Beginner question: FTP targetted training? - Page 2

Slowly getting there now.

Based on your experience (both of you ideally).

Do you have difficulty to sell to your clients the idea of a formal 60min test as a means of assessing FTP? Should FTP include any *pacing* ability (or lack of it)?

I can't understand why, a triathlete for example, would favor any other protocol over this one. Not that difficult to book a 40k alone, when you're used to perform it after a swim and prior a 10krun?

I might do one full out 40K effort per year outside of actual time trials and don't generally advocate this method for FTP estimation. IME, it usually leads to lowball FTP estimates since sufficient rest, motivation and yes pacing are important to nail a full FTP effort sustained for 40K. Not to mention it can be difficult at best for many cyclists to find 25 miles of road free of traffic interruptions or too many short steep hills that make pacing tough.

No doubt a full 40K at sustained L4 is great training at the appropriate place in the schedule but it's mentally tough to stay focused that long outside of competition and when I've done those (usually in the weeks preceeding an actual 40K TT) I typically end up at 90-95% of what I actually manage in a race. Great training and good pacing practice sure, but IMO not a great way to estimate FTP and not something most folks have the venue or motivation for very often.

I've used MAP tests, Monods and often take a quick look at power histogram bins (one method of ride file inspection) for the previous week or two if I think my FTP has changed but in practice like SDS #6 which is simply to keep track of long (20-30 minute) intervals done in training and take the regular and repeatable power numbers directly as FTP.

Andy offers it as the second best way to estimate FTP coming in second only to an actual 40K TT under ideal conditions which generally means a bit of pre event rest, a lot of race day motivation and of course good pacing. I've been using SDS#6 for the past couple of seasons to estimate FTP between other tests or races and when I've tested it tends to agree very well. But the key is the regular and repeatable part, I don't take my best ever 20 minute effort and call that FTP but if I do two or three in a session and I hit them hard I'll often look at the final interval(s) of a set.

Anyway, there are a lot of ways, but for someone coaching a variety of athletes with differing levels of motivation, available time, available long unbroken training roads and differing goals I'd probably adopt something other than a full 40km TT to establish and track FTP. In that situation I'd think strongly about supervised MAP or Monod testing to keep it quick short with the coach on hand to assure motivation and focus and to observe things like body language, onset of labored breathing, etc.

I'd also tune into the training data clues that an FTP retest is in order. For instance I usually know when I'm due to reset my FTP when TSS just racks up too easily or IOW my daily ride IF is higher than normal but I'm not intentionally killing myself.

-Dave

Very enjoyable to read Dave, thanks again for your time.

I might have another little one (if you're not feed up yet;-)

SDS#4 and #7.... wait a minute, I think I get it. #4 would be data recorded during a hard *race* that's not a TT, hence the recommendation to use NP instead of AP. This one is already answered.

I'm cool thanks !

Yes, I think that's the case. Discussion on the validity, usefulness, efficacy and/or misuse or misinterpretation of NP is a whole 'nuther ball game.

Yes, NP.

Yep, Dave is correct - the 95% of 20-min test is not one of the original SDS, and Andy Coggan quite deliberately didn't include it in his list.

The method was "popularised" by its publication in the book by Allen & Coggan. The protocol for performing the 20-min test (i.e. following a 5-min blowout effort) and taking 95% of that for your FTP estimate is Hunter Allen's suggestion.

For those that use their 20-min mean maximal power (either from a stand alone test or plucked from their training/racing data) as a marker and then want to extrapolate to an FTP estimate, my experience with myself and those I have/do coach is that the value is typically falls within a range as shown below.

Ratio of FTP to 20-min mean maximal average power:

Average:_____92.7%
Std Dev:_____ 2.3%
Min:________ 88%
Max:________ 96%
Avg +/- 1SD: 90% - 95%

and that ratio is not static - e.g. you might have an FTP to 20-min MMP ratio of 90% today but increase that at 93% after a block of training.

Another coach, John Verhuel also reports the typical range as 90-93% with the extremes being 88% and 96%.

__________________
Custom Training Plans -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Power Meter Hire in Australia

Guys, I have been little uncomfortable with the SDS concept, now I understand why. I have one question or two.

The SDS protocol seems to advocate defining FTP (in wko+) not as being the best 60MMP we can do, but rather the best 60MMP we *would* do under ideal conditions (decent TBS, motivation etc).

If I use myself as an example. Right now in wko+, my FTP is set to 255. This, I know I can deliver it for sure, and I know I can most probably do better than this (by at least 10w) under ideal conditions after short taper etc... But 255, I can deliver. Just give me a day off followed by an easy day, and on the third one I can book a full 60min 255w. Will feel hard, heavy breathing all the way etc, but not scaring enough not to attempt and finish it.

So if I use SDS protocol, #7 put aside, I guess I could gather clues that my FTP *would* be 265-270, maybe even little higher. But that FTP would only be confirmed under these ideal condition. IOW, I can't guarantee being able to do it.

I guess I thought it was better or safer to define all these training zones based on FTP we could generate while training.

Should I conclude that it is important to set our FTP as some sort of a Target, that is higher than what we could do in training?

What impact would it have to define it little too high?
What impact does it have to define it little too low?

Yes, FTP is not a hard and fast 'on demand' number that you can expect to achieve on any given day. It's more of a concept and represents your capabilities if everything goes correctly including, sufficient rest, appropriate nutrition & hydration, sufficient motivation and good pacing.

If you train 'with' power instead of 'by' power, that is you train using power descriptively instead of prescriptively then misjudging FTP doesn't really effect day to day training. If you carry over HR based training concepts like strictly adhering to a min and max power level for a given workout and watching your PM to ensure that during training intervals (i.e. training 'by' power) then FTP estimation can impact training effectiveness, but realistically not that much unless you're way off.

Misjudging FTP has bigger impacts on TSS, the PMC, CTL, etc. Lowball FTP and you'll falsely inflate training load, overestimate FTP and you'll be working a lot harder than you might think.

Misjudging FTP can also impact time trial pacing on those days when you really are well rested, highly motivated and ready to put out your best efforts.

-Dave