My N=1: I’ve never been an “Endurance Athlete” until I started training on TR two seasons ago. And, I didn’t start ramping up my volume until this past season (started working with a coach). Fatigue management in the legs is something I have to pay attention to and I think it’s the blend of being strong and a having a good amount of muscle and able to put out good power, without the endurance background.
Take that, combined with the target event right now, and my natural preference towards the short power stuff, and the training plan makes sense for me (Coupled with the fact that I don’t have kids, work from home a lot, and can put in the time)
Well, CTL is not really an accomplishment but I get the gist of what you are saying. However, Mr @BCM trains A LOT!. 14-15h average is ~725h/year, for reference Keegan Swenson is at ~18h.
The drastic difference between his volume and mine for the same CTL indicates something is off. Because I really don’t train THAT hard.
The problem is that by sharing their dirty laundry (reporting non-maximal efforts), folks are stinking up the whole place (confusing people about FTP).
I owe a clarification - that’s not average, just where I am now in my current base block. I’ll be at 500h for the year inclusive of recovery weeks and weeks off the bike when 2023 wraps up.
I’ll work up over the course of a month, and back off with a recovery week. Volume and hours will probably peak in June/July.
Honestly, I think it’s only you that’s confused here. You seem to have misunderstood the entire thread. No-one was saying that those efforts were or were not their FTP.
It is clear from many of the comments and values being presented that folks are reporting non-maximal efforts, and/or that they have significantly overestimated their FTP.
I’ve tried explaining this to you, not sure why it is so complicated. Are you a TR user? Because there is a number, it would not matter if it was called FTP or GFY in TR. When you take a ramp test, you are given this number. When AI does its blank detection, you are given this number. That number is then used to adjust the power you need to do in each of the TR workouts because they will have intervals at 55% of that number or 88% of that number.
All I was asking was what is the highest percentage of that number folks have actually ridden at for an hour. It’s just a simple question for fun. Like saying, what’s the highest HR value you’ve ever seen? Or what’s your favorite color? If the question is so bad and such a waste of time, why have you spent so much of your valuable time here commenting on it?
My recollection is that you wanted to create a “practical” accessible assesment that approximated MLSS……I do wonder what would have been your approach if you were a fast twitch MTB guy instead of a Type I fiber TT’r….meaning how your own sport journey shaped your research and the tools you created….maybe it would have been the same.
Regarding CP:
Looking at my own data, it seems that if you include a 12min effort as one of the 3 points, you can get ride of most of the bias of the short durations.
On Zones and %’s:
I agree with the stink you are making about maximal efforts. I like to keep the PDC current. With the only caveat that one should also focus on maximal (repeatable) efforts while training.
Going for KOm’s is the best way to go for max efforts in shorter durations, while races are better for longer durations.
Because some of us had ramp test results that underestimated ftp (some get overestimated ftp estimates).
FTP is not some number that comes out of a ramp test or AI FTP.
Your FTP is an actual physiological state, and depending on a number of factors, you might do a test (ramp, 8-min, 20-min, 30+ min) or use a model (AI FTP) and get either a good estimate or a bad estimate.
So if I manually set my ftp to 240 based on intervals, but the ramp test gave me 200, do you want me to post some fantasy amount of time (more than 1.5 hours) ridden at 100% FTP?
If its entertainment you want, my January 2019 ramp test gave 195W estimated FTP and I was able to ride that for over 100 minutes. Thats my highest time at 100% FTP, from an FTP estimate that was clearly wrong.
Perpetuating FTP myths doesn’t help anyone, in my humble opinion.
While I believe in the use of “zones” as a common language to help describe different types of efforts which may make up training, I think there needs to be common ground on defining threshold, and I think the def of FTP as 40-70min maximal effort is a good one. I was listening to an Empirical Cycling podcast this morning and co-host Kyle made the good point that there is absolutely nothing magical about 60mins.
I think just handwaving and saying FTP is just a way to set zones for TR workouts, in my opinion, is a bit misguided, especially now with progression levels. It gives people an out to say they can’t do certain types of efforts. I’ve gotten so much pushback on suggesting incorrect FTPs if people can’t do, for example, 3x20 sweet spot.
All this to say, I think it is reasonable that we all have a common definition of FTP as well as some guideposts as far as minimal efforts for times. So while this is a fun thread and I have no problem chatting and participating, I think it’s also to fair to keep in mind what Dr. Coggan is suggesting as far as people should be able to do with a good ftp estimate
