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

Let's talk about limitations of FTP

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.

Let's talk about limitations of FTP

Old 01-15-19, 01:31 PM
  #26  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,823

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1736 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times in 13 Posts
Oh yeah, winning. I was the 10th oldest person in an event ride last year. I finished before anyone with a number under 20, including a rider about my age who went to nationals a few years ago. Won my age group pretty easily. Finished in the top 3rd of riders overall, not in the top 10% like in my 50's but OK.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 02:07 PM
  #27  
fstrnu
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hermes View Post
Those that listen to their body and monitor load are going to win every time...I do not think so. Listening to ones body is definitely conservative but win every time, no. And I suspect you do not really mean that but it demonstrates that you have not competed at a high level. That is not a criticism just an observation.

Winning for me is about doing something exceptional in the moment. I won back to back state championships in NorCal in 2016 and Socal in 2017 in masters track 500 meter time trial. When I was tired and carrying a lot of residual fatigue during training, I had to drain the tank. There were times I was so fatigued after a track workout, I could barely make it up the stairs at Velo Sports Center. If I listened to my body, I would stop. No sane person goes on. However, I wanted to get to the next level. To do that one has to drive oneself mentally and physically.

So for beginners, sure, listen to their body and develop the physiology and muscular infrastructure and pay careful attention to recovery. Be conservative in the training, why not. But winning, that is a different matter and beginners generally do not compete for wins.

All the coaches I have used over the years have been winners with success at the UCI, world tour level, olympics or national/worlds and have done hundreds of races and trained thousands of hours.....themselves. They know what it takes to win and they know how awful one has to feel to reach a high level of success. And it is not what you propose. But for beginners, in the winter, sure.
Sorry, by "win every time" I mean have a better result than they would blindly following a generic plan.
fstrnu is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 02:18 PM
  #28  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,040
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1600 Post(s)
Liked 12 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by fstrnu View Post
Sorry, by "win every time" I mean have a better result than they would blindly following a generic plan.
How do you know that, can you finally post your data?
redlude97 is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 02:38 PM
  #29  
newduguy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by fstrnu View Post
Sorry, by "win every time" I mean have a better result than they would blindly following a generic plan.
Have you spent time digging through Slowtwitch, the Google Wattage forum, etc? Are you well versed in analytical software and numerical analyses? Do you maintain a PMC to compare to your own "load monitoring"?

I'm curious fstrnu, have you read any of these books?
Training and Racing with a Power Meter
The Power Meter Handbook
The Cyclist Training Bible
Time-crunched Cyclist
Base Building for Cyclists

I have read them, and regularly flip through them, and they don't say what you're saying about training. Why should I believe you over Coggan, Allen, Friel, Carmichael, and Chapple?

What data do you have to back your training "paradigm"?
newduguy is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 02:47 PM
  #30  
fstrnu
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
How do you know that, can you finally post your data?
Because of the principle of individualization
fstrnu is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 02:55 PM
  #31  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,823

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1736 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
In terms of pacing power>>>>>HR.
https://www.bestbikesplit.com/
Cool. Just registered there for tons of future spam, though I'll probably unsubscribe. I chose a hilly TT course and ran a race plan, which has the variable power just like I predicted would be fastest in post 24. NOT constant power. So cool to have it predicted for you. But as we know, FTP, weather, and readiness are all fallible and issues, so how would one know how to modify in the instant? PM and HRM FTW.


From BikeSplit
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 02:56 PM
  #32  
newduguy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by fstrnu View Post
Because of the principle of individualization
Your individualization isn't really any different than FTP. FTP is THE individualization for TR, Sufferfest, etc, etc.
newduguy is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 02:56 PM
  #33  
fstrnu
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by newduguy View Post
Have you spent time digging through Slowtwitch, the Google Wattage forum, etc? Are you well versed in analytical software and numerical analyses? Do you maintain a PMC to compare to your own "load monitoring"?

I'm curious fstrnu, have you read any of these books?
Training and Racing with a Power Meter
The Power Meter Handbook
The Cyclist Training Bible
Time-crunched Cyclist
Base Building for Cyclists

I have read them, and regularly flip through them, and they don't say what you're saying about training. Why should I believe you over Coggan, Allen, Friel, Carmichael, and Chapple?

What data do you have to back your training "paradigm"?
Carmichael all but apologizes to cyclists who cannot afford a coach.

Principle of individualization is straight out of Training Bible.

Faster After 50 has had huge influence on my approach and I could heavily reference that book in my sleep. I consider my approach the indoor equivalent of that book.

Both Friel and Allen advocate aerobic decoupling and efficiency factor.

Mathematical model stuff is just training industrial complex stuff and only relevant to noisy outdoor data. Fixed power under controlled conditions cancels out all of that silly math but I can understand why some Type A need to think their in control of something and if that can be profitable for some then that is a match made in heaven.

And don't forget Burke.
fstrnu is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 02:58 PM
  #34  
fstrnu
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by newduguy View Post
Your individualization isn't really any different than FTP. FTP is THE individualization for TR, Sufferfest, etc, etc.
FTFY ==> FTP is the ONLY individualization for TR, Sufferfest, etc, etc.
fstrnu is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 03:02 PM
  #35  
newduguy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by fstrnu View Post
Carmichael all but apologizes to cyclists who cannot afford a coach.

Principle of individualization is straight out of Training Bible.

Faster After 50 has had huge influence on my approach and I could heavily reference that book in my sleep. I consider my approach the indoor equivalent of that book.

Both Friel and Allen advocate aerobic decoupling and efficiency factor.

Mathematical model stuff is just training industrial complex stuff and only relevant to noisy outdoor data. Fixed power under controlled conditions cancels out all of that silly math but I can understand why some Type A need to think their in control of something and if that can be profitable for some then that is a match made in heaven.

And don't forget Burke.
Where does Carmichael all but apologize? So he's been peddling bad info for three editions?

Oh boy....the training industrial complex? Your simpleton training only works for athletes that are coming from the couch. How are you helping racing athletes with your basic, generic, based on no science plan? I've only been cycling a year and can see how limited your approach is.
newduguy is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 03:11 PM
  #36  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,040
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1600 Post(s)
Liked 12 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Cool. Just registered there for tons of future spam, though I'll probably unsubscribe. I chose a hilly TT course and ran a race plan, which has the variable power just like I predicted would be fastest in post 24. NOT constant power. So cool to have it predicted for you. But as we know, FTP, weather, and readiness are all fallible and issues, so how would one know how to modify in the instant? PM and HRM FTW.


From BikeSplit
I guess I should have been more clear, we've known for a long time(before power meters even) that pacing to a constant power is not that fastest. Your friend pacing to a constant power was doing it wrong. Usually you would estimate your duration, and then pick a intensity factor(IF) that would be sustainable for that time frame. Been used in both the pro peloton and for ironman podiums
Validated enough to be purchased by training peaks a few years ago to incorporate into their systems.
redlude97 is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 03:58 PM
  #37  
Hermes 
Version 3.0
 
Hermes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 11,134

Bikes: Too Many

Mentioned: 281 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
See post 18. I agree with you on the training part. I'm looking into it. Certainly training with constant power will tire the legs sooner, which is kind of the point. And it would be nice not having to wait 20' until I've warmed my rollers up to do constant power.

However I disagree with you about event rides, even as short as a 20k TT. All my rides which don't feature drafting, which is most of them, are really TTs, just very long TTs. The key equation for TTs is P = f(v3), for power to maintain speed is a function of speed cubed. Therefore one wants to vary power depending on speed. So less speed (climbing), more power; more speed (flats), less power; even more speed (descending), zero power. I learned this the hard way on my very first competitive group ride. One goes hard on the climbs and eases off when speed picks up. Conservation of energy is the game. The most fun 4-person rotating paceline I ever had was after 10,000' of climbing.

We are DNA, and our DNA has our HR always lagging effort by a very particular amount. This lag enables us to recover better after hard efforts, IOW keeping HR more or less constant with small variations in terrain is actually faster over the long run. Etc. Hence I was able to beat the 17-year younger and more athletic friend who used constant power on a very strenuous event ride, simply by riding by HR and knowing what to do with it. Not to say this couldn't be done with power, but how? How would one determine the exact power number to use in situations more complicated than a relatively steady grade climb at the temperature of one's last FTP test? How would one use power when the first 2000' climb might be at 70 and the second one at 100+? I've been there, done that.

Using HR is really simple and effective by comparison. HR drift is a good thing, automatic compensation. Plus as I mentioned earlier, being able to effectively track hydration and nutrition over 10-18 hour rides. - or even on 4 hour rides. It's all about being able to titrate physiological stress. "Titrate the pain" is actually what I say. It really helps to have a physiological stress meter staring me in the face.

Or take a situation like doing long rides on our tandem. Currently stoker matches my HR. Interestingly enough, our LTHRs are almost the same. Hers is a little higher, but OTOH she tires more quickly so that all works out. Were she to attempt to constantly match some fraction of my power, that would feel great to me but only until she started to tire faster than I, at which point I'd blow her up on the next climb. Matching HRs, she's been able to stay with me on rides up to 15 hours. Broken stokers are the bane of a captain's existence, a problem which of course you don't have!
I am a time trialist and have been doing it successfully for 10 years and I have been racing pursuit and team pursuit at the track for 8 years with podiums at the National level. I know how to pace a time trial applying the most power on the slowest parts of the course and pursuit for the fastest time.

I have been riding and racing tandems since 1980 and have won state championship and recently raced the tandem in time trials and in a mass start UCI 55k race in Tahiti where we were 6 out of 97 tandems beating most of them by one hour. We have power on our tandem.

My goal is not to change your thinking just offer ideas and alternatives that may make you faster. You may carry on with HR stuff strategies/results. I will refrain from commenting.

Last edited by Hermes; 01-15-19 at 07:21 PM.
Hermes is offline  
Old 01-16-19, 12:44 PM
  #38  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,823

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1736 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
I guess I should have been more clear, we've known for a long time(before power meters even) that pacing to a constant power is not that fastest. Your friend pacing to a constant power was doing it wrong. Usually you would estimate your duration, and then pick a intensity factor(IF) that would be sustainable for that time frame. Been used in both the pro peloton and for ironman podiums https://soundcloud.com/trainerroad/s...ling-coach-128
Validated enough to be purchased by training peaks a few years ago to incorporate into their systems.
Thanks for your help.

I did some more research about pacing since creating that bestbikesplit example course. I went back and looked at my data. It's pretty obvious that the shorter the course, the greater the variation in power and HR. I hadn't really realized that I do that to such an extent. I don't ease off much anywhere, I just cap the top depending on duration - short duration, higher cap but then more recovery is necessary so more variation.

Randos do an SR series: 200k, 300k, 400k, 600k. My practice is (well, was) to use my max sustainable HR at the end of the preceding brevet as my limit HR on the next length brevet. That worked perfectly - one does get tired. Looks like most folks follow some variation on this strategy, using caps for either power or HR, whatever they go by.

I found some good info from an ironman coach. Seems there's more published ironman data. This guy's a 30-34 AG, first time at Kona, trying to stay under his caps, not succeeding perfectly, but well enough that both markers follow almost straight lines. He had a good run, considering.

When I'm doing it right, my HR doesn't fall off at all, even over 15 riding hours. Sometimes it goes up near the end, when I can paceline.


I looked at these links, which were quite informative, I thought:
https://www.coachcox.co.uk/2011/01/2...hilly-ironman/
https://www.coachcox.co.uk/2014/06/1...g-power-meter/
https://www.coachcox.co.uk/2012/10/1...-obriens-race/

Even though I only upload HR data to TrainingPeaks, it gives me an IF for every ride. A 78 is about all I can ever do for a 4 hour ride. I can't imagine where it comes up with that number. Any idea?
__________________
Results matter

Last edited by Carbonfiberboy; 01-16-19 at 12:51 PM.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 01-16-19, 01:24 PM
  #39  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,040
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1600 Post(s)
Liked 12 Times in 9 Posts
For me, the easiest way to pace with the results from BBS is to do the rough calculation for the IF based on my power duration curve, then use normalized power on my garmin to keep track of my pacing. If there is 1 or 2 big hills on a ride I'll note the power suggested for the hill and try to limit my output to that avg. The IF can be estimated from your training volume(TSS) https://fitwerx.com/how-to-use-a-pow...ronman-pacing/
redlude97 is offline  
Old 01-16-19, 08:03 PM
  #40  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,823

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1736 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times in 13 Posts
^ok
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 01-25-19, 02:22 PM
  #41  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,394

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2433 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Hermes View Post
Those that listen to their body and monitor load are going to win every time...I do not think so. Listening to ones body is definitely conservative but win every time, no. And I suspect you do not really mean that but it demonstrates that you have not competed at a high level. That is not a criticism just an observation.

Winning for me is about doing something exceptional in the moment. I won back to back state championships in NorCal in 2016 and Socal in 2017 in masters track 500 meter time trial. When I was tired and carrying a lot of residual fatigue during training, I had to drain the tank. There were times I was so fatigued after a track workout, I could barely make it up the stairs at Velo Sports Center. If I listened to my body, I would stop. No sane person goes on. However, I wanted to get to the next level. To do that one has to drive oneself mentally and physically.

So for beginners, sure, listen to their body and develop the physiology and muscular infrastructure and pay careful attention to recovery. Be conservative in the training, why not. But winning, that is a different matter and beginners generally do not compete for wins.

All the coaches I have used over the years have been winners with success at the UCI, world tour level, olympics or national/worlds and have done hundreds of races and trained thousands of hours.....themselves. They know what it takes to win and they know how awful one has to feel to reach a high level of success. And it is not what you propose. But for beginners, in the winter, sure.
Being fair to him, I'm sure that's what he's talking about. Beginners that is, or at least the vast majority in the linear middle portion of the "S"-curve. I found some data on competitive 5K runners (not cycling, sorry, but I don't imagine it's much different), aggregated over 20 years. I was trying to relate Age Graded performance to percentile ranking, which doesn't really work but the data illustrates something about this. At the very left side of the line is where you are, or would be if you were the runner instead of track cyclist. 70% of the speed of the world record for a given age is generally equated for "Regional Class" competitiveness. That level is between 1% and 2% on this chart, or 18 minute 5K. For "National Class" level (80% of a world record) it's a point at the very end of the line. For someone to be competitive to win even at local level they have to be in that first 4 or 5% range of course.



As you can see, the chart looks a lot different in the 1-10% range. It seems backwards doesn't it, but that's the data I've got.

In the middle where most people are, it's pretty steady - a given change in time equates to a similar change in percentile ranking. I submit that training considerations are completely different at each extreme end of this curve and in the middle, and I'd bet bagels that a similar situation pertains to cycling.

Parenthetically, I've concluded that the popular Age Grade metric is pretty much meaningless, more of an ego stroke than any real utility.
wphamilton is offline  

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.