Dylan Johnson's "The Problem with TrainerRoad Training Plans": it's gonna be a busy day around here

[OreoCookie]

@Larzi

Whether you are using ramp tests, 2 x 8 minutes or 1 x 20 minutes these are just approximations of the real thing (and what FTP really means especially for amateurs is still subject to discussion).

That also depends on how you actually define FTP (e. g. lactate threshold 2). These definitions are subtly different, but occur at the same power. And for almost all riders it is not their “hour power”, I think 40k time trialists are among the few who can.

FTP-as-measured is inextricably linked to a test protocol, and as far as I can tell is not inherently worse than a 20-minute or 8-minute test. For each test protocol you subtract a heuristic percentage from the tested wattage, which then becomes your FTP.

@Larzi

Depending on your physiological traits shorter FTP tests may be more or less wrong. Some people are just stronger at shorter efforts than others.

Yes, and? This does not invalidate FTP-as-measured. It just means you e. g. have an easier time to finish short-and-punchy workouts than long sweet spot/FTP intervals. It does not follow that just because in this hypothetical case you struggle finishing long sweet spot intervals that your FTP is wrong. Your power profile and abilities could just be relatively speaking worse at this kind of workout.

@Larzi

Maybe one of the things that go wrong is that people take sweet spot as a certain percentage of FTP

Zones are defined via statistical averages, which means that the boundaries are fuzzy.

[OreoCookie]

@chidlow

Both 8- and 20-min also suck. 20-min not as much though - but it sure isn’t fun. And that researcher is either using a met-cart with their ramp test or they’re full of shit. It’s beyond ridiculous at this point and TR seriously just need to own up to their mistake here.

I‘d be very careful declaring that their research is, as you say, shit, just because they are using a test protocol you don‘t agree with. All of the testing protocols strongly correlate with however you define FTP (e. g. as lactate threshold 2). It‘s pretty obvious why other competitors such as Zwift have a version of the ramp test — and scientists as well: it is easily reproducible and importantly does not require the subject to know their FTP.

I’d be very careful to call bullshit, unless you are in the field yourself and have a better proposal.

@chidlow

Field test / KM progression is the way to go. Just ride at your damn FTP for 40+ minutes. The only people who can’t do that but can do a TR workout are people with inflated FTP’s, by definition.

No offense, but that sounds like a horrible idea. I assume by field test you mean that the test should happen outdoors.

Literally, I‘d have to ride 50 km one way to get to a stretch of road that is suitable. And since there is a ski resort at the summit, I can say that it isn’t safe for cycling this time of year. Where I live we have way too many traffic lights, turns, uphills and downhills here that I could even put out steady power for more than 10 minutes. So even from the practical aspect, it seems like a bad testing protocol. Scientifically speaking, testing protocols are hugely important, because you want to control as many factors as possible to make tests reproducible. Going by speed, for example, is bad, because at road bike speeds, your results would depend from where the wind blows that day.

And FTP = holding power for 40+ minutes puts way too much emphasis on the mental side, whereas FTP should be a number that essentially only depends mostly on your physiology. 40k time trialists are among the few who can and do. I’ve never done a TT, but that seems super hard, and I am kind of good at holding my FTP for long times.

An FTP test should be eminently repeatable, be simple so that it is reliable and strongly correlate with your preferred scientific definition of FTP (e. g. lactate threshold 2). Your “true” FTP varies by day and perhaps time-of-day. On a good day you put out a few watts more. If my two-year-old wakes me up at 3 am and I can’t sleep until 4 am again, I’ll probably test worse. All test protocols I am aware of use statistics to infer FTP, so this is an inherently statistical affair. Perhaps you are a special snowflake that deviates significantly enough to make the FTP-as-tested to deviate more strongly from your preferred scientific definition of FTP. Or perhaps you are less good at the mental side of things and that’s why you have a hard time completing workouts (no offense intended, just saying that structured training also makes you stronger mentally as the season progresses).

Lastly, people conflate the scientific definition of FTP with its purpose within structured training: it scales your workouts according to your abilities. So if you look at it narrowly, it doesn’t even matter which of your favorite definition you use. You use it to scale your workouts and to track (one aspect of) your fitness. If the testing protocols doesn’t do that correctly, find out what correction you have to apply to get workouts that are scaled correctly.

[Larzi]

@OreoCookie

That also depends on how you actually define FTP (e. g. lactate threshold 2). These definitions are subtly different, but occur at the same power. And for almost all riders it is not their “hour power”, I think 40k time trialists are among the few who can.

Very true.

@OreoCookie

Yes, and? This does not invalidate FTP-as-measured. It just means you e. g. have an easier time to finish short-and-punchy workouts than long sweet spot/FTP intervals.

Agree. It does not invalidate the FTP (whatever FTP really means).

But it does mean that people react differently to a given interval session based on their physiological profile. This is a general issue with anchoring training zones around FTP. Not a huge fan of SF but having multiple anchoring points for training is probably a good idea.

@OreoCookie

Zones are defined via statistical averages, which means that the boundaries are fuzzy.

Absolutely. And performance varies with time. Some days if I am not well rested, a sweet spot session can seem more like a threshold session.

[OreoCookie]

@tobias.breme
If you have a job that requires you to put in 80–90 hours per week, I am completely unsurprised that you don’t have any energy left for structured training. Few individuals can sustain that kind of hours just by themselves, when I did for a few months, it put me close to a mental breakdown. (If it works for you, great, just saying.) No way I could spend 5–10 hours doing something physically strenuous and live to tell the tale.

[jarsson]

@OreoCookie

No offense, but that sounds like a horrible idea. I assume by field test you mean that the test should happen outdoors.

No. It is done indoor without the restrctions you have mentioned later.

@OreoCookie

And FTP = holding power for 40+ minutes puts way too much emphasis on the mental side, whereas FTP should be a number that essentially only depends mostly on your physiology.

Also no. Basically every test is a little bit about mental power. I find 5 min test way more mentally taxing than FTP test. You do not have be TTer to hold your FTP for 40 minutes - it is no different than basic 2x20 in terms of mental fatigue, and WAY easier than pacing and doing 20 min test.

[OreoCookie]

@Larzi

But it does mean that people react differently to a given interval session based on their physiological profile. This is a general issue with anchoring training zones around FTP. Not a huge fan of SF but having multiple anchoring points for training is probably a good idea.

Yes, true. Let’s take three points in the power spectrum that are relatively well-defined physiologically, lactate thresholds 1 and 2, and VO2max. Roughly speaking LT1 is the boundary between Zone 2 and Zone 3 (of 7), VO2max is the upper bound of Zone 5. (Of course, I am assuming that this is also your preferred definition, but you get the point.) None of them are defined by power percentage and in principle, all of them are measurable in the lab. Thing is, measuring them directly is impractical, so you just use zones based on statistical averages as a proxy. Few people will do a VO2max test in a lab to assess whether it lies at 118 % of their FTP or 122 %. If you know that you lie too far outside the norm when it comes to, say, VO2max work, then just nudge the workout intensity accordingly. If memory serves, even Coach @ambermalika only had her “true” VO2max tested a few times over the course of her career.

@jarsson

You do not have be TTer to hold your FTP for 40 minutes - it is no different than basic 2x20 in terms of mental fatigue, and WAY easier than pacing and doing 20 min test.

Not in my experience. Take the workouts Lamarck and Gray: Lamarck makes you do 4x10 minutes at FTP, Gray does 2x20 minutes at FTP. You work for the same amount of time. But at least in my experience, Lamarck is a lot easier than Gray. Usually I use Gray as a gauge of my mental preparedness before hill climb TTs (which at my speeds last between 50 minutes and 1:10 hours).

[tobias.breme]

Different people can sustain different things I guess. As I said, I trained many years with this intensity, balancing work stress with other things (sleep, nutrition, less social life) being able to active / sustain FTPs of ~ or above 300 and do some pretty challenging races (Liege, Strade Bianche, Marmotte, Amstel, others).

Si if I managed in other platforms / using other approaches, I don’t think that’s the issue.

On the FTP topic, again, isn’t is weird FTPs are usually inflated and you need to adjust downwards?

Plus I did many ftp tests in the past.

[jarsson]

@OreoCookie

Usually I use Gray as a gauge of my mental preparedness before hill climb TTs (which at my speeds last between 50 minutes and 1:10 hours).

So we are on the opposite side of the fence, as my workouts are like 4x20@FTP and I do not think they are mentally different than, for example, vo2 max workouts…I even find them more enjoyable and less taxing. I am not a TTer, and this is my second year of riding a bike so not mentally conditioned. So everyone if different but this does not change the fact, that you can determine your real ftp by riding at ftp.

[OreoCookie]

@tobias.breme

Different people can sustain different things I guess. As I said, I trained many years with this intensity, balancing work stress with other things (sleep, nutrition, less social life) being able to active / sustain FTPs of ~ or above 300 and do some pretty challenging races (Liege, Strade Bianche, Marmotte, Amstel, others).

Yes, but we all age, for example. Perhaps you have a family now (I do), which puts very rigid constraints on your schedule. Perhaps your responsibilities at your job have increased over time. So I don’t think you should necessarily assume you can sustain the same training load that you did before.

In my experience, sleep is a major factor. Before I started structured training and had no children, I could make do on 6 hours of sleep. Now I need 7:30–8:00 hours. Is it just children, harder training, etc.? No idea. But my body tells me that I need way more sleep know, and it makes sense. But that’s just my experience.

You seem experienced enough to find out what is going wrong. If this is just a matter of overestimating your FTP, that’s easily fixable within TR. But apart from people with unusually good short-term power ramp tests do not wildly overinflate your FTP. But if you are too exhausted to do this kind of structured training, then you should listen to your body and focus on rest. Training should be enjoyable, it should provide balance to the others stressors in your life — and not add to it.

@tobias.breme

On the FTP topic, again, isn’t is weird FTPs are usually inflated and you need to adjust downwards?

Not in my experience, never. It is usually either spot-on or slightly too low, because I give up after 20:00 and leave some watts on the table. For some reason starting a new power level often cracks me. I have not over tested once, even though I think I have (according to Coggan’s chart) above-average short-term power.

I should add that every now and then I have to pull the plug on a workout. But that’s usually because of inadequate rest or a spike in stress — I just accept I don’t have it in me that day and either just stop or do a quick 30-minute recovery or endurance spin. Usually the problem is purely mental, though.

[chidlow]

I didn’t say their research was bullshit. I said if they’re claiming they use a ramp test protocol to estimate MLSS without a met-cart then they’re full of shit. Either that or clueless.

Very simple reason: fractional utilisation (ie FTP as a % of VO2max) occurs at a wide range across the population, and varies within the training of a single individual. And what does a ramp test measure? MAP. Which is basically VO2Max, @old_but_not_dead_yet had some cool research showing how to link the two.

More than just that, anaerobic capacity influences the result as well. Despite TR’s claim that it “doesn’t because it depletes anaerobic capacity first”. I linked recently to a paper modelling ramp test protocols as dependant on CP and W’.

I’m not saying the ramp test works for no one. I’m saying absolutely no one should be relying on it.

And yes I drunk the look-aid at one point too of “oh Lamarck is so hard, you definitely need to work up to it! 4x10 minutes @ FTP with 2 minute rests gosh”. What a load of crap. If after 12 weeks of “base” training you can’t hit Lamarck, either the training has failed or you’ve got a highly overestimated FTP - I don’t care if this is your first training block off the couch, if you can’t hold 40 minutes with rests, it’s not your FTP.

Seriously, take a look at Donner. It’s week 2 or SSB2 LV/MV. 3x12 minutes with 6 minute tests, @ 95-99% FTP. The absolute minimum TTE @ MLSS I’ve ever heard anyone discuss is 35 minutes so given this is that but with 2:1 work to rest, everyone should be able to do that right? Well, the failure rate is 30-40%. Seriously. Scroll through the recents if you don’t believe me. I got bored one day and scrolled through and categorised almost 1,000 as pass or fail. It’s pretty consistent. And that’s excluding early nails if people were just having a bad day, technical issues (by the looks of it), etc. 30-40% or even more potentially, indicate a serious and systematic problem with how FTP is set in TR - ie the ramp test. I should know - I’m one of those people that failed, second time around, and that’s where I started questioning things.

Edit: I realise this might come across as dismissive, and I apologise for that. I’m just burnt out on this particular topic (kinda like I eventually burnt out when the ramp test stopped working for me lol). I’d like to just link my replies in the Kolie Moore podcast thread, but that’s gone…

[OreoCookie]

I don’t necessarily think so, riding at sustained high levels at or close to FTP is I think one of my strengths, I think. By far I like hill climb TTs the best, because I have no race skills and with hill climb TT it is just about pacing for myself. Drafting is also less of a concern.

I like long, steady efforts that challenge me mentally. But even then, 4x10 is easier than 2x20 or 1x40. That’s just psychology and also a bit of physiology — the break between efforts does give you an opportunity to get rid of lactate and relax.

@jarsson

So everyone if different but this does not change the fact, that you can determine your real ftp by riding at ftp.

Your long-term/hour power is not your “real” FTP. The various scientific definitions of FTP have nothing to do with what power numbers you can do for, say, 40 minutes. If you take lactate threshold 2 as your definition for FTP (i. e. the tipping point where your muscles are just able to get rid of the lactate that you produce), then you in principle would have to monitor lactate levels. Because testing lactate levels in your muscles (which AFAIK requires a muscle biopsy) is grossly impractical to do at scale, I am not aware of anyone (including pro teams) who test FTP directly. Instead you use testing protocols that correlate strongly with your FTP — such as a ramp test or a 20-minute FTP test. You have to use testing protocols to make the tests repeatable and eliminate spurious factors that can influence your FTP. Any testing protocol has strengths and weaknesses. A 20-minute FTP test is very hard for beginners and requires you to have a very good guess as to what your FTP is. And there are individuals who are better or worse at one particular testing protocol. AFAIK it is ill-advised to compare “FTPs” measured with different testing protocols.

[tobias.breme]

That’s a great reply. Maybe I am indeed getting older

Thanks!

[anon13702412]

@chidlow

Both 8- and 20-min also suck. 20-min not as much though - but it sure isn’t fun. And that researcher is either using a met-cart with their ramp test or they’re full of shit. It’s beyond ridiculous at this point and TR seriously just need to own up to their mistake here.

To be fair those protocols seem to work for a fair share of people. Though obviously not for everybody. As always that group is the most vocal about it.

@chidlow

Field test / KM progression is the way to go. Just ride at your damn FTP for 40+ minutes.

I completely agree. Though KM and the likes involve a pacing component. Also they are not that engaging.

@chidlow

The only people who can’t do that but can do a TR workout are people with inflated FTP’s, by definition.

Yes!

[jarsson]

@OreoCookie

Instead you use testing protocols that correlate strongly with your FTP — such as a ramp test or a 20-minute FTP test.

But why I would like to use “protocols” to estimate my FTP I use to define my training zones and not define my FTP and knowing my TTE? Ramp test give me random number heavily depenadant on the type of training I was doing before, and 20 min test is hard as hell and I have to guess what percentage is my FTP? (It is not always 95% for everyone).

But ok, I am not trying to convince you as it is not my role. I simply do not see any downside from longer test but I see a lot of problems and variables toconsider with different protocols.

[OreoCookie]

@chidlow

I didn’t say their research was bullshit. I said if they’re claiming they use a ramp test protocol to estimate MLSS without a met-cart then they’re full of shit. Either that or clueless.

Claiming experts are either “clueless or full of shit” is dismissive and not warranted. I think they know the caveats of ramp tests much better than we do. It is also a question of whether you have substantially better alternatives, and whether the caveats actually are relevant for the trial at hand. That doesn’t seem to be the case.

(TR used to rely on 8- and 20-minute FTP tests initially, and only switched to the ramp test as the default later on. Zwift uses a ramp test, too, although I think Zwift uses 10 W increments whereas TR bases the steps on your current FTP.)

@chidlow

Very simple reason: fractional utilisation (ie FTP as a % of VO2max) occurs at a wide range across the population, and varies within the training of a single individual. And what does a ramp test measure? MAP. Which is basically VO2Max, @old_but_not_dead_yet had some cool research showing how to link the two.

Yes, and because we know that VO2max on average occurs at about 120 % of your FTP, you infer the FTP. Seems like a solid testing protocol to me. A test to exhaustion (here via VO2max) seems like a good way to ensure you don’t have anything left in the tank.

@chidlow

Seriously, take a look at Donner. It’s week 2 or SSB2 LV/MV. 3x12 minutes with 6 minute tests, @ 95-99% FTP. The absolute minimum TTE @ MLSS I’ve ever heard anyone discuss is 35 minutes so given this is that but with 2:1 work to rest, everyone should be able to do that right? Well, the failure rate is 30-40%.

At least speaking for myself, I find Donner to be a very easy workout, my success rate so far is 100 % with power completely on point. Lamarck isn’t hard on me either, but just claiming these workouts are easy (for me) feels arrogant on my part. Other people who struggle with this are probably better at things that I am bad at. The hardest workout for me is Bashful +6, 7x3 minutes at 122% FTP.

The only difference between workouts like Donner that are close to, but still below FTP and I have some buffer for fluctuations above my target power. This buffer becomes quite small when I am working at FTP, so Gray takes more concentration than a 2x20 hard sweet spot workout. (I have a dumb trainer, so it is up to me to hold target power.)

[anon13702412]

@OreoCookie

And FTP = holding power for 40+ minutes puts way too much emphasis on the mental side, whereas FTP should be a number that essentially only depends mostly on your physiology.

There is a lot I can agree with in your comment. Though not so much the FTP aspect. Holding your FTP for 40ish minutes should not be borderline hard. One should be able to do that even when not all stars align. I mean a bad day is a bad day, we all have them. Though that’s rather the exception, right?

[chidlow]

@OreoCookie

Yes, and because we know that VO2max on average occurs at about 120 % of your FTP, you infer the FTP.

No.

Sorry, but the ramp test just does. Not. Work.

Even if I hadn’t lived it myself, the fact that @empiricalcycling and @old_but_not_dead_yet both agreed on it, rare as that is, would be enough for me.

[OreoCookie]

To me the much more likely explanation is that you are not riding at your “true” FTP, but a few percentage points below.

Take a cup/glass of your favorite beverage and watch The Chase on TR’s youtube channel. The athlete they feature way more talented than I am, very dedicated and, with a lot of understatement, good at long efforts at TT. He described his race at nationals in details. Within the first few minutes he thought that there is no way he can hold that power or even increase it (I am not sure, but I reckon he used a negative split). But he did, till the end. That’s how riding at FTP feels in my mind, when you are really at your very limit.

Riding at FTP for 20 minutes is easier, because it really is easier to hold the same power for a shorter duration.

[chidlow]

@OreoCookie

But he did, till the end. That’s how riding at FTP feels in my mind, when you are really at your very limit.

You should just try it instead of hypothesising. It’s a good workout regardless.

FTP should feel “discomfortable”. Not “oh wow I can’t hold this for more than 10 minutes!”.

[OreoCookie]

Independently of all the bickering in this thread, I think we should always keep in mind that riding should be a source of joy that helps us release stress. If you don’t enjoy TR, then you should look somewhere and see if that makes a difference. I “just” use TR because it is by far the best solution for me (given all the constraints I have), I look forward to hopping on the trainer most days and I see improvements.