Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Training & Nutrition
Reload this Page >

Coggan, FTP, and Normalized/Average Power

Notices
Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

Coggan, FTP, and Normalized/Average Power

Old 05-21-15, 07:01 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 110 Posts
Coggan, FTP, and Normalized/Average Power

It is time to update my ftp data. My last ftp (Feb) was done on a trainer where it is easy to generate a pretty flat power output (average power and nomalized power being roughly the same). I'd like to now do it outdoors 'in the real world'. But around here pretty much everything is one continuous roller. There are certainly no long climbs and (for the most part) pretty much no long flats either (15 to 45 seconds up, less than that down, repeat till done).

Coggan's 20 minute ftp methodology uses (everywhere that I recall seeing it) average power. But I am guessing that even with my most carefully selected route and attempt to maintain a flat effort, my normalized power in this 20 minute test is probably going to be 10 to 15% higher than my average power. So I am wondering if using NP isn't a better way to establish ftp, particularly since one of my primary interests in this number is for TSS calculations (which will use NP and not average power).

I was interested in other folk's thoughts regarding this.

Thanks.

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 05-22-15, 08:30 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: On my bike...
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I feel that the trainer is the best place to do an FTP test for all the reasons you gave.

I also know very little about it, so I've always done the test as prescribed, and used the conventional method for the calculations afterward.
cvskates is offline  
Old 05-22-15, 03:08 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 609
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 278 Post(s)
Liked 29 Times in 19 Posts
If you truly push as hard as you can for 20 minutes on slight rollers and change gears to keep the power up on the downhill portion of the rollers, there won't be anywhere near a 10-15% difference. I live in the foothills of NC so our rollers probably have a little more up and down to them that what you have. I just pick the flattest road I can find and make sure to be steady with the power by shifting gears - I don't attack the upside of the roller and don't let up on the downside. If you try you'll be surprised how steady you can be.

Believe it or not but my normalized has exactly equaled my average on a few 20 minute tests.
RShantz is offline  
Old 05-22-15, 04:24 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 110 Posts
Originally Posted by RShantz
If you truly push as hard as you can for 20 minutes on slight rollers and change gears to keep the power up on the downhill portion of the rollers, there won't be anywhere near a 10-15% difference. I live in the foothills of NC so our rollers probably have a little more up and down to them that what you have. I just pick the flattest road I can find and make sure to be steady with the power by shifting gears - I don't attack the upside of the roller and don't let up on the downside. If you try you'll be surprised how steady you can be.

Believe it or not but my normalized has exactly equaled my average on a few 20 minute tests.
Interesting that you should mention this. Today I did not set out to do a formal 'Coggan 20 min ftp thing', but I did set out to do a hard ride for a while and see how well I could regulate my power output. I was surprised in that my average power and NP were only 10W different. That surprised me (and I could probably do better than that by a bit).

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 05-24-15, 06:49 AM
  #5  
Perceptual Dullard
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 886 Post(s)
Liked 1,097 Times in 470 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC
Coggan's 20 minute ftp methodology uses (everywhere that I recall seeing it) average power. But I am guessing that even with my most carefully selected route and attempt to maintain a flat effort, my normalized power in this 20 minute test is probably going to be 10 to 15% higher than my average power. So I am wondering if using NP isn't a better way to establish ftp, particularly since one of my primary interests in this number is for TSS calculations (which will use NP and not average power).

I was interested in other folk's thoughts regarding this.

Thanks.

dave
The most important person's thoughts on this would be Coggan's. He doesn't recommend any "20 minute" test. That's a rule of thumb that was proposed by Hunter Allen, not Andy Coggan. Here is what Andy's recommendations are -- note that they're listed in order from least reliable to most, and that a 20 minute test isn't on this list:
Alex's Cycle Blog: The seven deadly sins

Andy's "best" estimator of FTP is the average power over a hard 1 hr TT. Note that #4 is NP over an hour.
RChung is offline  
Old 05-24-15, 07:38 AM
  #6  
RR3
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Lactate meters are now cheap compared to 2004 when that was written and when combined with a Power Meter and HRM, an indoor trainer protocol can easily determine the maximum power output achievable over 1 hour irrespective of the label one wishes to apply to this attribute of fitness. Assumes a very powerful fan to keep the rider cool.

It is much easier for me than doing any testing on the road but YMMV unless it is a very long, steady climb.
RR3 is offline  
Old 05-24-15, 07:52 AM
  #7  
Perceptual Dullard
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 886 Post(s)
Liked 1,097 Times in 470 Posts
Andy certainly had access to and experience with lactate measurements when he came up with FTP, no matter the cost. The idea underlying FTP is that it's not pegged to a biochemical measurement like blood values -- it's a practical "functional" test. You go out and see what power you can sustain for an hour. You don't need either a lactate meter or a HRM for this.
RChung is offline  
Old 05-24-15, 08:19 AM
  #8  
RR3
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Not my point. The meters are available to Joe Public now. I can maintain 4.6 mmol at a certain power whereas others might be lower or higher. For me, I get much better data indoors on a trainer. I get power, lactate, and HR data and can easily control load. No so on the road.

Few riders have the discipline to ride an hour hard outdoors even if they have a road to do it on.

FTP is just a term.
RR3 is offline  
Old 05-24-15, 10:07 AM
  #9  
Perceptual Dullard
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 886 Post(s)
Liked 1,097 Times in 470 Posts
Right, not your point -- the point I was addressing was the OP's. He was asking about FTP. You're talking about something different.
RChung is offline  
Old 05-24-15, 10:43 AM
  #10  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 110 Posts
Originally Posted by RChung
The most important person's thoughts on this would be Coggan's. He doesn't recommend any "20 minute" test. That's a rule of thumb that was proposed by Hunter Allen, not Andy Coggan. Here is what Andy's recommendations are -- note that they're listed in order from least reliable to most, and that a 20 minute test isn't on this list:
Alex's Cycle Blog: The seven deadly sins

Andy's "best" estimator of FTP is the average power over a hard 1 hr TT. Note that #4 is NP over an hour.
Thanks for the link to Alex's blogsite. It is a useful resource that I had not encountered.

While I was using "Coggan's 20 minute ftp methodology" as a reference to what is described in his (and H. Allen's) book, I think that you should read #6 in the link above more carefully. I would judge that the '20 minute method in the Coggan/Allen book' and that described in #6 (2nd best) in the link in your post are (outdoors, anyway) the same thing (except that the book is more specific than the description in #6 ).

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 05-24-15, 02:14 PM
  #11  
Perceptual Dullard
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 886 Post(s)
Liked 1,097 Times in 470 Posts
Andy gets asked about the "20 minute" protocol (or Friel's 8 minute protocol) a lot. He has consistently pointed to his "7 deadly sins" as his view on estimating FTP, and that Hunter's "95% of 20 minute power" is a rule of thumb -- but for someone with big fingers.
RChung is offline  
Old 05-24-15, 03:42 PM
  #12  
Thread Killer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,345

Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3035 Post(s)
Liked 1,614 Times in 990 Posts
Originally Posted by RChung
Andy gets asked about the "20 minute" protocol (or Friel's 8 minute protocol) a lot. He has consistently pointed to his "7 deadly sins" as his view on estimating FTP, and that Hunter's "95% of 20 minute power" is a rule of thumb -- but for someone with big fingers.
So what does Coggan think is a good "critical power test"?

I mean, he says in "seven deadly sins" that critical power testing and analysis is one of the best ways to estimate FTP (top 3, in fact), and that the average power and duration results from CP tests get dumped into a CP Model.

Just curious if Coggan has more a problem with the "95% of 20min" rule than he does with using the average power of a 20 min test in his CP Model (if it's even his; I dunno).
chaadster is offline  
Old 05-24-15, 04:18 PM
  #13  
Perceptual Dullard
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 886 Post(s)
Liked 1,097 Times in 470 Posts
Originally Posted by chaadster
So what does Coggan think is a good "critical power test"?

I mean, he says in "seven deadly sins" that critical power testing and analysis is one of the best ways to estimate FTP (top 3, in fact), and that the average power and duration results from CP tests get dumped into a CP Model.

Just curious if Coggan has more a problem with the "95% of 20min" rule than he does with using the average power of a 20 min test in his CP Model (if it's even his; I dunno).
CP is Monod's idea; FTP is Andy's. In order to get robust estimates of CP you need to really work to exhaust all of your W' (since Monod's model only has two parameters, a poor estimate of W' will affect the estimate of CP). So I think Andy said that *if* you do CP estimation, you should do specific efforts in order to exhaust W' -- don't cherry-pick from your MMP curve.

OTOH, I find that my MMP is responsive enough that I can generally spot changes in my CP even if the absolute level may be off. So I haven't done the "gold standard" one hour TT in a pretty long time, and instead I do cherry-pick from my MMP. I'm certain he wouldn't endorse what I do.
RChung is offline  
Old 05-24-15, 06:40 PM
  #14  
Thread Killer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,345

Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3035 Post(s)
Liked 1,614 Times in 990 Posts
Originally Posted by RChung
CP is Monod's idea; FTP is Andy's. In order to get robust estimates of CP you need to really work to exhaust all of your W' (since Monod's model only has two parameters, a poor estimate of W' will affect the estimate of CP). So I think Andy said that *if* you do CP estimation, you should do specific efforts in order to exhaust W' -- don't cherry-pick from your MMP curve.

OTOH, I find that my MMP is responsive enough that I can generally spot changes in my CP even if the absolute level may be off. So I haven't done the "gold standard" one hour TT in a pretty long time, and instead I do cherry-pick from my MMP. I'm certain he wouldn't endorse what I do.
MMP being what? And W'?

I guess what I was asking for was more specificity as to what those "specific efforts to exhaust W'" would be according to Coggan *if* a 20 in effort is inherently problematic? Or, is it that a 20min effort is not per se problematic, and rather the simple "95% of 20min average power" calculation for estimating FTP that Coggan has trouble with?

I mean, do you think Coggan would have a problem if you did 4 stand-alone, max effort 20min efforts over the course of a month and "cherry picked" the two best to plug into [Monod's] Critical Power model? If so, which specific efforts would Coggan prefer to see used in the Critical Power model in order to earn the accuracy suggested by his placement of "critical power testing and analysis" as a top 3 means of estimating FTP?
chaadster is offline  
Old 05-24-15, 07:17 PM
  #15  
Perceptual Dullard
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 886 Post(s)
Liked 1,097 Times in 470 Posts
Ah. MMP is Max Mean Power over different durations. W' is what people used to call AWC, or anaerobic work capacity. Monod's model is that Work (in joules) = W' + CP * t where t is in seconds. There are two unknowns in that equation (W' and CP) so you'll need at least two equations. You can't plug your two best 20 min efforts into Monod's model. Instead you do (at least) two tests of differing length (say, something in the 4 to 8 minute range, and something in the 15 to 25 minute range) where you work really, really hard so that you exhaust yourself in each test. Don't do these two tests in the same day. They're supposed to be to exhaustion. Convert your watts to joules and find W' and CP.

Coggan would say that "95% of 20 minute max power" is a rule of thumb but that the thumb is actually pretty big so FTP can be anywhere from less than 90% to the upper 90's of 20 minute max. In addition, as you become more used to the protocol you can "learn" to test so that's an added source of variability (that is, even for any single individual FTP can vary over time as a proportion of 20 minute power).

As a not-so-aside, Golden Cheetah does the CP and W' calculations for you based on your MMP. This is the cherry-picking that Andy objects to, and he says that the CP you get from that overstates FTP. I don't really care all that much so I use Golden Cheetah's CP, with the expectation that it will do that. Basically, Golden Cheetah's CP is my rule of thumb -- but I'm aware of it. If I ever really needed a better estimate of my threshold power I'd probably bite the bullet and do a dedicated test.
RChung is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mgopack42
Training & Nutrition
20
02-25-19 12:07 AM
Alias530
Road Cycling
31
08-13-15 09:32 AM
ethan.g75
Training & Nutrition
20
11-08-13 07:30 PM
JAX_11
"The 33"-Road Bike Racing
14
05-12-13 07:57 PM
billydonn
Training & Nutrition
6
02-05-12 05:12 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.