Just finished reading Ross' book regarding HIT. I am thinking about doing his modified Conconi test and adjusting some of my planned WO according to HIT.
Can anyone tell me before I do this how CP compares to FTP?
Just finished reading Ross' book regarding HIT. I am thinking about doing his modified Conconi test and adjusting some of my planned WO according to HIT.
Can anyone tell me before I do this how CP compares to FTP?
I don't have Ross' book in front of me, but I recall he's made up yet a third definition of Critical Power? Could you perhaps quote the part of the book where he defines it?
If you were asking for the difference between Critical Power as originally defined, and FTP, it's usually a very small percentage.
I don't have Ross' book in front of me, but I recall he's made up yet a third definition of Critical Power? Could you perhaps quote the part of the book where he defines it?
If you were asking for the difference between Critical Power as originally defined, and FTP, it's usually a very small percentage.
The small difference would only apply if it were the original definition of critical power. With this step test, all bets are off. I would suggest following whatever protocol Ross sets up explicitly to get your best results. Step tests are easy, anyway - you only suffer for the last few minutes.
Actually that sounds like quite a big difference to Monod's definition of CP which is what I'm sure jvbcoaching is referring to.
Monod orgininally defined CP as the power you could sustain for a very long time or the slope of your best work vs. duration curve. That definition is very close to FTP but it defines a power level you can sustain for quite a while not the maximum power you can hit during a ramp test.
Friel has his CPt concept where CP is defined for different durations. The easiest way to reconcile his approach is just to think of the various durations as points on Monod's curve. Where Monod's original CP and Coggan's FTP would both be similar to Friel's CP_60. Personally I just use Monod's CP as an estimate of FTP, not CP_60 predicted off of Monod's curve.
Sounds like Ross's version of CP is closer to Ric Stern's Maximum Aerobic Power(MAP). But it would really only be the same if the ramp protocol is also the same. Anyway FTP is roughly 75% of MAP if you use Ric's protocol. So that's probably a pretty good starting estimate.
Just remember, by definition you should be able to sustain ftp for nearly an hour on a well rested and highly motivated day. If your ramp test leaves you totally gassed after a few minutes it's probably way above ftp.
I have never done the 1 HR TT test, I hate TTs, though I have estimated my FTP with 20 min tests fairly regularly.
I do my best races in circuits and Crits and Ross' book seemed to have some good ideas that would help me make the best of short duration WOs. I have 2 small kids that now really limit my riding time.
Just finished reading Ross' book regarding HIT. I am thinking about doing his modified Conconi test and adjusting some of my planned WO according to HIT.
Can anyone tell me before I do this how CP compares to FTP?
I perform the Modified Conconi Test on local triathletes in addition to FTP tests..and have found out, as someone said, that the FTP results are consistently between 75-80% of the CP value. I perform the tests on a Cycleops Pro 300PT indoor trainer. I like running Ross' CP test because it will give you a good indication of Lactate Threshold and HRmax. These results are confirmed with the riders volume of Power Tap SL 2.4 files that I download and upload into Cycling Peaks Software. All good stuff. Rob