% of FTP for a Sprint (Page 11)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2016-04-14 1:24 PM in reply to: nc452010 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by nc452010 Originally posted by brigby1 We're still talking about a sprint triathlon, here, right???? Originally posted by nc452010 Originally posted by axteraa GREAT point. Thank you. Originally posted by nc452010 Originally posted by brigby1 I know I'm going as hard as I can go (for the distance covered). That's all I can do. I'm being serious when I ask this........... If you're going as hard as you imagine you can go......and you look down at your PM's head unit.....and it says you should be at 10 "more" (insert appropriate metric, here)......what do you do? Using RPE, I can't recall ever being in a sprint and saying to myself that I needed to "pick it up a bit". Originally posted by nc452010 I'm in the market (soon) for a PM. My fear is.....................that I'd use it in a race and the data I used to set my targets would be flawed, somehow. And you know what you're currently doing is spot on? Everything is a learning process. I'd be more inclined to think that it would enable you to back off a bit at the start when you are feeling like superman. It isn't that difficult to exhaust yourself. The learning part is more in getting the most out of that expenditure. simple things dude. lets say my goal is 100% of ftp for a sprint bike. there are a few hills and a tailwind out, headwind back. I get to the first hill, 350 watts doesn't hurt for the first 30 seconds of the hill. its still a stupid use of power. I'm with the tailwind going out, I should be riding 5-10 watts under goal power, or what feels right so that when I'm coming back into the wind I'm using 5-10 watts over goal power.
at the beginning of a sprint triathlon bike my legs feel better than at the end, I'm never going "as hard as I can for the distance" where I couldn't push harder until MAYBE the last 5-10 minutes...maybe. |
|
2016-04-14 1:40 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Expert 2852 Pfafftown, NC | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint I'm sure I didn't say "as hard as I can for the distance.......where I couldn't push harder". I just said....as hard as I could for the distance. I suppose it's in how I interpret exhaustion. Maybe I'm looking at it differently than you are. Dude |
2016-04-14 1:41 PM in reply to: nc452010 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by nc452010 Originally posted by brigby1 I know I'm going as hard as I can go (for the distance covered). That's all I can do. I'm being serious when I ask this........... If you're going as hard as you imagine you can go......and you look down at your PM's head unit.....and it says you should be at 10 "more" (insert appropriate metric, here)......what do you do? Using RPE, I can't recall ever being in a sprint and saying to myself that I needed to "pick it up a bit". Originally posted by nc452010 I'm in the market (soon) for a PM. My fear is.....................that I'd use it in a race and the data I used to set my targets would be flawed, somehow. And you know what you're currently doing is spot on? Everything is a learning process. I mean isn't that what you said here essentially? ^^^ |
2016-04-14 1:43 PM in reply to: nc452010 |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by nc452010 Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by nc452010 I'm in the market (soon) for a PM. My fear is.....................that I'd use it in a race and the data I used to set my targets would be flawed, somehow. And you know what you're currently doing is spot on? Everything is a learning process. I know I'm going as hard as I can go (for the distance covered). That's all I can do. I'm being serious when I ask this........... If you're going as hard as you imagine you can go......and you look down at your PM's head unit.....and it says you should be at 10 "more" (insert appropriate metric, here)......what do you do? Using RPE, I can't recall ever being in a sprint and saying to myself that I needed to "pick it up a bit". For training, this was the biggest benefit of a PM. I had no idea (and still don't I fear) of what hard is on the bike. I wasn't even in the ballpark and now that I have been training with a tangible way of telling me, go *this* hard it has pushed my cycling up to a completely different level. It has been the single most powerful tool I have had since I started triathlon, hands down. Learning how far I could actually push myself on the bike has translated to the run and swim as well. It has reestablished my threshold of what an upper limit is many times. |
2016-04-14 1:58 PM in reply to: 0 |
Expert 2852 Pfafftown, NC | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by nc452010 Originally posted by brigby1 I know I'm going as hard as I can go (for the distance covered). That's all I can do. I'm being serious when I ask this........... If you're going as hard as you imagine you can go......and you look down at your PM's head unit.....and it says you should be at 10 "more" (insert appropriate metric, here)......what do you do? Using RPE, I can't recall ever being in a sprint and saying to myself that I needed to "pick it up a bit". Originally posted by nc452010 I'm in the market (soon) for a PM. My fear is.....................that I'd use it in a race and the data I used to set my targets would be flawed, somehow. And you know what you're currently doing is spot on? Everything is a learning process. I mean isn't that what you said here essentially? ^^^ I'm not going to argue with you. If I'd meant to say what you're claiming I did, I'd have just said that. I even put (for the distance covered) in parenthesis (for emphasis). I don't train with power nor race with it. I'm not saying my way is right or yours is wrong (especially since I'm interested in a PM.........for anything over an OLY). I can't imagine being in a sprint and looking at my head unit and it reading (______) and me saying to myself.....I need to pick it up a bit. If you can, good for you. I got a great explanation in why it might be prudent to dial it BACK a notch (from someone else). Edited by nc452010 2016-04-14 2:03 PM |
2016-04-14 2:09 PM in reply to: nc452010 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by nc452010 I can't imagine being in a sprint and looking at my head unit and it reading (______) and me saying to myself.....I need to pick it up a bit. If you can, good for you. I got a great explanation in why it might be prudent to dial it BACK a notch (from someone else). Here's one case - back half of an out and back with a long false flat (down). You're going fast but probably not working as hard as you think you are. Shane |
|
2016-04-14 2:11 PM in reply to: gsmacleod |
Expert 2852 Pfafftown, NC | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint I can see how that might happen to someone. |
2016-04-14 2:38 PM in reply to: nc452010 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by nc452010 Originally posted by dmiller5 I'm not going to argue with you. If I'd meant to say what you're claiming I did, I'd have just said that. I even put (for the distance covered) in parenthesis (for emphasis). I don't train with power nor race with it. I'm not saying my way is right or yours is wrong (especially since I'm interested in a PM.........for anything over an OLY). I can't imagine being in a sprint and looking at my head unit and it reading (______) and me saying to myself.....I need to pick it up a bit. If you can, good for you. I got a great explanation in why it might be prudent to dial it BACK a notch (from someone else). Originally posted by nc452010 Originally posted by brigby1 I know I'm going as hard as I can go (for the distance covered). That's all I can do. I'm being serious when I ask this........... If you're going as hard as you imagine you can go......and you look down at your PM's head unit.....and it says you should be at 10 "more" (insert appropriate metric, here)......what do you do? Using RPE, I can't recall ever being in a sprint and saying to myself that I needed to "pick it up a bit". Originally posted by nc452010 I'm in the market (soon) for a PM. My fear is.....................that I'd use it in a race and the data I used to set my targets would be flawed, somehow. And you know what you're currently doing is spot on? Everything is a learning process. I mean isn't that what you said here essentially? ^^^ ...how about at the end of the race and your power is dropping and it hurts but your training says you can push 10 more watts, so you do. and you held back at the beginning, so you're able. sounds to me like you pace poorly and that is why you are having trouble understanding it. |
2016-04-14 2:40 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Expert 2852 Pfafftown, NC | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint lol.......... |
2016-04-14 2:46 PM in reply to: marcag |
Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by marcag It's funny. Jason, I looked at your FB Challenge thread. 99% of the people in that thread say "I did 80TSS", "I did .87IF", "I went 80%"....I would be curious to know how many of those people have an accurate CP, because they are all quoting numbers based off CP. So I agree that 20min testing is not the be-all-end all of assessing CP (au contraire) but I do think there is value in an accurate CP. And we won't talk about the guys that ask "what % of my CP should I use". I think we agree more than you think...possibly because I am probably not expressing my opinion properly. I do value an accurate CP, I just don't value the pursuit of constantly testing it formally. As I mentioned before, training is testing. Every time you do a 6x4' workouts, or a 5x5', 2x20', 3x8', etc...it's a test. You can go back to your power file and evaluate how you did and compare it to how hard of a workout (in relation to max effort) it was supposed to be. So when someone notices that their workouts are getting too easy, or that they are going over goal wattage and still feeling like the RPE was where it was supposed to be...then they can simply adjust CP on the fly. One shouldn't be seeing these improvements, then suddenly reworking their training schedule to accommodate more testing. Because what will happen in the end is that they'll have to formulate in their head what they think their new FTP is, then back into a number they should shoot for on the 20' and or 5' test. And more times than not...their guess will be pretty good. If their guess was off one way or another, and they had not done another test...they'll see the results in their next interval workout anyway as it being too hard or too easy. The only reason I do any CP testing in the past is because I have 20-30' time trials on the schedule, and a 20' test is a good way to prepare for a 20-30' time trial. For a 40k TT, I have usually opted for a 2x20' workout and extrapolate from there as it is a better indicator for me than the 5' and 20' CP test. Other than that, I have just estimated CP without much testing at all. So that's my main point...when the OP just realized he was doing the 6x4' workout at higher power than he should have...does he need to start scheduling another test to confirm CP changes. No...I don't believe he does. Not that knowing his new CP isn't important. Just that he can estimate it pretty well without formal testing and that there seems to be an over exuberance towards formal testing as if it magically uncovers or validates things about CP that you could never find out.
|
2016-04-14 3:16 PM in reply to: Jason N |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by Jason N So that's my main point...when the OP just realized he was doing the 6x4' workout at higher power than he should have...does he need to start scheduling another test to confirm CP changes. No...I don't believe he does. Not that knowing his new CP isn't important. Just that he can estimate it pretty well without formal testing and that there seems to be an over exuberance towards formal testing as if it magically uncovers or validates things about CP that you could never find out.
You're 100% right. But one difference is prescriptive vs descriptive use of the PM . If you do a 20' all out test, the PM is descriptive of what you did. If you assume a higher CP, and create a new set of zones to do your 6 x 5' or whatever...that's prescriptive. There are a lot of coaches, including andy coggan, john verheul, chris mayhew...some of the original riders / coaches that worked with power meter performance modeling for the PMC that advocate primarily descriptive use...ie go out and ride 20' as hard as you can. It seems like you're trying to take a hard stance against testing, when testing is simply a way of using RPE to get descriptive power numbers. Plus it has the advantage of helping riders tune back into RPE. You can do a blended approach as well, like going by RPE with a floor of some higher assumed number. That's a great way to do it IMO. |
|
2016-04-14 3:57 PM in reply to: Jason N |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by Jason N I think we agree more than you think... I agree with that. I do not believe testing is the be-all-end all thing. I do believe an accurate CP is extremely important for many reasons. If you have the experience to extrapolate it from workouts cool. If you have a coach to do it, cool. I test my CP 3 ways to make sure they cross check. 2 or the 3 ways are through training sessions. I do not waste entire weeks resting to be 100% for a test. I don't have time for that. But the more accurate the data, the more targeted you can make the training and the better use of the very limited time we have on the bike....and on the swim...and on the run. Your FTP is much higher than your 5/20 CP, correct ? |
2016-04-14 4:11 PM in reply to: AdventureBear |
Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by AdventureBear Originally posted by Jason N So that's my main point...when the OP just realized he was doing the 6x4' workout at higher power than he should have...does he need to start scheduling another test to confirm CP changes. No...I don't believe he does. Not that knowing his new CP isn't important. Just that he can estimate it pretty well without formal testing and that there seems to be an over exuberance towards formal testing as if it magically uncovers or validates things about CP that you could never find out. You're 100% right. But one difference is prescriptive vs descriptive use of the PM . If you do a 20' all out test, the PM is descriptive of what you did. If you assume a higher CP, and create a new set of zones to do your 6 x 5' or whatever...that's prescriptive. There are a lot of coaches, including andy coggan, john verheul, chris mayhew...some of the original riders / coaches that worked with power meter performance modeling for the PMC that advocate primarily descriptive use...ie go out and ride 20' as hard as you can. It seems like you're trying to take a hard stance against testing, when testing is simply a way of using RPE to get descriptive power numbers. Plus it has the advantage of helping riders tune back into RPE. You can do a blended approach as well, like going by RPE with a floor of some higher assumed number. That's a great way to do it IMO.
I'm not taking a hard stance against testing...being that every ride you have with power is a test. Some rides, depending on the structure and goal, are going to be better tests than others. Creating a new CP based on a 6x5' or whatever...is no less descriptive than a 20' all out test. You just have to know how to infer the data properly from your 6x5' workout no different than you need to infer the data properly off of a 20' test. If someone does a 6x5' on 2' RI workout at 250 watts and then infers their new CP to be 250 watts then of course that's not going to end up well. No different than if someone did a 20' all out test at 250 watts, then assumes their new CP is 250 watts. What I am taking a hard stance against is that a 20' test, or a 20' and a 5' test somehow provides you with mystical information that you can't otherwise get if you don't do them...or that you can't make adjustments to your CP without them. |
2016-04-14 4:35 PM in reply to: marcag |
Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by Jason N I think we agree more than you think... I agree with that. I do not believe testing is the be-all-end all thing. I do believe an accurate CP is extremely important for many reasons. If you have the experience to extrapolate it from workouts cool. If you have a coach to do it, cool. I test my CP 3 ways to make sure they cross check. 2 or the 3 ways are through training sessions. I do not waste entire weeks resting to be 100% for a test. I don't have time for that. But the more accurate the data, the more targeted you can make the training and the better use of the very limited time we have on the bike....and on the swim...and on the run. Your FTP is much higher than your 5/20 CP, correct ? I think most people are better at extrapolating CP than they think. As I mentioned before, for someone who wants to retest...the first step is to ballpark an number they are going to shoot for. That in itself, is already estimating what their new CP is. I suppose you could just do a 20' and a 5' all out test completely blind and see how that goes...but for pacing purposes, I don't know anyone who does that. IOW, your pre test estimation of your new CP already has influence on the test results before it even begins. A beginner may not interpret their workout results as well as someone more experience with power. But if they can't extrapolate it properly, chances are they'll also shoot for the wrong number on their tests anyway. So they aren't in much of a better place once the test is done as compared to just rolling with what they think their new CP is for their next workout and seeing how that goes. And adjust accordingly...just like they may adjust accordingly based on the results of a test where they shot too high or too low. As far as my own CP/FTP...my 5' and 20' numbers tend to be fairly accurate...probably within 5 watts...usually 5 watts too high though. Right now I think the best efforts I have to plug in are 411 for 3:08, and 313 for 21:42 and that comes out to 296. I personally haven't targeted 20' or 5' specifically...for obvious reasons. I think 296 is probably a good guess, but I still have 290 plugged into TP because it tends to be a bit high. My recent 40k was only 285 watts...but I also think I'm one of those that loses a few watts in the TT position. If I did it on my road bike, 290-293 likely would have been my goal. |
2016-04-14 5:50 PM in reply to: Jason N |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by Jason N Originally posted by AdventureBear Originally posted by Jason N So that's my main point...when the OP just realized he was doing the 6x4' workout at higher power than he should have...does he need to start scheduling another test to confirm CP changes. No...I don't believe he does. Not that knowing his new CP isn't important. Just that he can estimate it pretty well without formal testing and that there seems to be an over exuberance towards formal testing as if it magically uncovers or validates things about CP that you could never find out. You're 100% right. But one difference is prescriptive vs descriptive use of the PM . If you do a 20' all out test, the PM is descriptive of what you did. If you assume a higher CP, and create a new set of zones to do your 6 x 5' or whatever...that's prescriptive. There are a lot of coaches, including andy coggan, john verheul, chris mayhew...some of the original riders / coaches that worked with power meter performance modeling for the PMC that advocate primarily descriptive use...ie go out and ride 20' as hard as you can. It seems like you're trying to take a hard stance against testing, when testing is simply a way of using RPE to get descriptive power numbers. Plus it has the advantage of helping riders tune back into RPE. You can do a blended approach as well, like going by RPE with a floor of some higher assumed number. That's a great way to do it IMO.
I'm not taking a hard stance against testing...being that every ride you have with power is a test. Some rides, depending on the structure and goal, are going to be better tests than others. Creating a new CP based on a 6x5' or whatever...is no less descriptive than a 20' all out test. You just have to know how to infer the data properly from your 6x5' workout no different than you need to infer the data properly off of a 20' test. If someone does a 6x5' on 2' RI workout at 250 watts and then infers their new CP to be 250 watts then of course that's not going to end up well. No different than if someone did a 20' all out test at 250 watts, then assumes their new CP is 250 watts. What I am taking a hard stance against is that a 20' test, or a 20' and a 5' test somehow provides you with mystical information that you can't otherwise get if you don't do them...or that you can't make adjustments to your CP without them. Could be said that the testing process is more to give a consistent starting point to base things off of in learning the process. Get something methodical going first. Easily repeatable that does give a good indication of what one wants to look for. See how the other workouts are affected based off that one to start. Then over time FTP or CP adjustments can come from others too. Like you, I haven't done a single 20' all out effort in a few years, but trust a few other workouts enough after starting off doing it somewhat regular in the early going with power. In 3mar's case, it's probably a good idea to keep going with the 20' for awhile. Otherwise he'll overanalyze after every single workout! Eventually one can work off of it, but would start with a more staple workout, or set of staple workouts to help simplify the learning. |
2016-04-14 7:18 PM in reply to: 0 |
Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by brigby1 Could be said that the testing process is more to give a consistent starting point to base things off of in learning the process. Get something methodical going first. Easily repeatable that does give a good indication of what one wants to look for. See how the other workouts are affected based off that one to start. Then over time FTP or CP adjustments can come from others too. Like you, I haven't done a single 20' all out effort in a few years, but trust a few other workouts enough after starting off doing it somewhat regular in the early going with power. In 3mar's case, it's probably a good idea to keep going with the 20' for awhile. Otherwise he'll overanalyze after every single workout! Eventually one can work off of it, but would start with a more staple workout, or set of staple workouts to help simplify the learning. I agree. When someone is new to power, they should absolutely do testing...probably on a scheduled basis for two reasons. The first is that they have no idea where to start with as they have no historical data to go on. The second being that they probably aren't going to be that good at testing their first couple of tries...either shooting too high or low (mostly because of the first reason). The better they can dial in what they can hold for X minutes max effort, the better the test results will yield. Most people figure it out after a few tests. The emphasis on the bolded though. Scheduled. If your schedule says to test once every 8 weeks...then stick to that. Yes, your CP may change in between those 8 weeks, but there is no need to do an unscheduled test to validate it. I understand that the 20' test is something easy to grasp for new power users and it has a sense of familiarity...but as I mentioned before, the nature of testing is that you will go into them already targeting a specific number. So if you're analytical enough to come up with that target number, you're also analytical enough to reset your CP without a 20' test. The better you are at dialing in the target number before a 20' test...the better you will be at predicting CP without a test. Kind of a catch 22. ETA: I rather have 3mar over analyzing his power files than some of the other silly things he thinks about.
Edited by Jason N 2016-04-14 7:21 PM |
|
2016-04-15 6:05 AM in reply to: Jason N |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint Originally posted by Jason N ETA: I rather have 3mar over analyzing his power files than some of the other silly things he thinks about.
Here is something to think about : whether it be testing or using race/training files, it is important to sit down every x weeks and see if the numbers are improving. Too many people just do the same stuff over and over, do not target anything specific, do not measure progress and in fact don't make much. For me X is about 8-10 weeks. |
2016-04-15 10:59 AM in reply to: marcag |
Subject: RE: % of FTP for a Sprint I tend to look at it my progress more often than that...but do use about the same window of 8-12 weeks to compare progress. Ive been at this a while so the week to week stuff won't be as useful. Most of my TP charts are 60-90 day windows. |
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|