Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Power Training › Lance's FTP?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lance's FTP? - Page 2

post #16 of 30
2/1/10 at 1:39am

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanierb View Post
Yeah there's no way he won the worlds on FTP=340.
How is it impossible?
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 30
2/1/10 at 2:05am

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanierb View Post
Yeah there's no way he won the worlds on FTP=340.
342 wasn't his FTP, it was his LT.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 30
2/1/10 at 2:40am

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanierb View Post
Also, why did his V02max drop 10% between 93 and 96?
Put on weight?

I wouldn't put too much cred in VO2 values.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 30
2/1/10 at 12:40pm

Re: Lance's FTP?

You have to take any numbers you see on Lance with a barrel full of salt. We don't even know if what they call "power at LT" is the same as FTP. And when were those measurements taken? In January? July?

It's pretty clear to me that his (and all top pros') FTP blows even my 5 min. power away. They're way up in my anaerobic power.

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/...profile_v4.gif
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 30
2/3/10 at 6:56pm

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyzackery View Post
Is LT power the same as FTP? Could be in some people. Probably not in most people. The answer inexorably is "it depends"...LT is usually arbitrarily set at 4mmol. Some people can ride for much longer than an hour at 4mmol.
Oupss, I got corrected by Dr. Coggan on this recently. I'd like to share this knowledge with you.

OBLA is (not so arbitrarily) set at 4mmol/L. LT, I believe, is defined as being an increase by 1mmol/L over one's baseline.

If I understood my lesson correctly, Lance's OBLA (4mmol/L) is believed to be higher than his MAXLASS.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 30
2/3/10 at 8:10pm

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarEnergy View Post
Oupss, I got corrected by Dr. Coggan on this recently. I'd like to share this knowledge with you.

OBLA is (not so arbitrarily) set at 4mmol/L. LT, I believe, is defined as being an increase by 1mmol/L over one's baseline.

If I understood my lesson correctly, Lance's OBLA (4mmol/L) is believed to be higher than his MAXLASS.
Thanks for the info.

From my understanding there are differing definitions of Lactate Threshold and none of them are definitive. That you have another definition is great for everyone's edification.

FYI, the exercise physiology/kinesiology lab where I had my LT and Vo2max testing done on a couple occasions used 4mmol as the breakpoint for determining LT power...ymmv
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 30
2/3/10 at 8:59pm

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarEnergy View Post
Oupss, I got corrected by Dr. Coggan on this recently. I'd like to share this knowledge with you.

OBLA is (not so arbitrarily) set at 4mmol/L. LT, I believe, is defined as being an increase by 1mmol/L over one's baseline.

If I understood my lesson correctly, Lance's OBLA (4mmol/L) is believed to be higher than his MAXLASS.
I'm not completely up on that terminology, but I think you are saying that his LT (at 4mmol/L) is thought to be above his FTP. That would make okay sense if his LT was the 480 cited above, but not for the 340 cited above, so I'm still confused (unless the 340 was in January and the 480 in June I guess, though that seems like an incredible difference).
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 30
2/4/10 at 10:20am

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanierb View Post
I'm not completely up on that terminology, but I think you are saying that his LT (at 4mmol/L) is thought to be above his FTP.
What I was trying to say is that in some literature, LT isn't defined as being an accumulation of 4mmol/L but rather an increase of 1mmol/L over the base line. I figure that most of the time, that ends up being lower than 4mmol/L.

Recently, Dr.Coggan corrected me on two little things. That 4mmol/L is a value that would correspond to averaged maxlass values taken from several endurance ahtletes picked from a variety of sports. So it's not as arbitrary as I first thought.

Cyclists can generally deal with higher level of blood lactate at steady state though. But it doesn't appear to be Lance's case which is known for having his maxlass lower than OBLA. Lactate doesn't seem to accumulate very much in his blood in other words.

As for Lance's figures, I think it'd be safe to state that his FTP is probably over his LT but lower than OBLA.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 30
2/6/10 at 3:21am

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarEnergy View Post
What I was trying to say is that in some literature, LT isn't defined as being an accumulation of 4mmol/L but rather an increase of 1mmol/L over the base line. I figure that most of the time, that ends up being lower than 4mmol/L.

Recently, Dr.Coggan corrected me on two little things. That 4mmol/L is a value that would correspond to averaged maxlass values taken from several endurance ahtletes picked from a variety of sports. So it's not as arbitrary as I first thought.

Cyclists can generally deal with higher level of blood lactate at steady state though. But it doesn't appear to be Lance's case which is known for having his maxlass lower than OBLA. Lactate doesn't seem to accumulate very much in his blood in other words.

As for Lance's figures, I think it'd be safe to state that his FTP is probably over his LT but lower than OBLA.
LT1 is considered an increase of 1mmol/L over baseline. LT2 is the 4mmol/L breakpoint. Usually, it's fairly obvious which one is which if you know even a little bit about the person.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 30
2/7/10 at 3:48pm

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iliveonnitro View Post
LT1 is considered an increase of 1mmol/L over baseline. LT2 is the 4mmol/L breakpoint. Usually, it's fairly obvious which one is which if you know even a little bit about the person.
And don't you guys have a LT3 hidden somewhere in your sleeves? The one that would correspond to one's maximal lactate steady state?
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 30
2/7/10 at 6:25pm

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarEnergy View Post
And don't you guys have a LT3 hidden somewhere in your sleeves? The one that would correspond to one's maximal lactate steady state?
What do you consider steady state? How long would you be able to hold the effort?

That was the idea behind the research that concluded 4mmol/L.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 30
2/16/10 at 9:42am

Re: Lance's FTP?

Fred Grappe write a book where he gave some analysis and estimation of the power output from Lance during Tour de France (2004 and some other year i believe). I dont remember all the number but i think that for ex. the Alpes d'Huez trial, he estimate the power output at around 5.8-5.9 W/kg (duration around 40 minutes). For the estimation, he is using default weight of 74kg not real weight. He also analyse data from other pro during Giro / Vuelta / Tour de France.

The output is that the best performance are way below the max value from the Coggan table (which gives 6.4 W/kg for FTP, 1 hour effort). Not sure that it is the impact of previous racing day. I am not a specialist at all, just quoting.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 30
2/20/10 at 8:35pm

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmamba View Post
Fred Grappe write a book where he gave some analysis and estimation of the power output from Lance during Tour de France (2004 and some other year i believe). I dont remember all the number but i think that for ex. the Alpes d'Huez trial, he estimate the power output at around 5.8-5.9 W/kg (duration around 40 minutes). For the estimation, he is using default weight of 74kg not real weight. He also analyse data from other pro during Giro / Vuelta / Tour de France.

The output is that the best performance are way below the max value from the Coggan table (which gives 6.4 W/kg for FTP, 1 hour effort). Not sure that it is the impact of previous racing day. I am not a specialist at all, just quoting.
Fatique has a huge effect on power output, even for those guys. The max value of 6.4 W/kg is for a 1hr effort, probably by a rider specializing in events of that length.

Most proffesional road riders could probably have a higher FTP if they were to train specifically for it. However, endurance is incredibly important at the proffesional level on the road (not so much at the ameture level) and they have to compromise their training accordingly. I know it is rumour that the MTBers who have switched to road had better 1hr powers numbers when they raced MTB.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 30
2/22/10 at 4:57pm

Re: Lance's FTP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanierb View Post
This all looks strange to me. The progression above would be amazing in itself, but turning that into 483, in a guy who'd trained massively for many many years to get to 416? Also, why did his V02max drop 10% between 93 and 96?
I agree with you, hero or not, 483w LT/FTP is not possible, not even for the great Lancealot. Even if they were doing a CP20 test that would be a hard number to hold, more 1 hour.
that being said, i read somewhere that right before the 2009 Leadville he was at FTP 411w.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 30
3/17/10 at 3:53am

Re: Lance's FTP?

ftp file transfer protocol i have read it about a lot and i am doing mcse and lot of knowledge available here
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Power Training
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Power Training › Lance's FTP?