cooler for you in June.

I'll give the 70% limit a try on some of my training rides and see how I get on.

meanredspider

I've geared my bike pretty low: 33 up front and a 30 on the rear - not looking to set any speed records but pace myself carefully at 200W which I'm confident I can deliver for the 6 climbs.