Personal best today, FTP considerations

I'm looking forward to doing the MAP test at the end of this week to help "pinpoint" my FTP. Because I have chosen not to do the 1 hour testing to this point (aside from an old 1 hr race normalized power), my FTP is certainly an estimate.

I did a 30 minute uphill TT today with some pretty exciting power numbers for me but they all point to a significantly higher FTP than I've been using to date. I've been using 320. (today's TSB +8.9, Friday's MAP will be done at +11.3)

Using Monod's critical power, based on today's 30 minute TT, taking the best 1, 2, 5 and 28 minute times (the TT actually only lasted 28min 21sec... ran out of road at the top of the mountain), it's telling me I should be at 340 eek: woot?!) (Pavg for the whole ride 347, Pnorm 362)

If I do the ol' .95x20 minute power, it says 335.

I'd like to think I've improved by that much, but I'm not convinced. I'll be "out of the hole" into positive TSB for the rest of the week before Friday's MAP test. I'll be curious what the .75*MAP number shows up as. Can I get 445-450 MAP to make the other numbers reality?

 

Nice numbers.

Doing the MAP on the ol' KK trainer? That will be interesting.

 

I'm debating changing to your specialty when I get back to the states. 5 minute power today was 415 (Pnorm 430), 5.38 w/kg

 

Sigh. My best to date is 4.7. I'm not naturally talented for the pursuit, I have to work really hard to do what other more talented riders can do unfit. But I'm getting better.

Pursuiting for me I believe to be the one event that will make me a vastly improved all round rider. It taxes so many components of a rider's abilities, physically, skill/technique wise and all the mental aspects. It also taxes a coach's abilities for those very same reasons. I am racing against myself though.

I've always believe every rider should attempt one at least once in their riding career.

 

Nice numbers!

However, I'm wondering if you're using the Monod Critical Power model incorrectly. If you use the critical power approach, you would do e.g. a 5min *all-out* test, and then later, a longer test, e.g. 20minutes.

It appears to me that you are using the best 1min, 2min, etc. power from the *same TT test* as input to the critical power model, and that would not give correct results. The numbers you use with the critical power model should be from independent tests.

_________
CycleFast

 

That's correct, and pulling the 1, 2, and 5 min powers from within a longer paced ride (as opposed to shorter, all-out efforts) would tend to flatten the slope and overstate the 60-min extrapolation. Think about it this way: we know the 28 min power is all-out, so that's a good value and acts like a pivot point for the power v. duration line. If the shorter duration powers are lower than they should be on the left side, then the longer duration values on the right side will be artificially high as a result.

Still, 347w Pavg for 28 minutes is great, and indicates that FTP is most likely higher than the previous 320w figure. Nice job!

 

Nice ride!

-Personally, I wouldn't pay *too* much attention to one ride, particularly a climb (knowing that I can occasionally pull of exceptional performances that aren't appropriate for setting training parameters.)

-I was under the impression that the .95*20MP was for repeatable efforts, not a one-time effort (ie, 2x20's not 1x30)

-If you're going to use Monod, perhaps use longer durations? With 3 of your data points so short, it might skew your results. How does it change if you use 3, 12, 20, 28?

 

good points indeed. CP demands that the efforts be maximal to make any sense.

1. In general 1 and 2 min tests are too short anyway.
2. I'd suggest a maximal 5-min test and use that data with your 28-min AP to get the best prediction.
3. Still it's a prediction.

 

I'm kind of glad you gave this out because there was a not so recent post on wattage about one coach seeing a lot of riders with more talent in five minute power and a really high relative ranking wondering if the scale was off or something in the profile for that particular set of values, then again it's just a guideline...


I am one of those type of riders and would really like to get my other abilities to come even close to what I can do in five minutes!

 

In this case, all of the power numbers for my 5 minute and greater are higher than previous maximums. Like another post said: the 28 minute mark ends up being the pivot point. I did take previously tested MMP for the shorter ranges and because my short range power.. well.. sucks... the pivot doesn't change much. Even moving over to previous and current best 3/6/12/28 power numbers brings the FTP prediction right back to 340.

I'd question the logic. Isn't the point of coming out of the hole to do testing in this case the whole point? To get numbers based on 1 or even 2 rides? But like I said, really I'm just thinking out loud while I'm hoping to see similar predictive numbers out of my MAP test at the end of the week.

 

I hit 5.4 last year at my peak but I was a little heavy then. It would be ~5.6 if I was back down to my "fighting weight" for my peak season.

Too bad that there aren't any real velodromes within 4 hours drive of me right now.

 

If I use the old chart, where 20min power was used instead of FTP, my 5min power is only one "step" above 20min power. However, on the updated chart, my 5min power is about 4 "steps" higher than my FTP.

Now if only I could get my sprint power equal on the chart to my 1min and 5min power!

How many "steps" above FTP is your 5min power?

 

...which makes perfect sense if you think about it.