You do though. To some extent, a rising tide lifts all ships. This is pretty much the whole principle behind most time-crunched training plans (inc TR’s especially LV plans).
However the extent will obviously vary by person.
This is correct, but also false.
The problem is, yes your power at FTP rises, but what is the result metabolically?
Scaling zones with respect to FTP/lactate threshold is well-establish scientifically, no matter if you use 3 zones or 7. And yes, you can pull from the top or push from the bottom. Traditional training plans like TR’s traditional base have you do lots of Z2 endurance work to raise your FTP. But you can also target FTP to raise your endurance power. The latter is more time efficient and tends to be the better choice for time constrained athletes.
If your training zones are off, your training will be suboptimal.
Best practices with a TTE test is that you do a ramp test a day or two prior and base your power target on the result.
Pacing off of subjective sensations alone is not a good idea. I’ve had days where I felt really bad during the FTP test, but the result was in line or better than my expectations.
1 Like
We can agree to disagree. the point of a tte test is to find the appropriate number to base your workouts below FTP. I do not have the muscle endurance to push more than 230W for 40 minutes. So far, I’ve seen more results doing my training with a conservative FTP number, compared to an overestimated one where sweet spot workouts become threshold, and threshold becomes supra-threshold. To each’s own. I would never do a ramp test prior to a FTP test because I know my anaerobic system is overpowering. I tried this when I used TR. My ftp would be 30-50W too high. Using an accurate FTP allows me to accumulate much more volume, which is the main driver for adaptations.
During the test, I did not pace off only subjective sensation. I also used heart rate. When riding at FTP, KM says you can feel the power. Anything above your real FTP, you know you will not last long. You have to find the tipping point.
Workouts above your threshold should not be based on a % of FTP.
3 Likes
When people refer to ‘all-day’ pace, are we talking average power or normalized power for the ride? Just curious what your thoughts are.
1 Like
Can concur here. I set my FTP to 275W from November ramp test. Haven’t seen the need to re-test since, based on existing performance FTP is firmly in 275-280W range.
Did a 3.5hr endurance+tempo ride on trainer yesterday. 30m @ 202W + 30m @ 230W, no breaks between. 200W was “all day” cruising in effort, sustainable basically until fuel runs out. Average HR for all three 200W blocks was in Z2, with last block averaging borderline Z3. Avg HR for the three 230W blocks started at the very bottom of Z3 in first block and was 5bpm from top of Z3 for the last block.
1 Like
It should probably be worth noting that TR’s Sweet Spot Base plans are not just ‘traditional’ Z2/3 base building. They include Threshold, over-under, and some short/short type VO2 workouts. So he’s definitely getting some of that higher intensity. In fact, the Low Volume plans don’t have any Z2 or Z3 outside of the recovery weeks. So unless he’s doing Z2 rides on his own outside of the plan then he isn’t getting any of that.
2 Likes
In the context of the original post I assuming Coggans training levels, as that is where the quoted numbers come from, Coggan Level 2 ‘all day pace’.
It is for Average Power.
1 Like
Either. Generally if you are doing a ride where you are concerned about your ‘all-day’ pace then it’s going to be a steady endurance type ride so AP and NP should be roughly the same (if you take out stops and stuff). If you ride in a place that has lots of coasting descents then maybe NP is a more accurate measure.
Fantastic point. I’d never leave base.
You’d be fully recovered on Sunday if a 100 mile ride isn’t a long distance for you. For instance if you did 100 mile rides every single week and worked out your fuelling and hydration down to a T, ate properly in evening and got a good sleep. Then 100 mile back to back days would be no big deal at that effort level.
After all on London Edinburgh London in August you’ll be doing 200 mile days back to back 4 days in a row, followed by a 144 mile day. The fastest riders will be doing around 330 miles a day. Go hard on that first 200 mile day, pushing threshold up hills etc and you’ll pay for it the rest of the event. You often see that, people whose experience is nothing more than 100 miles going hard (on much longer ultra distance events) at the start and blowing up early.
1 Like
So then what is the delta between a shorter 4-6 minute bear effort and your ftp.
My power at vo2max was 375W at 60rpm when I participated in a research project.
I’m trying out this thing called “training” 
But in all seriousness, yes I appreciate I won’t be riding the whole of LEL at the Z2/3 boundary. Although if I get back to my pre-COVID level from early March fairly quickly, in absolute terms that power level should feel pretty achievable (my FTP seems to be around 20 watts down on where I was 1st March). As it was I did a 2x20 sweetspot workout yesterday (was in the plan), and felt a lot better after the first 20 (and just done Baxter -2). Last week was my first proper post-covid training week, I thought 13.5 hours and 740 TSS was enough 
Normally if I would ride a century with friends it would be relatively easy with lots of waiting etc, what I have been doing the past few weeks is steadily longer rides at the same power level with as few stops and as consistent power output as possible (I think I had 20 minutes stopped time total in that 6h20 - getting more water, peeing, or traffic lights etc).
What that’s highlighted though is I really need a proper bike fit (booked in 2 weeks). Cos while I probably could have ridden another century yesterday if I’d needed to (just not at the same power, and would have felt quite bad afterwards), I would have been very uncomfortable by the end. Doing long stints steady seems to bring out fit issues.
Which makes oreocookie’s estimate look much more realistic than yours. At least Cp is probably in the high 200’s… ftp will be different things based on different definitions.
2 Likes
VO2max power is between 115–125 % of FTP. So this is another data point suggesting an FTP in the 300 W range. Having your VO2max power at 163 % = 375/230 of “FTP” is unheard of.
As were the test result you quoted earlier where you wrote that the tested FTP was according to you 30–50 W too high.
It just seems to me you really dislike threshold work and having an FTP that is 30+ W too low is accommodating your dislike of threshold work.
1 Like
Then again, the point of a ftp test is to asses time to exhaustion. Which estimate is best, the theoretical or proven?
Any coach will tell you vo2max has no relation to ftp. For most anaerobic/sprinter athletes the vo2power is more than 115% of ftp.
If we want to have a discussion about ftp, let’s start by defining the meaning.
What is ftp?
For practical purposes, it is power at your lactate threshold. More precisely, it is power measured in a field test meant to infer lactate threshold. Cog fan and other sports scientists distinguish the two, because testing protocol is crucial for comparability of results, and proper lactate threshold tests are impractical to impossible.
You can find a more precise definition in Chapter 4 of Friel’s Training Bible, which is still one of the standard works on the subject (emphasis mine):
Here, AnT = anaerobic threshold = lactate threshold. The conflation of FTP with hour power comes from the fact that Coggan initially did much of his research on well-trained individuals who could actually do a 1-hour TT, and well-trained individuals can actually spend 1 hour close to FTP. If you are a sprinter, then it will be much, much harder to impossible spend a long time at FTP. And it isn’t just physiologically hard, it is mentally excruciating. That is important when interpreting results of your TTE tests: you are not measuring a proxy of your lactate threshold, you are measuring how long you can hold 230 W.
That’s not correct. Just two random examples, British Cycling uses power zones as does reputable personal coaching service Fascat Coaching.
Almost all coaches will use a zone system, most of them a 6/7-zone system, others a 3-zone system (e. g. Seiler). The anchor point in all of them is lactate threshold. Another common feature is an identification of the endurance zone (Z2/7 or Z1/3) at essentially the same power level. Even when training in the three-zone system, your VO2max workouts will be scaled up to roughly 120 %, perhaps 125 %. A relation of VO2max power-to-FTP of 163 % would lie several standard deviations out of the norm, i. e. it is very unlikely.
The other thing that intrigues me is that you keep on insisting you are a sprinter. You are evidently quite a bit away from your peak potential (we all are, that’s not supposed to be a slight). And it seems you are convinced that at present you are doing better at what you consider sprints. But that isn’t set in stone yet.
2 Likes
You sure you want the conversation to go in that direction? We were having such a nice time.
2 Likes