Your FTP doesn't change indoors, it just feels different.

I had thought Golden Cheetah's BikeScore/xPower was pretty similar to TSS/NP/IF, but maybe not? I was checking out GC v3.0, and apparently they're adding TSS/NP. I'm seeing numbers at least .05 higher for IF and maybe 10% higher TSS numbers. A least it makes comparing numbers you guys post make a little more sense now.

Here's one noob that's ready to start nerding out with my new PM toy...

I'd disagree. Strongly, for most people. If you look at the majority of people their PE and HR are higher for the same wattage indoors vs. outdoors, even people who are total basement rats. There are a number of reason why this is the case, from cooling to C02 and 02 concentrations after even relatively short efforts to the constant loading provided by the trainer/roller set ups. There certainly may be outliers, but they are pretty rare from what I've seen, and from the coaches I've spoken with.

Using comparative HR response, you can get a decent comparative % and plug that in day to day in TP. I bounce back and forth a lot between sea level and altitudes where I may lose 6-11% on my FTP, if you go to athlete home>power training zone>options>new zones you can change FTP daily to reflect conditions. You should use this in any case as you train to reflect gains and losses in FTP; if you just change FTP globally it's going to really mess up all your ongoing metrics.

this was what i was going to do. I just was wondering if trainpeaks had a setting where you could have na indoor FTP (after testing indoors) and an outdoor FTP.

Not that I know of.

Friel doesn't say anything about your FTP actually being different inside, he just says it feels harder for a variety of reasons: https://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/01...rformance.html

I'm not saying it doesn't feel harder inside, it sure does - I just don't think anyone should change FTP just because of that. Seems to me like people are tweaking one number (FTP) so the other numbers (IF, and implicitly TSS) come out to what you want/expect them to be. (riding at elevation, however, it makes sense to change FTP, I get that)

Perhaps this is why WKO doesn't support indoor & outdoor FTP, because they don't see it being valid?

Technically speaking, this is true. Your road threshold doesn't change just because you're indoors.

I think the difference is that it's really a different exercise (trainer vs. road). The thing you're sitting on is shaped like the thing you sit on outside, and the motions are similar. The exercise is different though, because of the environment: lack of bike sway on a trainer, and over-sensitive steering response on rollers. No hills, no descents, no cornering, no moving through a dry air mass, no coasting. Inertia is different, messing up your pedal stroke.

So, the on-road FTP remains, and it influences the on-trainer FTP, but since they're different sports, they're different numbers, much like a rowing threshold would be different.

Reread this several times:

"If you look at the majority of people their PE and HR are higher for the same wattage indoors vs. outdoors. There are a number of reason why this is the case, from cooling to C02 and 02 concentrations after even relatively short efforts to the constant loading provided by the trainer/roller set ups."

If both PE (subjective) and HR (objective) provide parallel responses, and athletes can't match their current outdoor tested FTP on a trainer, it's hard to argue that it simply feels harder and not accept that it is harder. I've looked at a lot of files from a lot of different people where this is the case. Not always, but predominantly.

If you accept that it is harder to record the same wattage output indoors than out, then changing FTP and training zones is appropriate. Certainly if you believe that HR has an impact on training stress.

Friel wouldn't have come out with subsequent versions of his TB if he didn't miss things and learn new things. And WKO has more than a few holes in it and has been updated numerous times.

WKO doesn't have a corrected setting for altitude either, does this mean your FTP is the same at sea level as it is at 14,000 feet? I do climbs where I end at 9000 feet (72% of 02 at sea level) and start at 4500 feet (86% of 02 at sea level). That's a 20% reduction in 02 when I hit the top plus a drop in barometric pressure which also affects gas exchange. Obviously my FTP goes down as I go up and there's plenty of research in this area yet where's WKO's correction? And I'd expect given the dearth of indoor vs. outdoor research that they didn't feel like throwing darts at that one.

Now go back and read the bold about gas concentrations. I had a long talk with a really bright guy who actually researched this. After 20 minutes there was a huge drop in available oxygen with just one athlete working out in a fairly spacious room. Less 02 = less FTP. Conversely, some athletes are now working out on the trainer while breathing 02 enhanced mixtures which allow them to train at a higher wattage (FTP) and glean the resulting benefits. You can put all the fans in a room you want, but they don't create more 02 or scrub C02.

And that's looking at what I'd call "global 02 availability". My hypothesis would be if you looked at "local 02 availability", that's to say the 02 in the immediate uptake area around the athlete (vs. a corner of the room), the 02 concentration would be smaller still for most people sitting in front of one small fan. Riding outdoors this is never an issue; you're constantly moving through a column of fresh air (unless you're an urban "fixie" drafting a bus).

02 is just one piece of the indoor/outdoor puzzle.

BTW Friel's comments were prefaced with: "So it remains a mystery. There are a couple of possibilities that may explain it, but they are rather lame I’ll have to admit."

RX, do you believe there's a difference between climbing FTP vs TT FTP vs road racing FTP

For some people the TT position reduces FTP; their muscles don't fire as effectively at the different extension/contraction points or they don't breathe as well. I actually put out my best 20 minute numbers on the TT bike, so it's a case by case thing. The climbing vs. road racing output also seems to be pretty individual; again this may be as much a position thing (hoods/tops vs. drops), though I've seen/heard of far fewer people having any significant variability when they are tested back to back between the two.

Yep. I feel a lot more powerful in my climbing position than any other, especially if I'm on a bike that's set up about 2cm longer.

There are also motivational factors between the three. Some people are discouraged by anything resembling a TT, and some are discouraged by anything going uphill. Others driven by these things.

As Enthalpic noted, even just having someone else who can see what you're doing can change the results, I guess just through a "better" protocol.

here's my own report (excerpt from training status thread): lower RPE & HR for the same effort when climbing (even on a 5% hill) vs flat ground

equal or even slightly lower HR and RPE when going at higher power output (~8%), though i don't know if it could have been sustained for longer durations (>30)

I’m not one of these people who thinks that your FTP is some number that you could only hit if you were full hydrated, optimally fueled, totally rested, supremely motivated, in ideal weather conditions at sea level. I think FTP is the power that you can hold for one hour.

Of course, short of doing some sort of FTP test nearly every workout, you won’t know what your FTP is for that given day, location, fatigue level, etc and your training stress balance won’t ever be “right” whatever that means.

Years ago I wasted a lot of time trying to improve upon the training impulse / TSB models hoping to better model fitness, fatigue and thus be able to predict performance. There are obvious weaknesses with the current systems and I explored various “corrections” like adding multiple recovery terms (fast for things like plasma volume, medium for things like RBC turnover, slow for bone remodeling), increasing stress scores when workouts are done in a fatigued state, monotony corrections, etc…

Eventually I realized that there is very little to be gained by increasing the complexity of the model at that even if you did come up with a perfect system it would only work for one athlete for a single macrocycle then you would have to remodel the whole thing.

So the point of all of this is don’t worry if your imaginary stress score is exactly “right” because it doesn’t matter. Go ahead and apply a 1.054367 correction coefficient to your indoor workout stress scores if it makes you feel better, but the general shape of your TSB plot won’t change. It will still give you a reasonable idea of how and when to induce a peak, it just won't tell you that your peak FTP will be 314.7W at 9:17am on 5-May-2012 like I was trying to calculate.

First ride with my PM, do these numbers seem high? Interval 5 was a five minute effort @ 345 avg which would put me @ 5 watt/kg.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9598696/TL-20111108210117.srm

Background: Came back to cycling with about 3500 miles back in the last 9 months.

5w/kg for 5' is nice, but not unbelievably high. people usually mention their FTP, which is power sustainable for an hour

btw, that's a one-off interval, not the 5th interval of a set

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry, I did not mean to imply I finished five intervals as I am still learning the controls of the PC7. Does 150 watt avg sound about right for a recovery/easy ride? As for a ftp test, I'm rather nervous about doing one but will take off my panties sooner or later.

without knowing your ftp w/kg its going to be tough for anyone to form even a useless opinion.

though the middle of the e-wang chart is not as rooted in data as the top and the bottom of the chart are, 5w/kg is a high cat3 number for 5'

Thanks for the comments, will do a FTP test ASAP.

Worn out Powertap bearings. Would that cause wildly inaccurate power numbers, slightly inaccurate, or just change rolling resistance?

also, read this

https://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/...adly-sins.html

i sent my quarq back on a thursday. had it back the following wednesday. the customer serice was excellent from start to finish.

they replaced the electronics pod and snugged up a loose chainring bolt. only two rides since due to a short vaca and the weather, but all seems good. it sync'ed up fast & calibration was at 74. that function was typically returning a number around 350. no dropouts or odd readings. the unit actually appears to go into sleep mode now when idle for 10 minutes. i determined this durning a 20 minute flat tire change. i dont think it did before and i was going through batteries. later.

Actually, if you plot the numbers out, each duration is a straight line. I think the ONLY portions rooted in data are the top and bottom. Maybe only the top, too, then they could just choose untrained numbers that made a few Cat 3/4 tests look about right. "Untrained" is so general -- does that count 3-year-olds? Ancient grandmas? Skinny geek sedentary 20-somethings? Who knows?

All of the above. The biggest issue I had was rear wheel side-to-side play.