Training for a Stage Race with the PMC

[Pureshot78]

Did you include AWC in the 60MP computation? You might want to compute 60MP based on CP alone.

The 270 number does use AWC, without AWC the value is 263 watts. However the values that I'm using as inputs in the CP model are not stand alone tests but rather data cherry picked from ride files over the past 28 days. Given that I believe that the AWC is underestimated.

Do you have a protocol that you use to get a 'fresh' CP curve? Do you accomplish all three values in one ride? or do you do it on different days?
I believe I remember you posting elsewhere that you try to aim for 3, 8, and 20 minutes as the data points but instead of letting the timeframe guide the test, you start with a wattage and hold it for as long as possible (knowing in your mind approximately what you should be able to do).

Having a 60MP=98.5%32MP would suggest a high level of fitness (probably also a relatively high CTL). For example, my 60MP/30MP is closer to .96-.97.

This is what I suspected. Since my current CTL is ~60 would you say that my FTP is overestimated? Just asking for your opinion. What I really need to do is just go out and get a really solid set of data points for the CP model.

 

[RapDaddyo]

Do you have a protocol that you use to get a 'fresh' CP curve? Do you accomplish all three values in one ride? or do you do it on different days? I believe I remember you posting elsewhere that you try to aim for 3, 8, and 20 minutes as the data points but instead of letting the timeframe guide the test, you start with a wattage and hold it for as long as possible (knowing in your mind approximately what you should be able to do).

You've got a good memory. Actually, I was using 3, 8 & 30m, but have decided to use 2, 5 & 20m going forward because the 2 & 5m durations are a little closer to what I'm trying to isolate (AWC & VO2MAX) and the 20m is nearly as good as the 30m for the aerobic data point (both are influenced by AWC). I do all 3 tests on the same day (not ideal), in order of long to short on the basis that the longer durations don't impair the shorter durations very much if at all. And, I sort of like getting the long one out of the way first. You're also correct that I ride them as constant power for max duration rather than fixed duration at a guesstimate of max power.

This is what I suspected. Since my current CTL is ~60 would you say that my FTP is overestimated? Just asking for your opinion. What I really need to do is just go out and get a really solid set of data points for the CP model.

Any time one uses a shorter duration test to estimate FTP, I think the likelihood is greater that FTP will be overestimated than the reverse. This is especially true if one is relatively unfit and with a CTL of ~60 that is a real risk. Short of doing a full-out 60min test (not very appealing to many), try doing a 3x20(5R) at what you think your FTP is. If you've overestimated FTP, maintaining power in that last 20 will be a ***** (or impossible). Or do a 3-data point test and use the CP model (excluding AWC).

 

[Lucy_Aspenwind]

..... I do all 3 tests on the same day (not ideal), in order of long to short on the basis that the longer durations don't impair the shorter durations very much if at all.....

By now, I'm well aware that selectively choosing values from past rides (aka cherry-picking), is not the desired method for creating the CP/monod curve.

Since you mentioned doing all 3 tests on the same day, and this not being ideal, would it be more accurate or even desirable to do them on separate, but consecutive days? (say 2 & 5 min test on saturday, 20 min test on sunday)

My 20min MP is just 89% of FTP, so I'm thinking a lack of overall fitness and relatively high AWC (compared to my aerboic ability) is causing that.

Or do a 3-data point test and use the CP model (excluding AWC).

So in your case, are you including or excluding the contribution to total work by AWC for setting FTP? From the above comment I am inferring you are suggesting AWC be excluded....

 

[RapDaddyo]

By now, I'm well aware that selectively choosing values from past rides (aka cherry-picking), is not the desired method for creating the CP/monod curve.

Not the desired method, but superior to the (way too often used IMO) .95x20MP method.

Since you mentioned doing all 3 tests on the same day, and this not being ideal, would it be more accurate or even desirable to do them on separate, but consecutive days? (say 2 & 5 min test on saturday, 20 min test on sunday).

Perhaps marginally more accurate to do the tests on different days, but I think the 5m & 2m tests are hardly (if at all) compromised if one gets a good recovery between each effort. Remember that all three tests combined don't even add up to 70 TSS.

My 20min MP is just 89% of FTP, so I'm thinking a lack of overall fitness and relatively high AWC (compared to my aerboic ability) is causing that.

That would be my first guess (i.e., both issues are at play).

So in your case, are you including or excluding the contribution to total work by AWC for setting FTP? From the above comment I am inferring you are suggesting AWC be excluded....

I was including AWC until I read Andy's comment that he had in mind excluding AWC when he added the CP model to the ways of estimating FTP. It does make a difference (~7W in my case) and, if anything, I'd rather plan my rides with a slight underestimation of FTP rather than the other way around. Also, I was using a 30m test to lessen the influence of AWC. Now that I am using a 20m test, I run a greater risk of overstating FTP since I have a relatively high AWC.

 

[Lucy_Aspenwind]

Not the desired method, but superior to the (way too often used IMO) .95x20MP method.

Oh yes, very often - apprently the most common according to the one straw poll on this site.

Perhaps marginally more accurate to do the tests on different days, but I think the 5m & 2m tests are hardly (if at all) compromised if one gets a good recovery between each effort. Remember that all three tests combined don't even add up to 70 TSS.

With what we are discussing, I am curious as to how the order and timing of the tests would change the results. For instance, suppose I do my 2-minute effort first, 5-minute test next, and the 20-min effort last. I would expect to almost, if not completely, drain my AWC for the 2-minute test....if that's a reasonable assumption, would it not follow that my 20-minute effort would be comparitively low vs. being fresh? From what I've seen of this model, greater work at low duration (2-min) and relatively less at longer durations (20-min), seems to result in a higher AWC and lower CP. Then perhaps this is the desired effect, to see how much a given duration is impacted by AWC.

I was including AWC until I read Andy's comment that he had in mind excluding AWC when he added the CP model to the ways of estimating FTP. It does make a difference (~7W in my case) and, if anything, I'd rather plan my rides with a slight underestimation of FTP rather than the other way around. Also, I was using a 30m test to lessen the influence of AWC. Now that I am using a 20m test, I run a greater risk of overstating FTP since I have a relatively high AWC.

That's interesting, using the model without AWC to predict FTP. I would think the upside is, if you had already used up your AWC prior to doing an hour at TT pace, you'd still be able to (hypothetically anyway) reach the FTP you estimated.

 

[Pureshot78]

Any time one uses a shorter duration test to estimate FTP, I think the likelihood is greater that FTP will be overestimated than the reverse. This is especially true if one is relatively unfit and with a CTL of ~60 that is a real risk. Short of doing a full-out 60min test (not very appealing to many), try doing a 3x20(5R) at what you think your FTP is. If you've overestimated FTP, maintaining power in that last 20 will be a ***** (or impossible). Or do a 3-data point test and use the CP model (excluding AWC).

FWIW - my current CTL of ~60 includes 21 ride days in the previous 42 (my CTL constant) that have 0 TSS (i.e. no ride). The average TSS of the 21 rides is ~ 121, so at this point i'm most concerned with riding more often and managing how quickly the CTL ramps up.

 

[RapDaddyo]

With what we are discussing, I am curious as to how the order and timing of the tests would change the results. For instance, suppose I do my 2-minute effort first, 5-minute test next, and the 20-min effort last. I would expect to almost, if not completely, drain my AWC for the 2-minute test....if that's a reasonable assumption, would it not follow that my 20-minute effort would be comparitively low vs. being fresh? From what I've seen of this model, greater work at low duration (2-min) and relatively less at longer durations (20-min), seems to result in a higher AWC and lower CP. Then perhaps this is the desired effect, to see how much a given duration is impacted by AWC.

The 2m test is the key one because it is going to exhaust one's AWC and a significant part of AWC is non-recoverable (at least in the same day). The 20m test is going to have a negligible effect on either the 5m or 2m test, so it seems the obvious one to do first. Likewise, the 2m test is going to have a greater influence on the 5m test than vice-versa, so it seems to be most logical to do the 5m test before the 2m test.

That's interesting, using the model without AWC to predict FTP. I would think the upside is, if you had already used up your AWC prior to doing an hour at TT pace, you'd still be able to (hypothetically anyway) reach the FTP you estimated.

Well, it should completely eliminate the influence of AWC and that's a good thing.

 

[sugaken]

The 2m test is the key one because it is going to exhaust one's AWC and a significant part of AWC is non-recoverable (at least in the same day). The 20m test is going to have a negligible effect on either the 5m or 2m test, so it seems the obvious one to do first. Likewise, the 2m test is going to have a greater influence on the 5m test than vice-versa, so it seems to be most logical to do the 5m test before the 2m test.

Doesn't CP model rely on the assumption that you expend all your AWC during N-min effort no matter what N is? I'm talking about this equation:

Total Work = AWC + CP * t

If CP model's most fundamental premise is collect, shouldn't 20m test affect 5m test as much as 2m test does? Conversely if your statement above is collect, that would severely undermine CP model's reliability/predictability/usefullness in the most fundamental way, it seems to me.

Ken

 

[RapDaddyo]

Doesn't CP model rely on the assumption that you expend all your AWC during N-min effort no matter what N is? I'm talking about this equation:

Total Work = AWC + CP * t

If CP model's most fundamental premise is collect, shouldn't 20m test affect 5m test as much as 2m test does? Conversely if your statement above is collect, that would severely undermine CP model's reliability/predictability/usefullness in the most fundamental way, it seems to me.

Ken

There's no question that the residual fatigue from any MP test will influence subsequent MP efforts. The issues are how much and what's the purpose of the testing? If I do the testing the same way each time, I have repeatability of each effort. That's key to tracking changes at key points of my MP/duration curve. Second, one of the main uses of testing is to set targets for high-intensity efforts. That tends to be self-correcting, so it's not a big deal. The most serious consequence of using the data from these tests is when one has a TT (e.g., 40K) and thus there is a serious consequence of being wrong about one's sustainable power. If I have an upcoming target ride that I estimate will require an hour, I will do a full-hour max power ride within a couple of weeks of the event. Likewise, if I have an upcoming target ride that I estimate will require close to 2 hours, I will do a 2 hr full-power test shortly before the event (as I did for the Mt. Charleston race in September).

As an aside, there are always three potential uses of performance testing data: (1) track performance changes over time, (2) develop a baseline for power training targets and (3) estimate max power for an event in which it is important to know one's max power for a specific duration for pacing purposes. For #3, I approach the testing somewhat differently, basically duplicating the ride.

 

[joemw]

That's interesting, using the model without AWC to predict FTP. I would think the upside is, if you had already used up your AWC prior to doing an hour at TT pace, you'd still be able to (hypothetically anyway) reach the FTP you estimated.

I know you put "hypothetically", but I believe this to be far from the truth. When AWC is completely exhausted, my anecdotal evidence says that the body shuts down, for whatever reason.

As for testing 2', 5', and 20' on the same day; you simply can not expect to hit your true max value for each of the three. In fact, outside of a competition, my experience is that it's impossible to achieve a true maximal value for a duration that has a substantial aerobic component to it (i.e. > 60seconds).

I don't think it's a good idea to leave your best legs out on the training course. Be satisfied with an estimated FTP that is likely within a few percent, and don't be a slave to training to within 1-2% of that FTP, listen to the sensations.

 

[RapDaddyo]

I know you put "hypothetically", but I believe this to be far from the truth. When AWC is completely exhausted, my anecdotal evidence says that the body shuts down, for whatever reason.

Actually, the only thing that happens is that you can't sustain an anaerobic effort any longer. But, a large part of AWC (I don't know that anybody knows the precise percentage) recovers very quickly (e.g., almost fully recovered in 3mins).

As for testing 2', 5', and 20' on the same day; you simply can not expect to hit your true max value for each of the three.

But, a relevant question is what is the likely error and what are the consequences of using the number.

I don't think it's a good idea to leave your best legs out on the training course. Be satisfied with an estimated FTP that is likely within a few percent, and don't be a slave to training to within 1-2% of that FTP, listen to the sensations.

If you mean don't ride performance tests at your maximum power, I disagree. I do it every week for my NM efforts and I ride at 90% of my MP for most high-intensity efforts. The only real difference is that I would have to extend the durations to go to max effort for that intensity.

 

[sugaken]

RD,

I take your points that your testing serves you well within your purposes, but may I point out that, if you conduct your CP test without waiting for full recovery of your AWC before each effort, it's not exactly a CP test in the strictest sense. Would you agree?

I'm suspecting you would because of thie following passage:

If I have an upcoming target ride that I estimate will require an hour, I will do a full-hour max power ride within a couple of weeks of the event. Likewise, if I have an upcoming target ride that I estimate will require close to 2 hours, I will do a 2 hr full-power test shortly before the event

That shows (well, it seems to me anyway) that you don't really rely on the sustainable power figures for longer duration CP equation predicts from your "CP test" result.

No, it's not like I'm against your way of doing CP tests or anything like that, but I'm just not quite convinced that preceding 2min effort affects subsequent 5/20min efforts much more than preceding 20min effort does (actually you went so far as to say "The 20m test is going to have a negligible effect on either the 5m or 2m test") so it would yield more reliable result if you do the longer duration first as you seem to imply.

Ken

 

[RapDaddyo]

I take your points that your testing serves you well within your purposes, but may I point out that, if you conduct your CP test without waiting for full recovery of your AWC before each effort, it's not exactly a CP test in the strictest sense. Would you agree?

It doesn't take long to recover that part of AWC that recovers in the short term (i.e., same day). I take about 10mins recovery after each effort, more than enough for full AWC recovery (at least that part of AWC that is going to recover within 24 hrs). So, while I agree that in an ideal scenario one would conduct each duration test fully fresh, I don't want to rest up for three test days when I can knock off all three tests on the same day. The main preparation is to be fresh (e.g., day off the prior day).

you don't really rely on the sustainable power figures for longer duration CP equation predicts from your "CP test" result.

For a target event in which I have full control of my power (e.g., ITT), I don't want to rely on any estimation method to find my MP for a given duration. If I estimate it's going to be a 40min effort, I will do a full-power 40min ride within ~10 days of the ride. If I estimate it's going to be a 100min effort, I will do a full-power 100min ride within ~10 days of the ride.

No, it's not like I'm against your way of doing CP tests or anything like that, but I'm just not quite convinced that preceding 2min effort affects subsequent 5/20min efforts much more than preceding 20min effort does (actually you went so far as to say "The 20m test is going to have a negligible effect on either the 5m or 2m test") so it would yield more reliable result if you do the longer duration first as you seem to imply.

It really hinges on the influence of AWC and the fact that a significant part of AWC will not recover (in the same day). I want to do that effort last.

One more point. As I have said consistently when the question of estimating FTP comes up, "It depends on why one wants to estimate FTP." For training target power purposes, any of a number of estimation methods is okay because it tends to be self-correcting. But, if one is going to ride an ITT based on the estimate, I encourage riding a full-power (or nearly full-power) test of an equivalent duration. This is because the price is high if one is wrong (especially if one overestimates his MP).

 

[joemw]

Actually, the only thing that happens is that you can't sustain an anaerobic effort any longer. But, a large part of AWC (I don't know that anybody knows the precise percentage) recovers very quickly (e.g., almost fully recovered in 3mins).

Maybe I'm just lacking mental fortitude then, because my experience tells me that once I've done a truly maximal effort where AWC is exhausted, my body and mind want nothing to do with riding near FTP within seconds of that effort.

If you mean don't ride performance tests at your maximum power, I disagree. I do it every week for my NM efforts and I ride at 90% of my MP for most high-intensity efforts. The only real difference is that I would have to extend the durations to go to max effort for that intensity.

I wouldn't consider doing short sprints in practice leaving your best stuff out on the training course. Nor do I consider riding at 90% of MP anything near a maximal effort. I do that as well, and it elicits great responses.

Again, maybe I lack the mental fortitude, and/or have a greater hormonal response to competition than most, but what I can do for a maximal effort in a race exceeds what I can do for a maximal effort in training by a significant degree. And so for me, FTP is estimated in the off-season, and based on actual race data in-season.

 

[RapDaddyo]

what I can do for a maximal effort in a race exceeds what I can do for a maximal effort in training by a significant degree. And so for me, FTP is estimated in the off-season, and based on actual race data in-season.

I guess we're all a little different in that respect. I can sometimes exceed my training performances in a RR situation, but in a TT whenever I try to exceed my training ride performances, I usually end up falling short.

 

[jbvcoaching]

I guess we're all a little different in that respect. I can sometimes exceed my training performances in a RR situation, but in a TT whenever I try to exceed my training ride performances, I usually end up falling short.

Are you comparing apples with apples? TT bike in training vs. TT bike racing?

I won't insult you by asking if you're overstarting...

 

[RapDaddyo]

Are you comparing apples with apples? TT bike in training vs. TT bike racing?

I won't insult you by asking if you're overstarting...

Yes, it's apples to apples. I just find that in RR situations with long climbs that I can sometimes exceed my training performances (because I'm either chasing somebody or trying to get away) but in TTs I rarely exceed my predicted MP based on my training rides (from a ride of similar duration or from the CP curve). I think it just means that in solo performances my training performances are good predictors of my performance but that in mass-start races I can sometimes find something extra.

 

[Pureshot78]

Another hijacked thread left to die in the desert.

Ok so in addition to simply tracking my CTL i'm going to try to manage the efficiency of my training. After evaluating the 42 days used in my current CTL here's what I've extracted:

Days without TSS = 45.23% (19/42)
Ave TSS of Rides = 120.26
Ave TEI* = .19583
% of minutes in level**:
L1 = 3.67
L2 = 16.48
L3 = 58.10
L4 = 12.48
L5 = 4.33
L6 = 2.75
L6 = 2.19

This was in fact the low blow that I was expecting.
More to come later, for now, I know that I need to move a big chunk of that time in L3 to the higher levels.

*Training Efficiency Index = (high intensity minutes / total ride minutes)
** Using Andy Coggan's schema

 

[RapDaddyo]

This was in fact the low blow that I was expecting.
More to come later, for now, I know that I need to move a big chunk of that time in L3 to the higher levels.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

 

[joemw]

Another hijacked thread left to die in the desert.

Ok so in addition to simply tracking my CTL i'm going to try to manage the efficiency of my training. After evaluating the 42 days used in my current CTL here's what I've extracted:

Days without TSS = 45.23% (19/42)
Ave TSS of Rides = 120.26
Ave TEI* = .19583
% of minutes in level**:
L1 = 3.67
L2 = 16.48
L3 = 58.10
L4 = 12.48
L5 = 4.33
L6 = 2.75
L6 = 2.19

This was in fact the low blow that I was expecting.
More to come later, for now, I know that I need to move a big chunk of that time in L3 to the higher levels.

*Training Efficiency Index = (high intensity minutes / total ride minutes)
** Using Andy Coggan's schema

I followed your lead, to an extent, and analyzed the training block I just finished. What prompted me was the fact you are stating it's a low blow that you don't have more of your training as a percentage at higher levels. I figured, and was right, that I had much greater amounts of time as a percentage at even lower ranges, and yet I really thought it was a fantastic block.

I'm not sure how to get the L1 through L7 levels to show up on my power distribution graph, so I just used the auto "training levels" default for the x-axis. As well, I train in between sea-level and 8500' regularly, so I just used my estimated FTP at 4000'.

Days without TSS = 4.3% (1/23)
AVE TSS of rides = 149.36
AVE IF of rides = .751
AVE TEI = 18%
ActiveRecovery = 43.5%
Endurance = 19.7%
Tempo = 18.8%
Threshold = 13.1%
VO2Max = 3.1%
Anaerobic Capacity = 1.8%

Pureshot, based on the amount of time you have for L1 and L2, I can only surmise you do your rides on a trainer and/or you absolutely despise warming up or cooling down.