Good point. I forgot that when I wrote my post. Apologies for the error.
But if I may ask, what are you training for? What are your goals? Even if you use the correct definition of threshold so that a 40k TT simulation qualifies (at least in spirit in case you are fast enough), I’d still say that it is at best a workout for certain moments in the specialty phase if you aim to participate in TTs or hill climb TTs.
Just to be clear: doing these long threshold sessions because you like them absolutely counts as a good answer in my book
I don’t think this discussion is merely theoretical, though. I’m constantly implementing what I learn on the forum and the podcasts in my training. Taking in 80-100 g/h in carbs has significantly improved my training, and I’m using polarized blocks to achieve some of my training goals. When I experiment with my training, I’d at least like to have an idea what the sensible parameters are, what my aims could and should be, and what to look out for.
I’ve had IFs >1 in 1:00–1:30 races quite regularly, so that doesn’t necessarily stand out. And even if theoretically () what you call threshold is really high sweet spot, who cares, the adaptations are quite similar, the body doesn’t care if it is 98 % on average or 100 %.
At the end of my last sweet spot block in the beginning of this year, I was doing PL9.0 sweet spot workouts since my body got very good at threshold intervals during the polarized block I did before starting sweet spot base. To tire me out Coach Chad preloaded each of the two 24ish-minute sweet spot intervals with 1 minute at 130–150 % to induce fatigue. Still, I liked those. My point is: I think our bodies are made from a similar fabric.
This is literally what I advocated for if you read my post and the subsequent posts in the thread. Not as a workout; as a test. And not something to be done regularly.
This is anec-data at best. No controls for anything, counterfactuals, training age, etc. I know you like to bring up your training history N=1 all the time, that’s ok, that’s the only info you have, but let us not pretend that a.) it applies to anybody else but yourself, b.) It’s some kind of controlled experiment.
Thanks for posting this question it’s been on my mind lately. I think the old threads are fine too look at, but sometimes I don’t want to research a topic I want to see what people have to say now. I think FTP calculations have changed a lot in the last few years. I wonder how FTP might be more accurate now since we don’t need to rely on failing or nailing a test. If FTP is more accurate will more people be able to actually do an hour at ftp. I have a low ftp of 230, rarely ride for only an hour and have ridden above .9 IF on 2 hour rides. I wonder how close people get to 1 IF or FTP over what periods of time.
Also indoor vs outdoor. I think if I could mentally handle it indoor erg is the easiest, because you won’t have as drastic over unders as you might outdoors. If people are thinking outdoors flat or hill.
Thanks again for the post glad to see the topic come back around.
If any one has done 1 hours at ftp what was your threshold progression number if you had one.
I think it’s a mistake to assume that FTP calculations are more accurate now, especially if you mean because of AI FTP detection. The best way to know your FTP is to ride at FTP for a long period of time (longer than 20 minutes, probably more like 40-60min) and that hasn’t and will never change. Everything from mFTP/AI to ramp tests up to 20 minute field tests are merely ways of estimating FTP… and FTP changes day to day. The only way to actually know what power you can sustain in a quasi steady state is to sustain power in a quasi steady state.
If you want to ride threshold for an hour, get on the bike and ride as hard as you can sustain for an hour. You won’t need a progression to do that. As mentioned above, that might be the best way to actually set your training FTP anyway. YMMV.
If you want to ride a progression in order to ride a certain power you estimate to be your FTP for an hour… well, I’m just not sure that’s something I would advocate doing in training. Ride threshold for an hour? Sure, do it! But that power is almost certainly going to be less than what any FTP estimate tells you, especially if it comes from a ramp test. (I can’t claim to know what AI FTP detection says. FWIW it’s pretty accurate to my hour power but I am not following a TR plan).
This was in reply to a post where I showed a century and 2 one-hour threshold efforts within a week. So I will respond to that.
Here is the Saturday Feb 4th one hour threshold session, where I’m pulling out the cleanest portion of 1 hour at 257W average power on a 259W field FTP and 258W modeled FTP.
That’s the clean portion, without a traffic light stop and going over a freeway overpass, which gave me 257W average power for an hour.
I’m not feeling confused about the difference between sweet spot and threshold. Threshold is either a zone from 90-105% power in Coggan classic levels, or its synonymous with FTP. By either definition, that was “an hour” at threshold.
Yes anec-data. Yes other people around here train in a similar fashion (not the two-a-days, the long threshold rides). I don’t have their data to share. Its a thing, I didn’t invent it, I learned it from the fast guys. And I’m training for Wed worlds, long climbs in the mountains, the fountain of youth, and Strava glory over a post-ride beer with riding buddies.
And the honor of posting stuff like what a Wed night riding buddy posted last night:
It was 100F / 38C last night and my HR blew up almost immediately when we hit the game on section. Dropped off the back with two other guys and focused on heat acclimatization. Die another day.
just go as hard as you can with the least variability possible.
Kind of becomes something else. By definition a threshold divides 2 domains, with your liberal definition, it gets messy quickly. Threshold is a lot tighter in my opinion and it’s very useful to know how to walk in that edge.
Whatever, my “liberal definition” is a Coggan classic power zone. FWIW you are now preaching to the choir. In 2017 when I was doing those rides I’d only been riding a road bike for a little over a year. Didn’t know anything about TrainerRoad, was loosely following Carmichael Training Systems method. Had learned to surf threshold using HR in 2016 - I’ve got some fun 30-60+ minute HR graphs from that time.
Do I know how to walk the edge of threshold for 40-70 minutes? Have you seen how low my variability is now? Do you want me to write a book? My rides are posted in the outside thread. Here is an 11 minute pre-field test pacing effort in January with 19W standard deviation Where did you ride OUTSIDE today (2022) - #35 by WindWarrior which is nearly the same as power graphs on my Kickr in Erg. And a longer 32-min pacing effort two weeks later: Where did you ride OUTSIDE today (2022) - #60 by WindWarrior where I flattened the power on some rollers early in the effort, and due to traffic had two power drops. If I look at the last 12+ minutes, after the U-turn, it has 15W standard deviation on flat terrain which is the variability I see INSIDE on TR sweet spot efforts in Erg mode with power matching. Yeah, I got some 30-70 minute efforts at mFTP/fieldFTP, starting from the time I put a power meter on my bike in October 2016. Its why I’ve been contributing to this thread about 1x60’ at ftp.
Threshold is relatively tight on any given day. Problem is, it’s not practical to establish FTP day to day, so it’s better to think of threshold as a zone, and ride within that zone. This speaks to nothing about measurement error which is 2-3% for most power meters, so for a 300W FTP, you’re talking about +/- 10W even if you have an “exact number”. Many coaches who know a lot about this set FTP at 10W increments and only adjust it up or down if it makes sense in a 10W increment, in part for this very reason. It’s kind of silly to say “my FTP is 289W” and then “Oh wow! I got a bump to 292W!”
I have ridden 45-60min at mFTP. It’s something I do a couple of times a season. Well… I should say I ride 45 to 60min straight at threshold and it usually ends up being right around mFTP. I just did this about three weeks ago, averaged 285W for the duration. 90-day mFTP at the time was 298W, but I knew it was too high, it’s since reset to 277W when a couple of efforts dropped out of the model which is too low… but that’s why I don’t use mFTP or any single indicator to decide where I want to set my training number anyway.
Care to guess what I use for my FTP based on the above info?
I think what I mean by more accurate is basic stats. If your FTP is set based on a single effort on a single day. FTP would likely be more accurate if it is taken from data from several rides. Or basically what is the probability of accuracy one data point or multiple data points. I think in the spirit of the thread the point is most people can’t or don’t do a 1 hour effort at FTP. Given that FTP is theoretical finding a person that achieves it is probably rare. Are you on the right bike, did you fuel properly, are you on the right course, is it favorable weather (or fan and temperature), etc. Anyway, yes I think it is more accurate because it is based on multiple data points rather than a single data point.
Or is it that maybe FTP really should be what you can manage for closer to 1 hour and not 20 min*.95 or even 35 min?
Agreed. I’m inclined to look at a number of efforts - best 60 min power, best 20 min power, an entire PDC, an mFTP estimate which accounts for many rides - and then put a training FTP where it makes sense based on that data. But I’ll always skew more toward what a rider can sustain for an hour or thereabouts if they have that kind of sustained, steady effort. I don’t look at a 45 min threshold effort that’s 254W and go, this person’s threshold is 254W. I’m more inclined to make it 250 or 260 depending on what else I know about them, and then leave it alone for a few months (rather than a few weeks).
Just found out how to quote. That’s neat. Anyway. What should FTP be? Should FTP only be the best 1-hour effort you’ve had in recent history? Next time someone says they have an FTP, I can simply reply, “Did you really ride for an hour at max effort?”. If you didn’t, you don’t even have an FTP to over exaggerate. NO FTP FOR YOU!
Most people don’t ride 1 hour at threshold, or really know what threshold feels like to be able to dial it in in a shorter effort. That’s how we end up with 19 different ways to estimate FTP, many of which will get you within 5-10%.
Good enough is good enough, better to understimate FTP than overestimate it if you’re going to base your training on it… but I do believe there is some hierarchy of ways to estimate FTP, so then it becomes all about what you want to do…
IMO if you’re doing an hour of power or a long-form threshold test “by feel” (e.g. KM/EC protocol), that’s probably the best way to get it in one shot. Next of the popular protocols would be a 20-min test (done properly with the 5 min blowout prior). After that, I think the value really starts to decline.
mFTP and AI FTP detection depend entirely on what you’ve done in training. My experience with mFTP is that it’s pretty good if your PDC is developed well, but it can fall apart or be misinterpreted pretty easily. AI FTP detection… I tried it once and it was pretty darn accurate, but since I can’t validate what’s behind it, I’ll probably never use it. (Well, I will never use it because I don’t use TR’s plans.)
) what you call threshold is really high sweet spot, who cares, the adaptations are quite similar, the body doesn’t care if it is 98 % on average or 100 %.
My rides are posted in the outside thread. Here is an 11 minute pre-field test pacing effort in January with 19W standard deviation 