Data on % of FTP for racing with power? (Page 2)

Some of the best advice I've seen lately....well said Jason.

 80% of a properly estimated FTP, measured in the aero position is a very achievable goal for someone going around 2h45 on the bike. If you can truly hold your FTP for 1 hour in aero position, you can ride at 80% of it for HIM

The problem is people have over inflated FTPs that they determine on their road bike, in road position from a 20' test. Then they try to apply it to their aero position over 3hrs without having tested it in training

80% is not what you should race at. It's what you should do in a race rehearsal to see if you can run and then adjust accordingly. And when races comes, you adjust it based on how you are feeling and environmental conditions

I don't have a power meter but I do have a HRM, however for racing I feel like its unreliable. The adrenaline from racing boosts my HR so high that my training paces are obsolete. I'm basing this completely off of my half marathon, though. I did a few HR tests and watched all my average runs (perceived exertion and so on), adjusted my aerobic HR for running to be approximately 162. 155 was generally the training zone to be safely in an aerobic area. More than 165 I could feel my legs getting heavier (depended on the day but that's plus or minus two bpm)

When I ran my half marathon, I finished in 1:45. My average heartrate was close to 170. Did I not push hard enough when I tested myself or did I underestimate my LT? I used it as a guideline and not a limiter, obviously since it was so much higher than my estimated LT, but towards the last 2 miles my HR was close to 183 BPM which is hard to do unless I'm doing sprints. I can only imagine the same thing would happen for me on the bike leg. 80% would put me at 130.4 BPM, but I guarantee I can hold 145 for even a 3hr bike ride.

Just kinda using this anecdote to say heartrate will be inconsistent for racing events (and for longer than what you test for) to back up what the other people are saying. Guidelines good, HR as a rule bad.

Anyone else think racing naked would be best (electronics-wise. That'd be bad chafing)?

I agree that HR can vary during races.  For some people like Bryan Dunn, his HR training and racing is extremely dialed in and he can rely on it like his best friend. 

I'm more like you.  My race HR tends to be off the chart a little.  I've done one hour running races with my avg HR is around 183, and 1 hour cycling TT's where my avg HR is around 183.  I pretty much never reach that HR during run training, and only get that high on the bike during sprint like efforts.  My HR also doesn't follow the general "rule" that your cycling HR should be 5-10 bpm lower than your running HR.

Anytime we are using electronic metrics like power and HR, you have to understand exactly their strengths and weaknesses.  Power does not take into account weather, sickness, or fatigue.  HR can be impacted by many things.  RPE can be fairly reliable at times, but excitement in the beginning of a race can mask RPE if you aren't careful.

This goes back to what I was saying about having race experience and how difficult it is to nail a long course race on your first try.  While it may be beneficial to race "naked" if you don't yet know how to interpret and balance these metrics on race day...it may be valuable to at least collect the data but not actually look at them while you're racing.  Then at the end of the race, compare how you felt to what those metrics said after uploading to your computer.  Maybe do this a few times so you now have more data to look back on and see if there is a reasonable pattern to what metrics work best for you, and how you may need to adjust those metrics on race day.  FWIW, in my last running race a couple of weeks ago, I captured HR, but purposely did not look at it during the whole race.  I haven't been using HR on the run that much for training and racing until recently, and knew that any HR number I saw while racing would not mean much to me at that time.

As a coach I need for my athletes to race with their gadgets so I can see what went on during the race. I also give each of my athletes a pacing plan based off of what they did in training (i.e. target wattage/HR/pace) not to mention that race data is the BEST data there is. You will never push yourself harder than in a race setting and that is something that you just can't simulate in training.

For short course races the gadgets are more for the after action race review (telling us what the athlete did) vs long course where we use them as pacing tools (telling us what the athlete is doing).

If you are saying (i'm not 100% clear on this) that you think your LT heartrate is about 162 I would say that you have calculated that a bit low.  I'm close to your age and mine is 179. 162 would be the top of my zone 2. 170 would be near the top of zone 3, which sounds like a reasonable average for a HM.

Yeah putting all those numbers there was a bit confusing for me, too. Depends on what zones you're talking about as well. For me: Z1=recovery, Z2=low aerobic, Z3=high aerobic, Z4=threshold, Z5=anaerobic

162 is about the top end of my high aerobic. 164-165 is where my legs start getting buildup from lactic acid (in training. The race was wonky!)

Also, every person's heartrate zones are different regardless of age. Even if we're both 18/19, my LT could be 150 and yours 170. Though that isn't the case, its plausible.

I agree that for long course racing HR + power is a very good idea.  Some people dump HR and rely only on the power metrics, but then you only get half the picture. 

I do have one question for the group replying here.  Are you guys basing your % off NP or AP (I try to always use NP), and at HIM distance what kind of VI do you target?

NP with a VI as low as possible for the course.   That can vary quite a bit depending upon the length and terrain (eg, a hilly sprint is going to have a much higher VI, while a flat IM should be very close to 1).  But, even limiting the distance (to HIM in your case) leaves a wide range to account for the terrain.  I would guess most HIM courses should land you in the 1-1.1 range--that's pretty wide--and a few could be even higher.

As others noted, a 20min test gives only an estimate of your FT.  It is NOT the best way to ever determine your FT (see this) and, therefore, should not be used on it's own to set your targets for an HIM or IM.

I've based all my racing on AP, and don't look at NP until after the race. I had a VI of 1.04 in a recent HIM (278/291).

I use NP for this. I don't really look at VI much and just try to apply power how I think it will best get me to the end.

Given though that the Edge 500 has only recently had the update to even show NP as an on field data screen, I haven't actually raced using NP on hilly courses but would do so going forward.  In the past when using AP was the only option, I would sort of just guestimate what AP should be based on similar training rides, use that as a general guideline, and adjust from there on race day.

I would also agree that I don't specifically shoot for a given VI.  IMO, I think it's way too hard to manage unless you have a lot of experience with the course.  I mean, if you shoot for an overall VI of 1.04, and the first 28 miles are dead flat, and the last 28 miles are hilly...you probably need to have your VI close to 1.00 for the first half, and higher during the second half.  If your VI is 1.04 during the first half, you might "think" you're right on target...but you're not.  I look at VI after the race to help evaluate my decision making. 

I'm in agreement with the other thoughts on using NP vs AP during the race.  As for VI, I don't take that into consideration in real time,  but was curious what others aimed for at the HIM distance.  And again, I agree that if you are racing something hilly vs flat, there should be a greater variation.

I also like John's comment about putting a wattage cap on certain segments.  I think this is sometimes more important than an overall or lap target.

I (and my athletes) use NP to manage wattage during long course races. With the Joule showing real time NP IMO it is the best metric to use for pacing. To echo what a few others have said here I also have real time wattage displayed so I can get instant feedback on what I am doing at that moment. I also prescribe wattage "caps" for certain sections of a race (i.e. climbs or an extended rolling section)

As far as VI goes, the closer you are to 1 the better your run will be (generally speaking). On a course such as Louisville that isn't possible due to the rolling nature of the course. What I try to do is find a course that mimics the races course (if possible) and test using different NP/VI combinations to see which one delivers the best run off the bike.

Really good thread. Lots of good information here

I use NP. I do not target a VI

I try and cap my power for any burst longer than say 30 seconds. Sometimes it's hard. This is where gearing comes in play. If you can't cap your power, you may need a compact or more cogs in back.

I got a 1.08 Vi in Muskoka which is really high. But I am heavy and that course is hilly.So I blew my cap several times, even in my easiest gears. But it was my best run ever.

Last year at Vegas 70.3 I did a 1.05 and that is also hilly but not nearly as bad as Muskoka

At Florida 70.3 I was almost 1.0 exactly, but that is relatively flat.

Although the theory is to keep you VI low, I find a little variety in my power levels much more pleasant. A constant 80% for the whole course  is much tougher for me than some highs and lows, but that may be just me.

I like hills. It's just gravity is not my best friend being a 'heavier' rider.