Training Status??? (IV)
08-19-16, 03:39 PM
#5951
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
But I think my question is really that I hear people moan about how painful these efforts are & I just wouldn't describe them as painful per se. Makes me wonder if I'm not pushing myself enough.
So would you describe 20 min @ 105% as "painful"? Or is that just one of those things- some people describe something difficult as being painful without it literally being painful.
Painful isn't even the right word. Torturous, maybe. If I had a 20 min climb I might be able to do it. But geez.
I'm all about the 88-95% stuff. That's what I focus on, that's what improves, that what seems to get me rolling. Not something I typically use in races, but seems to do me just fine at paces above and below (seemingly what most races default to).
08-19-16, 04:19 PM
#5952
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
I think the key facts are new racer and solely doing time trials. Many people who also do road races and crits are training in the upper zones so much more often that it creates a new spectrum of "ouch" that isn't immediately knowable to a rider who hasn't yet gone there
08-19-16, 04:44 PM
#5953
Has a magic bike
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,590
Bikes: 2018 Scott Spark, 2015 Fuji Norcom Straight, 2014 BMC GF01, 2013 Trek Madone
Mentioned: 699 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4456 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times
in
157 Posts
I think the key facts are new racer and solely doing time trials. Many people who also do road races and crits are training in the upper zones so much more often that it creates a new spectrum of "ouch" that isn't immediately knowable to a rider who hasn't yet gone there
08-19-16, 04:46 PM
#5954
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
It would make it feel easier. Yes.
Then you raise your ftp until that single 105 interval makes you feel like puke.
Then you go faster.
Repeat.
Then you raise your ftp until that single 105 interval makes you feel like puke.
Then you go faster.
Repeat.
08-19-16, 05:16 PM
#5955
Has a magic bike
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,590
Bikes: 2018 Scott Spark, 2015 Fuji Norcom Straight, 2014 BMC GF01, 2013 Trek Madone
Mentioned: 699 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4456 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times
in
157 Posts
Oh. Raising/setting FTP is above my pay grade. I think what you're effectively saying is that my FTP is set conservatively, so a 105% effort is perhaps only really a 100% effort. I'm not going there. You'd have to take that up with my coach. But that would be one viable explaination for sure. I'm not really convinced that I'm being thrown any softballs with my training, although I will admit that I have no broad frame of reference.
08-19-16, 07:31 PM
#5956
Nonsense
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,918
Bikes: Affirmative
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked 541 Times
in
237 Posts
If your training works it doesn't much matter if you call em 95% or 105%. If anything saying you can do 2x20 @ 105% is worth more than e-wang!
08-19-16, 10:32 PM
#5957
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
For me, I would not describe a 20 min 105% effort as painful and, unless I'm having a bad day, two of them is zero problem.
...
I would not describe a 105% effort as painful as much as I'd call it difficult. But I think I don't take it to the extent of being painful and that's got to be where the difference lies between being a moderately successful time trialist and a successful time trialist. Probably my physical ability is already there, I just have to figure out how to cross that line mentally, to take it up a notch until its painful.
So I'm curious as to how other people feel doing these types of intervals- races or workouts.
...
I would not describe a 105% effort as painful as much as I'd call it difficult. But I think I don't take it to the extent of being painful and that's got to be where the difference lies between being a moderately successful time trialist and a successful time trialist. Probably my physical ability is already there, I just have to figure out how to cross that line mentally, to take it up a notch until its painful.
So I'm curious as to how other people feel doing these types of intervals- races or workouts.
big caveat: i know next to nothing about you or your training, so i'm just responding to what you've written here.
every rider is a bit different.
that said, when someone says to me 2x20' @ 105% is not challenging, my brain would instantly go to "threshold set low."
i'm sure in your profession you hear some trigger words and start with the most logical explanation first, but proceed with an open mind. that's kind of where i'm going here.
I also have learned it doesn't matter how I feel- might as well always just give em a whirl. I could feel tired, unfocused, uninterested etc going in and none of that necessarily matters, I can probably still get it done.
But I think my question is really that I hear people moan about how painful these efforts are & I just wouldn't describe them as painful per se. Makes me wonder if I'm not pushing myself enough.
So would you describe 20 min @ 105% as "painful"? Or is that just one of those things- some people describe something difficult as being painful without it literally being painful.
But I think my question is really that I hear people moan about how painful these efforts are & I just wouldn't describe them as painful per se. Makes me wonder if I'm not pushing myself enough.
So would you describe 20 min @ 105% as "painful"? Or is that just one of those things- some people describe something difficult as being painful without it literally being painful.
for me, a 20' effort is work, but i've also traveled 12h with a broken femur. i'm sure others have more harrowing tales. some people might have literal pain, though that might be more of a last-gasp/empty-the-tank push.
plus, ya know, men have a lower pain tolerance than women, right?
BUT...the big red flag is that for almost everyone on the planet 2x20 @ 105% with 5' rest would be a trigger to increase FTP.
keep in mind FTP is not what you can do for a 40k or exactly 60'. in fact, based on the bit i remember reading post about your 40k's is that it probably underestimates your FTP. that's ok....not everyone can hold that for that long. some people's training enables them to hold FTP for 35'; for others it is longer. this is a commonly misunderstood area.
the 95% of 20' thing *has to* include a 5-min all-out interval beforehand. most people omit that because it is too hard and then generates a lower number. you want to remove as much anaerobic component from the test as you can.
however, it's a decent starting point for setting zones then refining things with someone new to training.
some riders can hold only ~90% of 20' max power, while others can sustain 97-98%. a key part of working with someone new (or with someone self-training but new to it) is understanding where they fall on that spectrum.
Well I guess that I don't really consider 60 min at 100% to be painful exactly. Sometimes my HR data suggests that I could not do more, sometimes it suggests I could have maybe gone a little harder. When I read people's descriptions of riding an FTP test, it always seems to me that they are exaggerating the misery of it, expect for the part about feeling like you might vomit at the end, that I can completely relate to. So maybe I guess based on perception of effort that my FTP is set conservatively but based on HR data it does not seem to be. And it's not like we don't have a lot of data at this point, I probably have 7 or 8 60min 100% TT intervals in the past 10ish months, between training efforts and races.
So I wonder if I'm an outlier in my perception of it vs just a newby doing it wrong.
So I wonder if I'm an outlier in my perception of it vs just a newby doing it wrong.
HR data as you know is unreliable for many reasons, but assuming nothing weird is happening (dehydration, heat, stress) then an extra 1 or 2 bpm low is notably easier for the athlete but can get lost in the noise. it's funny how much difference that little bit can make.
sounds like your understanding of FTP might be a little bit off; don't worry, that is common. rider stamina is something that is a bit newer and has more connection to how long people can actually ride at FTP/MLSS.
last time: i'm just basing this on what you've posted recently and more as stuff for discussion than about you, specifically.
surely you could be the person whose threshold is 98% of what they could do for a 20' max... i.e., very slow decay in a power-duration curve.
08-19-16, 11:41 PM
#5958
Has a magic bike
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,590
Bikes: 2018 Scott Spark, 2015 Fuji Norcom Straight, 2014 BMC GF01, 2013 Trek Madone
Mentioned: 699 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4456 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times
in
157 Posts
@tetonrider, not going to quote your posts of the sake of brevity.
However I will point out is that I never said a 20 min 105% or a 60 min 101% effort was in any way easy. I described it as difficult in fact. Its in many ways uncomfortable and unpleasant.
But I like the TT efforts anyway, though, *because* I find them very difficult. Really I like the challenge of them, how you literally have to manage every moment perfectly. It's just totally engaging, the positive aspects of which outweigh the discomfort part.
I guess I'm just perplexed by the descriptions of these intervals being torturous and as resulting in suffering. And I think after this discussion I remain perplexed.
As to your final comments about what you've read on my 40k races, I have no idea what you've read or where. I know from coach's comments that I am very much an outlier in my power declination curve, though. As I mentioned above I can hold numbers around threshold for an unusually long time (so I am told, all I know is my own experience.)
I was chatting with a road racing friend recently. He has started doing some stage races and therefore is doing some TTs now. He mentioned that he didn't think the TT efforts were really that bad, and he was holding his own in the TTs on a road bike in some tough stage races too, so it's not like he's phoning it in. I just wondered if some people kind of like them because they're challenging. My friend as well that the claims of suffering & pain seemed over-blown to him too. This made me wonder if there is a subset of people who perceive these race efforts differently.
On a practical level, any confusion is zero problem for me. I just hit the numbers I'm supposed to hit in my workouts when I can. And then try to ride better in every race than I did in the last. That side of it is straightforward.
However I will point out is that I never said a 20 min 105% or a 60 min 101% effort was in any way easy. I described it as difficult in fact. Its in many ways uncomfortable and unpleasant.
But I like the TT efforts anyway, though, *because* I find them very difficult. Really I like the challenge of them, how you literally have to manage every moment perfectly. It's just totally engaging, the positive aspects of which outweigh the discomfort part.
I guess I'm just perplexed by the descriptions of these intervals being torturous and as resulting in suffering. And I think after this discussion I remain perplexed.
As to your final comments about what you've read on my 40k races, I have no idea what you've read or where. I know from coach's comments that I am very much an outlier in my power declination curve, though. As I mentioned above I can hold numbers around threshold for an unusually long time (so I am told, all I know is my own experience.)
I was chatting with a road racing friend recently. He has started doing some stage races and therefore is doing some TTs now. He mentioned that he didn't think the TT efforts were really that bad, and he was holding his own in the TTs on a road bike in some tough stage races too, so it's not like he's phoning it in. I just wondered if some people kind of like them because they're challenging. My friend as well that the claims of suffering & pain seemed over-blown to him too. This made me wonder if there is a subset of people who perceive these race efforts differently.
On a practical level, any confusion is zero problem for me. I just hit the numbers I'm supposed to hit in my workouts when I can. And then try to ride better in every race than I did in the last. That side of it is straightforward.
08-20-16, 12:49 AM
#5959
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
@tetonrider, not going to quote your posts of the sake of brevity.
However I will point out is that I never said a 20 min 105% or a 60 min 101% effort was in any way easy. I described it as difficult in fact. Its in many ways uncomfortable and unpleasant.
But I like the TT efforts anyway, though, *because* I find them very difficult. Really I like the challenge of them, how you literally have to manage every moment perfectly. It's just totally engaging, the positive aspects of which outweigh the discomfort part.
I guess I'm just perplexed by the descriptions of these intervals being torturous and as resulting in suffering. And I think after this discussion I remain perplexed.
As to your final comments about what you've read on my 40k races, I have no idea what you've read or where. I know from coach's comments that I am very much an outlier in my power declination curve, though. As I mentioned above I can hold numbers around threshold for an unusually long time (so I am told, all I know is my own experience.)
I was chatting with a road racing friend recently. He has started doing some stage races and therefore is doing some TTs now. He mentioned that he didn't think the TT efforts were really that bad, and he was holding his own in the TTs on a road bike in some tough stage races too, so it's not like he's phoning it in. I just wondered if some people kind of like them because they're challenging. My friend as well that the claims of suffering & pain seemed over-blown to him too. This made me wonder if there is a subset of people who perceive these race efforts differently.
On a practical level, any confusion is zero problem for me. I just hit the numbers I'm supposed to hit in my workouts when I can. And then try to ride better in every race than I did in the last. That side of it is straightforward.
However I will point out is that I never said a 20 min 105% or a 60 min 101% effort was in any way easy. I described it as difficult in fact. Its in many ways uncomfortable and unpleasant.
But I like the TT efforts anyway, though, *because* I find them very difficult. Really I like the challenge of them, how you literally have to manage every moment perfectly. It's just totally engaging, the positive aspects of which outweigh the discomfort part.
I guess I'm just perplexed by the descriptions of these intervals being torturous and as resulting in suffering. And I think after this discussion I remain perplexed.
As to your final comments about what you've read on my 40k races, I have no idea what you've read or where. I know from coach's comments that I am very much an outlier in my power declination curve, though. As I mentioned above I can hold numbers around threshold for an unusually long time (so I am told, all I know is my own experience.)
I was chatting with a road racing friend recently. He has started doing some stage races and therefore is doing some TTs now. He mentioned that he didn't think the TT efforts were really that bad, and he was holding his own in the TTs on a road bike in some tough stage races too, so it's not like he's phoning it in. I just wondered if some people kind of like them because they're challenging. My friend as well that the claims of suffering & pain seemed over-blown to him too. This made me wonder if there is a subset of people who perceive these race efforts differently.
On a practical level, any confusion is zero problem for me. I just hit the numbers I'm supposed to hit in my workouts when I can. And then try to ride better in every race than I did in the last. That side of it is straightforward.
and, yes, some of us love TTs (or any activity) precisely for the challenge. we don't just love things that are easy.
as for your friend thinking claims of "suffering & pain are over-blown"....have you ever seen someone go deep enough in a TT or any interval session to the point where they are falling over afterwards? i have.
a guy i coach still talks about a mutual friend of ours (TT specialist, as it happens) who used to have to sit on the ground, coughing, for a looooong time after his efforts (whether they were 15' TTs or 40k/low-50'); his comment was that it re-defined for him what it meant to go deep and feel pain. not everyone can bring themselves to this point. i'm not sure i believe in a 'central governor' theory, but different people do have varying degrees of limitations in their bodies/brains.
now, do some people overuse the terms pain & suffering? sure. but to suggest that everyone does it based on your own experience *may* (big caveat there) be an indicator that you are not pushing yourself to that depth.
i'm happy to leave it at that. i am not claiming to know anything about you other than what you've posted publicly in the last few posts and my memory of stuff that people have posted more than a few posts ago is spotty at best. i'm just reacting to a statement (happens to be yours) amounting to "i don't feel something that i would describe as pain, therefore i wonder if others truly do feel pain or are just exaggerating."
fwiw, i have gone deep in efforts, but never lay-on-the-side-of-the-road deep. a buddy of mine who is hopefully going to sign on with a pro tour team shortly used to collapse during certain interval sessions. my brain shuts down before i can do that, but i guess that's why he is a professional.
*shrug*
i'm not saying you are wrong in your feelings. who could possibly do that?
08-20-16, 05:41 AM
#5960
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,570
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 679 Times
in
430 Posts
I've collapsed off the bike after doing intervals. I even pulled off my jersey, shoes, and socks because I felt they were too constricting. My wife found me lying there gasping for air and wanted to call 911.
08-20-16, 06:05 AM
#5961
Has a magic bike
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,590
Bikes: 2018 Scott Spark, 2015 Fuji Norcom Straight, 2014 BMC GF01, 2013 Trek Madone
Mentioned: 699 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4456 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times
in
157 Posts
@tetonrider, I too am willing to drop this line on conversation but I would like to point out that my original question was to ask for people's experiences doing these particular intervals. The gist of the question was to try to ascertain how much variation in perception there is.
Not to claim that I am doing it right whereas everyone else is doing it wrong. Somehow your characterization of what I was saying morphed it into that. Not my style to assume I know enough about the other guys training to tell him/her they're doing it wrong.
Not to claim that I am doing it right whereas everyone else is doing it wrong. Somehow your characterization of what I was saying morphed it into that. Not my style to assume I know enough about the other guys training to tell him/her they're doing it wrong.
08-20-16, 07:34 AM
#5962
Senior Member
if you're struggling to do 20 minutes at 95% do you really think that number is representative of what you could do for an hour?
08-20-16, 08:24 AM
#5963
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Yep. Because training isn't racing. And fitness isn't created in isolation.
What I do by myself on my way to and from work (commuter training!) is not indicative of what I can do on the weekend with fresh legs, a good night's sleep and loaded up on carbs and beet juice.
After 7 hours of teaching 8 year olds, sometimes even tempo pace is a struggle.
08-20-16, 08:59 AM
#5964
Ninny
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Gunks
Posts: 5,295
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 686 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I have this ongoing banter with a teammate about whether I sandbag my FTP. He insists it should be higher. But 20 minutes at 97% is tough, 20 minutes at 100% is really hard, and 20 minutes at 105% is almost out of reach, so I'm pretty comfortable saying the number is right, inasmuch as it represents the jagged edge of what might be possible for an hour if I had to outrun wolves or something.
But the actual FTP number really only has relevance in determining what number to target for 15+ minute intervals. It has almost no bearing on what number I target for shorter intervals, and I imagine that's the case for most racers who have been doing this for more than a year or so. I know what represents a doable 3' effort, a really-pushing-it 3' effort, and a drop-dead-afterwards 3' effort.
All of which is to say, it doesn't really matter if the FTP number we use fits some external definition of correctness. Having an accurate mental map of the entire power curve is what helps the actual training we do approach some ideal of maximizing our response to it.
But the actual FTP number really only has relevance in determining what number to target for 15+ minute intervals. It has almost no bearing on what number I target for shorter intervals, and I imagine that's the case for most racers who have been doing this for more than a year or so. I know what represents a doable 3' effort, a really-pushing-it 3' effort, and a drop-dead-afterwards 3' effort.
All of which is to say, it doesn't really matter if the FTP number we use fits some external definition of correctness. Having an accurate mental map of the entire power curve is what helps the actual training we do approach some ideal of maximizing our response to it.
08-20-16, 09:17 AM
#5965
Senior Member
I'm sure some people find the longer efforts more 'painful' while others suffer more on the shorter ones. All about how the particular rider is built, isn't it?
Also (and maybe all of you already know this), Coggan and friends no longer use the ftp = your 1 hour power (in fact they claim that's never what they meant.)
Also (and maybe all of you already know this), Coggan and friends no longer use the ftp = your 1 hour power (in fact they claim that's never what they meant.)
What is FTP?
The idea of Functional Threshold Power (FTP) has been around for over ten years now, and it’s still going
strong. FTP is used as the basis of a lot of training systems and has become widely used to estimate threshold
in numerous training approaches. Over the years, numerous authors, websites, and publications have
attempted to redefine FTP, which has led to a confusing array of slightly different definitions. With the
introduction of WKO4 and the Power Duration model, a new focus on FTP as a training and tracking metric
has again put the definition in the spotlight.
Functional Threshold Power was developed by Dr. Andrew Coggan and is specifically defined as “the highest
power a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state without fatiguing.” It is an estimate of the power output
that corresponds most closely with the maximal metabolic steady state or metabolic control limit, or what is
more commonly referred to as “threshold.” In contrast to VO2max, which is primarily limited by the
cardiovascular system’s ability to deliver O2-carrying blood to contracting muscle, this threshold is primarily
determined by muscular metabolic fitness (the ability to balance aerobic ATP production via mitochondrial
respiration with ATP utilization).
What Does Threshold Mean?
As alluded to above, exercise physiologists often use the term threshold (or sometimes even lactate
threshold) to generically refer to an individual’s metabolic fitness. The term threshold is used because even
though with increasing exercise intensity changes in substrate metabolism occur on a continuum, there
comes a point (or exercise intensity) at which your body’s metabolic responses change significantly and
measurably. This transition is typically tracked by measuring blood lactate levels during a test in which the
exercise intensity is increased progressively, making it possible to prescribe training intensities based on
specific lactate values.
Athletes generally believe that lactate is a waste product produced only during high-intensity, anaerobic
exercise, but in reality, aerobic and non-aerobic glycolysis can occur simultaneously, regardless of how hard
you’re exercising. The contribution of each process, though, will vary depending on the intensity of exercise.
At low intensities, when the rate of glycolysis is low, all or essentially all of the pyruvate produced will be
oxidized by the mitochondria, such that the production of lactate is minimal. As exercise intensity increases,
however, the rate of glycolysis (and in particular, the rate of glycogenolysis) accelerates, causing more and
more of the pyruvate to “spill over” to lactate. The accumulation of lactate in muscle, and hence in the blood,
therefore provides a very convenient (albeit indirect) marker of muscle energetics and substrate metabolism,
which are key determinants of exercise performance.
Measurement of blood lactate for the above purpose has therefore become quite commonplace, both in
scientific literature and among coaches and athletes. Unfortunately, many definitions exist as to precisely
what constitutes lactate threshold. In general, however, these various definitions tend to yield results that
cluster around two exercise intensities: first, the exercise intensity at which blood lactate levels first begin to
increase during incremental exercise, or second, the exercise intensity at which blood lactate levels increase
continuously during constant-intensity exercise. At intensities between, blood lactate levels will rise initially,
but will then decline back towards, and possibly all the way back to, resting levels. During prolonged exercise
to fatigue, there can also be a secondary increase late in exercise, due to recruitment of type II (fast-twitch)
fibers still containing residual glycogen, and/or catecholamine-induced glycogenolysis in non-exercising
muscle. The first point actually corresponds to an exercise intensity that can be sustained for several hours,
such as the duration of a marathon run. However, in reality, it is the second point that coaches and athletes
perceive as “threshold,” and it is this disconnect between the scientific and applied realms that has
contributed to so much of the confusion exists about this topic.
The second, higher exercise intensity can be estimated or determined various ways, but the most direct, and
hence most accurate, approach is to simply have an individual perform a series of longer efforts (typically 30
minutes) at constant intensity and measure blood lactate throughout the exercise. The highest exercise
intensity at which blood lactate levels are stable (or quasi-stable) represents the athlete’s maximal lactate
steady state (MLSS). MLSS represents the highest exercise intensity at which the rate of lactate clearance
matches the rate of lactate production and corresponds to an exercise intensity that can typically be
maintained for 30 to 60 (some scientists say 40 to 70) minutes.
Notably, this exercise intensity also tends to correspond to a number of other physiological transition points,
including the iEMG threshold, the NIRS breakpoint, the second ventilatory threshold or respiratory
compensation point, etc. In other words, MLSS is simply a surrogate marker for numerous
physiological/metabolic events. Ideally, MLSS will occur at a relatively high workload, indicating a high level of
muscular metabolic (as well as cardiovascular) fitness. Adaptations to training that result in an improved
ability to produce ATP aerobically will be reflected by MLSS occurring at a higher workload.
Why Functional Threshold Power?
The metric was designed to utilize bicycle power meters to determine and track a power-based, highly
accurate estimate of an athlete’s metabolic fitness through simplified testing or data tracking. Before power
data, athletes who wanted to track such changes generally needed access to an appropriately-equipped
laboratory run by knowledgeable personnel. Not only is such testing invasive and often costly and difficult to
obtain, it only provides an indirect estimate of an individual’s actual performance ability. Coggan’s
introduction of a functional metric that utilized power data to provide such information directly allowed for
easy measurement based on an athlete’s functional abilities as measured with a power meter.
Sustaining Functional Threshold Power
As noted, MLSS is an exercise intensity that can typically be sustained for 30 to 70 minutes. Since FTP is a
simplified tracking metric of MLSS, it has the same sustainable time range (not specifically one hour, as often
stated by others). Since this roughly corresponds to the duration required to complete a 40km TT, the latter
provides an excellent estimate of power at MLSS, especially when you consider how flat the power-duration
relationship is in this region. In addition to improved metabolic fitness being reflected in a higher power at
MLSS/FTP, however, training also tends to improve the duration that exercise at this intensity can be
maintained.
To better understand this, we need to first understand the idea of sustained power output. Sustained power
output reflects the length of time an athlete can put out a level of power without a noticeable degradation or
decline in such power—statistically speaking, a point of deflection. Although again such changes actually
happen gradually on a continuum, and not really abruptly, such a point can typically be seen in in most
athletes’ power duration and mean maximal power curves for hard, steady-state efforts lasting around an
hour. It can therefore be modeled as a downward “kink” in the tail of the power duration curve (see the
image below).
This kink or defection point is representative of the athlete’s Time to Exhaustion (TTE) and is a measurement
of the maximum duration for which a power equal to FTP can be maintained. Although this range can be
from 30 to 70 minutes, for many training athletes it typically falls in the range of 40 to 55 minutes, which is
one of the reasons why it is often associated with an hour and why 40km (really ~40 km, since few courses
are measured precisely) TT power was originally proposed as the best estimate.
The idea of Functional Threshold Power (FTP) has been around for over ten years now, and it’s still going
strong. FTP is used as the basis of a lot of training systems and has become widely used to estimate threshold
in numerous training approaches. Over the years, numerous authors, websites, and publications have
attempted to redefine FTP, which has led to a confusing array of slightly different definitions. With the
introduction of WKO4 and the Power Duration model, a new focus on FTP as a training and tracking metric
has again put the definition in the spotlight.
Functional Threshold Power was developed by Dr. Andrew Coggan and is specifically defined as “the highest
power a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state without fatiguing.” It is an estimate of the power output
that corresponds most closely with the maximal metabolic steady state or metabolic control limit, or what is
more commonly referred to as “threshold.” In contrast to VO2max, which is primarily limited by the
cardiovascular system’s ability to deliver O2-carrying blood to contracting muscle, this threshold is primarily
determined by muscular metabolic fitness (the ability to balance aerobic ATP production via mitochondrial
respiration with ATP utilization).
What Does Threshold Mean?
As alluded to above, exercise physiologists often use the term threshold (or sometimes even lactate
threshold) to generically refer to an individual’s metabolic fitness. The term threshold is used because even
though with increasing exercise intensity changes in substrate metabolism occur on a continuum, there
comes a point (or exercise intensity) at which your body’s metabolic responses change significantly and
measurably. This transition is typically tracked by measuring blood lactate levels during a test in which the
exercise intensity is increased progressively, making it possible to prescribe training intensities based on
specific lactate values.
Athletes generally believe that lactate is a waste product produced only during high-intensity, anaerobic
exercise, but in reality, aerobic and non-aerobic glycolysis can occur simultaneously, regardless of how hard
you’re exercising. The contribution of each process, though, will vary depending on the intensity of exercise.
At low intensities, when the rate of glycolysis is low, all or essentially all of the pyruvate produced will be
oxidized by the mitochondria, such that the production of lactate is minimal. As exercise intensity increases,
however, the rate of glycolysis (and in particular, the rate of glycogenolysis) accelerates, causing more and
more of the pyruvate to “spill over” to lactate. The accumulation of lactate in muscle, and hence in the blood,
therefore provides a very convenient (albeit indirect) marker of muscle energetics and substrate metabolism,
which are key determinants of exercise performance.
Measurement of blood lactate for the above purpose has therefore become quite commonplace, both in
scientific literature and among coaches and athletes. Unfortunately, many definitions exist as to precisely
what constitutes lactate threshold. In general, however, these various definitions tend to yield results that
cluster around two exercise intensities: first, the exercise intensity at which blood lactate levels first begin to
increase during incremental exercise, or second, the exercise intensity at which blood lactate levels increase
continuously during constant-intensity exercise. At intensities between, blood lactate levels will rise initially,
but will then decline back towards, and possibly all the way back to, resting levels. During prolonged exercise
to fatigue, there can also be a secondary increase late in exercise, due to recruitment of type II (fast-twitch)
fibers still containing residual glycogen, and/or catecholamine-induced glycogenolysis in non-exercising
muscle. The first point actually corresponds to an exercise intensity that can be sustained for several hours,
such as the duration of a marathon run. However, in reality, it is the second point that coaches and athletes
perceive as “threshold,” and it is this disconnect between the scientific and applied realms that has
contributed to so much of the confusion exists about this topic.
The second, higher exercise intensity can be estimated or determined various ways, but the most direct, and
hence most accurate, approach is to simply have an individual perform a series of longer efforts (typically 30
minutes) at constant intensity and measure blood lactate throughout the exercise. The highest exercise
intensity at which blood lactate levels are stable (or quasi-stable) represents the athlete’s maximal lactate
steady state (MLSS). MLSS represents the highest exercise intensity at which the rate of lactate clearance
matches the rate of lactate production and corresponds to an exercise intensity that can typically be
maintained for 30 to 60 (some scientists say 40 to 70) minutes.
Notably, this exercise intensity also tends to correspond to a number of other physiological transition points,
including the iEMG threshold, the NIRS breakpoint, the second ventilatory threshold or respiratory
compensation point, etc. In other words, MLSS is simply a surrogate marker for numerous
physiological/metabolic events. Ideally, MLSS will occur at a relatively high workload, indicating a high level of
muscular metabolic (as well as cardiovascular) fitness. Adaptations to training that result in an improved
ability to produce ATP aerobically will be reflected by MLSS occurring at a higher workload.
Why Functional Threshold Power?
The metric was designed to utilize bicycle power meters to determine and track a power-based, highly
accurate estimate of an athlete’s metabolic fitness through simplified testing or data tracking. Before power
data, athletes who wanted to track such changes generally needed access to an appropriately-equipped
laboratory run by knowledgeable personnel. Not only is such testing invasive and often costly and difficult to
obtain, it only provides an indirect estimate of an individual’s actual performance ability. Coggan’s
introduction of a functional metric that utilized power data to provide such information directly allowed for
easy measurement based on an athlete’s functional abilities as measured with a power meter.
Sustaining Functional Threshold Power
As noted, MLSS is an exercise intensity that can typically be sustained for 30 to 70 minutes. Since FTP is a
simplified tracking metric of MLSS, it has the same sustainable time range (not specifically one hour, as often
stated by others). Since this roughly corresponds to the duration required to complete a 40km TT, the latter
provides an excellent estimate of power at MLSS, especially when you consider how flat the power-duration
relationship is in this region. In addition to improved metabolic fitness being reflected in a higher power at
MLSS/FTP, however, training also tends to improve the duration that exercise at this intensity can be
maintained.
To better understand this, we need to first understand the idea of sustained power output. Sustained power
output reflects the length of time an athlete can put out a level of power without a noticeable degradation or
decline in such power—statistically speaking, a point of deflection. Although again such changes actually
happen gradually on a continuum, and not really abruptly, such a point can typically be seen in in most
athletes’ power duration and mean maximal power curves for hard, steady-state efforts lasting around an
hour. It can therefore be modeled as a downward “kink” in the tail of the power duration curve (see the
image below).
This kink or defection point is representative of the athlete’s Time to Exhaustion (TTE) and is a measurement
of the maximum duration for which a power equal to FTP can be maintained. Although this range can be
from 30 to 70 minutes, for many training athletes it typically falls in the range of 40 to 55 minutes, which is
one of the reasons why it is often associated with an hour and why 40km (really ~40 km, since few courses
are measured precisely) TT power was originally proposed as the best estimate.
08-20-16, 09:21 AM
#5966
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 789
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Also, it's my definition of hell to do an all-out 5' effort that ends with an inability to pedal even one more stroke...barely able to unclip and get a foot put down just in time to prevent tipping over...knowing that in 10' you've got an all-out 20' effort.
It's pretty common in my world for people to obliviously compare the two. Some may smirk because of their higher number, while others may smirk with confidence.
By the way, 5' tests have a special place in my heart. Done right, that is not having anything at all left at the end, is much more unpleasant for me than 20' efforts. You really have to summon the beast! Yet I also think 5' efforts are really good tests...they are consistent and reliable indicators of fitness (Vo2 but also, interestingly, decently correlated to changes in FTP). And, practically speaking, they are much easier to work into a training regimen than are all out 20' efforts (for me at least, who focuses on shorter races).
08-20-16, 09:43 AM
#5967
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,128
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1341 Post(s)
Liked 2,482 Times
in
1,457 Posts
For me, any efforts longer than 5 min. are painful. Even sweetspot, which is below FTP. I'm not sure if it's physical or mental, or probably both, but I struggle mightily with longer efforts.
It's really kind of frustrating and something I'm actively working on. I can do shorter than 5 min. intervals all day.
It's really kind of frustrating and something I'm actively working on. I can do shorter than 5 min. intervals all day.
When I did ran track as a kid, the coach divided us into two groups - the fast kids and the slower kids. I was a fast kid. I ended up racing the 400 meters and the 4x400m relay. I was okay in the 100 but the pure sprinters were better. Nothing has changed over the last 55 years. Give me 1' intervals and below and I can eat them like potato chips and cannot stop.
As a trackie, I am a 500 meter guy/team sprint. I can do pursuit but the guys who are better at longer efforts beat me but I beat them by a lot in 500 meters.
08-20-16, 11:10 AM
#5968
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
It has almost no bearing on what number I target for shorter intervals, and I imagine that's the case for most racers who have been doing this for more than a year or so. I know what represents a doable 3' effort, a really-pushing-it 3' effort, and a drop-dead-afterwards 3' effort.
All of which is to say, it doesn't really matter if the FTP number we use fits some external definition of correctness. Having an accurate mental map of the entire power curve is what helps the actual training we do approach some ideal of maximizing our response to it.
All of which is to say, it doesn't really matter if the FTP number we use fits some external definition of correctness. Having an accurate mental map of the entire power curve is what helps the actual training we do approach some ideal of maximizing our response to it.
I think that's the idea behind the individualized training levels in WKO4. The power duration model does the above so you can fine tune your shorter intervals regardless of what your FTP is. Two riders may have the same FTP but differ in their abilities to perform at shorter durations, so the model accounts for that and prescribes appropriate target ranges (my interpretation only, which may be a bit hit or miss, so fwiw).
08-20-16, 01:42 PM
#5970
Senior Member
Dealing with some of the same motivational struggles other folks have mentioned upthread. Tried to do some threshold work the other day. Heart wasn't in it, plus my knee started acting up. It was really easy to say, eh, my knee still feels iffy the next day and skip that as well. I've been stressed around other things in my life as well, and as discussed previously, that makes it harder to focus on intervals as well.
It's frustrating, because we're leading into what should be the best part of my racing year, cyclocross season, and I'm really struggling to hit it hard enough in my training. I think next year I'm going to have to be a bit more judicious in my road season and really only do the races I really care about it to maintain my motivation to train in high summer. The good thing is, I'm still excited to race 'cross, so it should be okay once the season starts. I also have a long break mid-season, the first two weeks in October we'll be on a European vacation to celebrate our wedding anniversary and I'll be focused on training for the rest of the month rather than racing. So we'll see how that goes! As for today, I have a sprint workout planned. So that should at least be quick and simple, if hard.
It's frustrating, because we're leading into what should be the best part of my racing year, cyclocross season, and I'm really struggling to hit it hard enough in my training. I think next year I'm going to have to be a bit more judicious in my road season and really only do the races I really care about it to maintain my motivation to train in high summer. The good thing is, I'm still excited to race 'cross, so it should be okay once the season starts. I also have a long break mid-season, the first two weeks in October we'll be on a European vacation to celebrate our wedding anniversary and I'll be focused on training for the rest of the month rather than racing. So we'll see how that goes! As for today, I have a sprint workout planned. So that should at least be quick and simple, if hard.
08-20-16, 06:16 PM
#5971
Senior Member
was granted a reprieve today to go out for a long time lol went out for a 60mile ride late this PM, 193TSS. I'm at 73 CTL, first time cranking the mark since Oct 31 last year
08-20-16, 06:22 PM
#5972
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,570
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 679 Times
in
430 Posts
These posts made my morning. I will add that even z2 continuous for 20 minutes is not fun for me. I can do longer constant power efforts but suffer immensely. I am a bursty rider and my muscles do not like constant torque. Contrast that to my wife who loves torque in her legs and is a former marathoner.
When I did ran track as a kid, the coach divided us into two groups - the fast kids and the slower kids. I was a fast kid. I ended up racing the 400 meters and the 4x400m relay. I was okay in the 100 but the pure sprinters were better. Nothing has changed over the last 55 years. Give me 1' intervals and below and I can eat them like potato chips and cannot stop.
As a trackie, I am a 500 meter guy/team sprint. I can do pursuit but the guys who are better at longer efforts beat me but I beat them by a lot in 500 meters.
When I did ran track as a kid, the coach divided us into two groups - the fast kids and the slower kids. I was a fast kid. I ended up racing the 400 meters and the 4x400m relay. I was okay in the 100 but the pure sprinters were better. Nothing has changed over the last 55 years. Give me 1' intervals and below and I can eat them like potato chips and cannot stop.
As a trackie, I am a 500 meter guy/team sprint. I can do pursuit but the guys who are better at longer efforts beat me but I beat them by a lot in 500 meters.
08-20-16, 06:24 PM
#5973
Senior Member
08-20-16, 06:24 PM
#5974
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,570
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 679 Times
in
430 Posts
I've had respected coaches that require the 5' effort beforehand, and respected coaches that don't. It does yield significantly different FTP estimates. Switching coaches has resulted in an immediate 10% change in my estimated FTP.
Also, it's my definition of hell to do an all-out 5' effort that ends with an inability to pedal even one more stroke...barely able to unclip and get a foot put down just in time to prevent tipping over...knowing that in 10' you've got an all-out 20' effort.
It's pretty common in my world for people to obliviously compare the two. Some may smirk because of their higher number, while others may smirk with confidence.
Also, it's my definition of hell to do an all-out 5' effort that ends with an inability to pedal even one more stroke...barely able to unclip and get a foot put down just in time to prevent tipping over...knowing that in 10' you've got an all-out 20' effort.
It's pretty common in my world for people to obliviously compare the two. Some may smirk because of their higher number, while others may smirk with confidence.
I can also say that when I was done, I realized I was about 15 miles out, and at that point, I wanted to cry. I wan't sure how I was going to make it those 15 miles, and I was fully expecting it to take 90 min.
08-21-16, 07:37 AM
#5975
Senior Member
sprints yesterday. my sprint is pitiful, but I did set a new 20s PR. i think i need to do more sprint training next year, even if it means just throwing some random sprints in at the end of rides.