Page 3 - CTL vs. FTP - Aerobic capacity vs. Power ...

26-02.-2008, 04:22 AM

#31

doctorSpoc

Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005

Location: Canada

Posts: 871

Re: CTL vs. FTP - Aerobic capacity vs. Power ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy SG

I've been reading this forum for almost 6 months, and change my training based on what I've read here and in litterature, such as Morris' book. I have increased my power output significantly since I started, and feel I have learned a lot, but there's one thing I can't understand.

Pure power addicts, seem to focus on increasing their power levels, and use power output as a measure, and in many cases that means high intensity intervall training, with intervalls of different length. I've seen blogs where people focusing on power output increase, state that they need a certain amount of load/training time to benifit from training, but in many cases many people focus on straightforward intervall programs, where they rely on higher watts, rather than time, to increase workload.

On the other hand there are these guys speaking of CTL, lenght vs. intensity trade-offs between L4 intervalls or building CTL, etc. They seem to focus more on aspects that is hard to measure, but is often refered to as Aerobic capacity, or similar.

I personally think the two views must be highly related, since it must be better to generate 200W over say 2 hours if it is 70% of your capacity, than if it would be 85%. On the other hand, the time put into training each week doesn't feel like totally irrelevant, and the more you train, the more you should be able to train, so it sort of indicates a good spiral ...

Question(s) then

1) Is there anyone that is willing to claim that the FTP is good enough as indicator of capacity over a longer race. Meaning that two riders with same FTP level (and everything else similar) but with different CTL level should generate the same result in a race?

2) Is there anyone that can give an example of where the person, in the example above, with higher CTL would have an advantage?

Thanks

ihmo you need both... CTL and FTP...

in the winter my FTP doesn't fall off very much at all, but my endurance sure does... winter i'm doing 4-6hrs a week and in the summer i'm 10-15hr per week... CTL maxes out ~100 or so.

i'll use myself as the two identical riders you talk about... me in the winter and me in the summer... so both time periods i can achieve pretty much the same FTP, but in the summer with the higher training volume, my endurance on rides greater than ~2.5hrs i'm going to suffer on my winter training volume and my ability to recover day to day is compromised... so long rides and stage racing will be very difficult on this volume (low CTL) as well. if all i was doing was 1hr crits.. i think i could get by very easily on this type of volume.

didn't read the other post so sorry if i've repeated what was already said..

26-02.-2008, 04:27 AM

#32

acoggan

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 2,571

Re: CTL vs. FTP - Aerobic capacity vs. Power ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctorSpoc

The more you train the more you can train.

26-02.-2008, 06:48 AM

#33

bbrauer

Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2007

Posts: 70

Re: CTL vs. FTP - Aerobic capacity vs. Power ...

Interesting discussion.

Quote:

Well you can turn those maximum times on their heads and view these as minimum times(at sufficient intensity) necessary to target a specific metabolic process. If you want to target your ability to sustain L4(Coggan's levels) or "Threshold" efforts then you'd better hold those efforts for at least 8 to 10 minutes. Hold that same intensity for much less and your body can rely on more oxygen, utilize more of its anaerobic capabilities in the mix and get through the effort with a different metabolic system.
Similarly if you want to train VO2 Max it doesn't pay to do minute long intervals. Sure you'll get some adjacent level crossover but you'll be targeting anaerobic glycolocis(L6) and not VO2 Max(L5) with these efforts

.

Except if you limit the rest interval duration. One physiological mechanism at work that I think a lot of us forget about is the metabolic process involved with recovery. You're right that a one minute max effort is going to be utilizing glycolysis for its energy requirements; but is it going to be during recovery? Recovery between efforts, I think we've concluded, is primarily an aerobic response; even after anaerobic efforts. We've used this assumption to advocate raising FTP, or developing our aerobic systems through longer L4 type efforts. A better aerobic engine aids in recovery between harder efforts and gives us more matches, so the reasoning goes.

What if we play with the rest interval durations? Again, going on the assumption that recovery is an aerobic process, shorter intervals with periods of incomplete recovery are going to hit the aerobic zone as well as the anaerobic. In fact, you've argued before that micro-intervals are primarily L4 aerobic in nature based on average power. That's at the extreme end of the work/rest relationship continuum. The same principle can be applied to longer efforts with a 1:1 work/rest relationship. I've had great success in the past with 1x1s and 2x2s, 3x2s and longer. Really, the sky's the limit in terms of creating workouts that target ALL systems and more closely replicate your racing demands.

This is my main issue with a steady diet of 2x20s. There aren't a lot of races that require two isopower efforts of 20 minutes each (except, of course time trials. And as a side note, the 2x20 is the focus of my triathlete's training right now). I've read guys on this board that are repeating "sweet spot training" like a mantra and doing 2x20s five times a week. Don't get me wrong, I think this approach is useful, particularly in the off-season, and especially for those in colder climates who are stuck indoors on the trainer. I certainly think the 2x20 SST is a heck of a lot better approach than hours of junk miles for base training. But again, the continuum. Most races require proficiency along this entire continuum. I think we need to simplify it just a little: Train How You Race. The "raise from the bottom" approach makes sense, but for me, I would categorize it more as base building.

Quote:

So how does this relate to your questions? This is the first problem I have with a pure High Intensity Training(HIT) approach to building fitness. I've seen HIT plans where the longest intervals were in the 4 to 6 minute range with authors claiming anything longer is unecessary. From a certain perspective I can see what they're saying. VO2 Max represents the top end of your predominantly aerobic system(there's definitely a lot of anaerobic contribution going on at that level but you're still predominantly aerobic when working VO2 Max). Conventional wisdom says "raise VO2 Max and everything else will follow". This pull up method definitely has its advocates but there's an awful lot of published and reviewed work demonstrating that in addition to a relatively high VO2 Max and even power at VO2 Max there's still the question of power at LT(FTP in Coggan's system) as a percentage of P-VO2 Max. IOW, raising VO2 Max by itself may not be enough, there's still the question of how high you can raise FTP relative to P-VO2 Max. Longer intervals that target sustained primarily aerobic metabolic processes are the ticket to raising FTP with or without raising VO2 Max. So those efforts of at least 8 to 10 minutes are essential to increasing sustainable power if you buy into the SST/Lydiard school of thought.

But you aren't working on just the VO2 system. Any effort that taxes the body's capacity to re-uptake lactate is going to be stimulating that aerobic system. Planning your rest duration puts even more focus on the aerobic component of VO2 and anaerobic efforts.

Quote:

You've already given the short answer to this one: "the more you train, the more you can train" but there are other ways of looking at the need for some reasonable duration in your training. In a simplistic way I think it's pretty easy to see that there are some minimum durations you need to train just to be able to complete longer rides. Assuming you meet the minimums discussed above you'd still need some saddle time to manage say your first century ride. So the question isn't whether you need some duration, the question is "how much?".

To address the point of the OP, I think Coggan's aphorism sums it up pretty well. I've been using shorter duration intervals for several years now, and I've started introducing the 2x20 this season in conjunction with traditional training, but I still don't think there's a substitute for saddle time. I've had arguments on other training forums with the Dave Morris acolytes about the value of distance. For me, I just feel I have that deep level of fitness that has more staying power when I put in the proper amount of hours. I guess that's what we'd define as the CTL. I should qualify that, however, by stating that I'm not advocating lots of LSD. For me, it's finding that balance where my longer rides at my targeted intensity provide a metabolic and anabolic stimulus and minimize the catabolic state.

__________________
www.liquidfitness.com

26-02.-2008, 10:35 AM

#34

daveryanwyoming

Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2006

Posts: 1,378

Re: CTL vs. FTP - Aerobic capacity vs. Power ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbrauer

...Except if you limit the rest interval duration. One physiological mechanism at work that I think a lot of us forget about is the metabolic process involved with recovery. You're right that a one minute max effort is going to be utilizing glycolysis for its energy requirements; but is it going to be during recovery?...

Fair enough, rest interval duration is another dimension to play with and I agree if you keep them short enough you can keep the overall workout in an appropriate work level. Another form of microinterval, but focusing on micro-rests. But that's not what I see in a lot of the HIT literature. I see a lot more of the 4 minute on - 4 minute rest sort of advice, but I'll be honest I haven't delved deeply into current HIT thinking since overall I haven't been impressed by that approach.

Quote:

...Really, the sky's the limit in terms of creating workouts that target ALL systems and more closely replicate your racing demands...

Perhaps, but I guess philosphically I have trouble with attempts to do it all at once. I guess I haven't seen many "one size fits all" approaches to anything in life that results in optimum solutions. Nope, no hard data to argue your point and maybe you're one step further ahead on this learning curve but I strongly believe tailoring each workout to specific system instead of trying to find a "does it all" solution. But I'll admit this is totally opinion and gut feeling, no hard science, research or other objective data to back up that feeling. I guess I had too many early experiences with team mates wanting to go hard for some intervals, climb some big hills, sprint for all the limit signs, and get some big miles - all on the same ride. In the end we tended not to do any of those tasks real well. I realize that's not what you're suggesting, but it's that kind of experience that makes me skeptical.

Quote:

Train How You Race. The "raise from the bottom" approach makes sense, but for me, I would categorize it more as base building...

I agree with the latter part, it's base building we're talking about with SST. As well as base maintaining during periods of hard racing or during a midseason CTL rebuild. But I'm not sure I'd extend that to "Train How You Race" that basically sounds like a variation on "Racing is the best training" school of thought. And at least for me that never worked. I really do think Lydiard was on target and the foundation of his approach was building solid aerobic fitness with steady submaximal work and then specializing to the needs of the particular events only after a lot of foundation work. I'm not stuck on 2x20's either, but SST work in that form or multiple 30-45 minute efforts or simply an hour or two of continuous SST are all good ways to lay that foundation.

Sure, the SST foundation alone won't do the whole trick and sooner or later there's a need for higher end work and specialization to the needs of specific events and to address specific rider weaknesses. But this thread was really about the value of CTL and whether a solid FTP alone is all that is really needed. I think we both agree that fitness requires some volume. Even the OP aludes to that, otherwise he might only be doing a single 4 minute HIT effort or maybe 8 minutes per session instead of 24. There's clearly a need for both intensity and volume, the question is how much of each?

-Dave

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode