Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 (Page 13)

Sorry, dumb question, and sorry for lagging behind.  Where do I access the Google Excel Sheet? Is there a link somewhere? 

Thanks!

Hi Jorge,

I read your post in the other thread that anything other than a 60' FTP test is an approximation. And I agree.

I was wondering what your opinion of the MAP test is and how good using a 75% value of MAP is ? Coggan seems to say it's as accurate as a 5/20 3/20 test.

I'm sure you've seen it, but here's a link
http://www.cyclecoach.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=112

Personally I find it a much 'funner' test to do. Only downside is I think it would be hard to do without a computrainer

Week 2 Day 2 in the books.


Really enjoyed this one a lot. I am not a huge fan of the short hard stuff cause I feel "out of control" on the bike but 10 min intervals are very much to my liking.

Now I think I only have to wait another 5 months to take these increases outside

finished my 20MP on monday and got a whopping 161w using the trainer MPH to watts method.  did the 3MP test last night and got 260w.  either i'm a sprinter (doubt it) or just went out too hard on the 20MP and wore myself out too quickly.  i was thinking of redoing the 20MP this weekend and seeing if I get a better result, or do you think i should just stick with my CP of 155 for now and retest next time a test is due?
 

Did you do the test on a Kinetic trainer and use the "formula" ?
If so, did you use average speed to calculate the wattage ?
Was your starting and ending speed close or did you drop off considerably ?

Edited by marcag 2010-11-11 10:32 AM

used a fluid2 and used the table in the spreadsheet, which is reported to use the same formula.  yep, used the avg speed over the 20 mins portion only.  followed the protocols for both tests so i'm sure the fluid was properly warmed up, and the same settings as well (psi, etc)
 

Thanks. I didn't realize the fluid followed the same curve




Edited by marcag 2010-11-11 11:41 AM

like i said i'm sure i started to hard.  i was following the HR% from the 30min TT warmup, since it seemed to compare well with the warmup for the 20MP test and I didn't have an initial CP to work with.  I think I was working too hard to get my HR higher than it needed to be.  now that i have somewhat of a baseline, i'll try again this weekend, and if it doesn't vary much, then i guess i just have a lot of room for improvement  and i'll be working harder to keep my speed constant rather than have it slow down like it did on monday.
 

Yeah that seems like a lot of delta, but I only have me as a sample of 1.  Based on my V2 tests, the V2 spreadsheet projects the 3min to be 30-35W higher than my 5' results.  My 20' tests were 30-35W lower than the 5' tests so in theory this would be a 60-70W delta for 3' vs. 20' tests.

Personally I'd do it again, I found my 2nd and 3rd 20' tests to be a lot easier to gauge than the 1st test.

Yeah, as when you did the KK % Powertap check, I found someone that posted mph-power results in a bike forum for the Fluid2 & Powertap.  Both lined right up with each other.

The resistance curve of a fluid trainer is parabolic, not linear.  So if you dropped off a good bit during the test your results will be biased low.  I'd redo if you didn't hold it pretty steady.

good point.  as an engineer you'd think i'd realize that 

3 minute test done.  That wasn't terribly pleasant.  Not happy with the number either, as I learned that changing positions in the middle of the test lowered my output enough to drop the average a tad.  I guess it doesn't make that much difference as to the critical power number - the excel calculation is pretty close to what Golden Cheetah calculates from my critical power curve (the best reason to use GC - it warms my heart when I can put out an effort good enough to cause the curve to change).  So all is good, I guess.

One thing that struck me, though, is that I put out a power for 3 minutes (gasping, wheezing, and with my heart about to pop) that Luscan puts out for an hour.  Ridiculous (and worth a chuckle).

One question - given this article and the fact that I did my 20 minute test outdoors and the 3 minute indoors, should any number tweaking be made?  I don't know if it makes a lot of difference, but I am sure that my outdoor power for 20 minutes was higher than what I could do inside.

Pretty much I share Coggan's thoughts. I discussed this once with Skiba and the reasoning he prefers the CP model is that the 3-5/20 MP testing can give you and idea of your weaknesses. Since 3-5MP relates well to VO2 max and CP relates to Maximum Lactate Steady state (more info here) and that can be great info for an athlete to know what to focus on.

Skiba uses the analogy of thinking of our fitness as a house where the VO2max is the top of the attic, the CP is the ceiling, below is the 'base' and the very top of the house is the anaerobic capacity. In therory you can increase your CP close to your VO2max hence the difference of your 5' and 20' MP is big, you have the potential to increase your CP near that. Hence by doing that test you know how you should spend more time training.

Another down side for the MAP testing IMO is the variance to determine it, it think usually it can be established between 72-77%, hence the variance seems a bit big for my comfort. If you are going to go through the trouble of testing I would prefer a methods that is not as variable, though if you did often you can figure out where you fall in that range I guess.

Many athletes find this testing method much more intense than a regular sustained effort which can be another down side, but something it just occurred to me, is that a steady state maximal effort will be always more specific to our training, which would be another reason for me to choose the 3-5/20 MP testing over MAP.

In the end and to quote Coggan, the better predictor of performance is performance itself. Hence if you want to know your real FTP do a 60 min max effort. The rest testing protocols are estimates though some are better than others IMO. Still, I've read a lot of research on the CP model and because if that I feel more comfortable using it but if you find MAP an approach that suits more your liking I think you can use it for sure.

I'm slowly wrapping my head around this power bit, but I have another WKO question.  WKO says my threshold wattage is 194 based on all the cycling workouts I've entered into it. Those that use it, in your experience do you find that this number tends to be an accuarate FTP wattage?  My excel calculated CP based off the two tests we've done is 182.  I was under the impression FTP was lower than CP, so does this make sense or am I misunderstanding what I've read?

Cycling v3.0 week 3 is up, enjoy!

What do you mean by WKO 'says' your FTP is x...?

Are you looking at the mean max power curve? at the distribution curve? If so, this might or might not be an accurate representation of your FTP, it will however represent what you have been doing in training lately (or however your data range is defined)

yes, try that!

I just shared the doc with you.

Sorry, no I mean under the Power Training Zones on the Athlete Home tab. I didn't ever set up any data ranges, so it's whatever is the default upon first opening the software.







Attachments
----------------
watts.jpg (26KB - 11 downloads)

That's prob not representative of your FTP. I haven't set up a new athlete on WKO recently and I don't have it in front of me so my memory might be a bit shaky but I think when you set one you enter the FTP. When I do this, I entered either based on their CP or a guess until I actually get the athlete to do some testing. As soon as we test and have CP, under 'options' I enter a new threshold based on the date of the most recent test to update training levels, and that will produce the most accurate TSS.

If you haven't done this you might be getting off values non-representative of your current fitness level. I could add your current CP as a new threshold...

Ok, I'll give that a shot.  Thanks!

Jorge thanks for taking the time to provide that thorough response

I do believe the best test is the 60', but that ain't happening on a trainer this winter :-)

I agree the 3/20 is more accurate and I guess I will got back to testing with that.

The thing I don't like about the 3/20 and I think we're seeing it in some of the newbies with power, is that if you don't properly pace it, your numbers get thrown off and your training paces become wrong.

If you didn't give 100% on one part of test but did on the other, things become wacky. Last year I probably underperformed by 20w on the 5 min test but did a great 20min  test. It set my FTP way too high. Vice versa can easily occur. I see several posts here that are probably falling into the same problem

I think 'pacing' is an important factor in these tests. I quoted pacing because it's as much 'going out too hard' as it is 'not 'going out hard enough'. It's only with time that you realize that you were properly underestimating what you were truly capable of doing. A few times I would be at 9min of the 20' test, thinking no way I could hold this, then at 18' find another 10watts in me.

What I like about MAP is that there is no pacing, you just go until you drop. No doubt about whether you gave enough.

But you are right, the 3/20 test is probably the best way to go. I will probably do that and the occasional MAP test, just to track progress and see if the two correlate.


Edited by marcag 2010-11-12 1:53 PM

I'm very interested in this as I'm one of those with a 3 - 5 minute power that's much higher (currently over 40%) than my CP.  What do you see as a typical  ratio between 3' and 20' power in well trained athletes?

I should add that I think I've paced my tests well, with maximal steady efforts, and the numbers I'm current working from are in line with what I've seen over my past 3 years of training with a powertap. 

Edited by Flagstaff30 2010-11-12 2:08 PM