From the ‘what workout today’ thread I think you did 60 minutes at FTP? Is WKO within 5-10 minutes of that? I’d say its your choice, but I might go with the more conservative and then during an extensive phase extend duration during actual workouts when I’m feeling strong.
How much shorter? I’m no expert, but if you actually rode at about FTP for a certain length of time then I’m not sure why that would not be a valid measurement of TTE.
It’s doing a regression on the data. The math means that it fits under the curve instead of over. It’s generally just a minute or two under what you did.
Ahh okay, I’ve never used WKO stuff but that makes sense. I guess they would prefer that the measurements be just a bit on the conservative side.
WKO is pretty close on my long rides at threshold, for example 51 minutes at FTP and post-ride WKO updates to 47:07 TTE. Or 65 minutes at FTP and post-ride WKO updates TTE to 56:42. Really depends on the shape of your curve, and interesting things happen if a really strong short effort falls out of the 90-day window.
I didn’t think of WKO using data other than just FTP intervals to come up with that TTE number but that make sense.
It’s a difference of 20min(!).
My previous TTE test was 35min; WKO TTE ~30min; same FTP.
From TP: TTE can is visually represented by a vertical line just after the kink or decline in sustained power outputs.
Except there was no decline in power @ ~40min; there was an incline in power.
(do I have to “feed” the model more?)
Would have to look at your curve. But if you don’t have maximal efforts on the short duration it messes with the long duration stuff as well.
welcome to the fun part of using WKO! FWIW I rarely look at TTE in WKO, it seems particularly sensitive to PDC and exactly what efforts are in the 90-day window.
I did short/med/long tests this week, but it’s only the first “feeding”; last 30-90 days only lots of Z2/3 stuff.
I guess the real life ride should? supersede any algo test (TR ramp, WKO TTE, etc) result.
There’s a ‘residuals’ chart that will show you where the model is confused. Test around those durations and it should tighten up. If you aren’t doing threshold work it doesn’t really matter what the model thinks though. So always ask yourself ‘why do I care and how is it going to change my behavior’ before you chase details.
Even then the residuals chart might not help much. That is similar to my training and on 5 December my coach prescribed an athlete’s choice “American Express” ride where my job was to go hit all the zones. I uncorked a 2-min effort that was within a few percent of all-time best from 4 years ago. So now my PDC is really confused LOL.
and ‘does the PDC actually reflect fitness with plenty of short/medium/long max efforts, or simply the training I’ve been doing?’
This, and something I just realised I was doing — valuing tech above my own observed performance. Tools for tools sake.
Will amend workouts accordingly.
I decided to have a ago at along test the other day, may be a dumb question but how far to exhaustion do people go? I find the ramp test fairly easy in that regard as I go till I can’t turn the pedals, but with the long test, exhaustion sets in very slowly. I got to 50min but could have squeezed more out even though I felt pretty cooked, I guess I just gave up mentally?
either way my 50 min average gave me the same number as a ramp test 2 days prior. so I can confidently rely on ramp test numbers going forward. not sure i would want to do a long test every 4-6 weeks.
Ramp FTP and TTE FTP – even though they may be the same number – are the result of different systems (or more precisely, a different mix of the same systems).
I’ve done both, a lot, and have got the same result from both, but I trust the TTE FTP far more than the ramp result. It also provides much more actionable information than a ramp test.
If you could’ve squeezed out another few minutes, it would probably make a minimal difference to FTP value (+/-1w) if you carried on at the same level. What I’d recommend is ramping the effort up if you’ve had enough until you actually reach exhaustion.
Exhaustion = Exhaustion
It was ‘I can rely’ rather than 'can I rely
I understand your point though. Despite never having issues with the prescribed number from the ramp test I was curious in validation froma long test. I was expecting a lower number, but has been a valuable exercise nonetheless.
My point was that it is quite a physically and mentally taxing test, and would rather continue to use a ramp test if it works for me.
As this test was done at the end of a base block (some threshold, long S/S and lots of Z2) i am curious to do another test after a build block (ie lots of Vo2max work).
If you do that you might expect the top end training to drag up your ramp test number even if your FTP hasn’t actually moved. I don’t know that for sure though, it’s a question of whether your FTP as a % of top end power changes with training.
I see two benefits of the long test: first I believe the number more than a short test and setting an FTP too high for threshold intervals is a problem. Second it gives an idea of how much work to do to push yourself to improve.
For example, my TTE is not great so I am happy doing ten minute intervals that in total add up to my TTE. As I get fitter I would increase the interval length or number to reflect an improving TTE, which is (as he says on the podcast) progressive overload.
The bonus benefit is that the test is a pretty good threshold workout. He has done a couple of podcasts on threshold training, the second being a listener questions one. I feel like I learned a lot from both and I am really enjoying that aspect of training now.
Yes, this is exactly what I want to find out.
I’ve tested this test and ramp back to back a few times and its always different for me. The type of training u have been doing going into a ramp test can skew it up or down at times