I don’t know, I’m not a scientist, I’m just a random guy try to help some other random guys on the internet parse through questions about how to get faster. I get it wrong plenty of times, clearly.
From what I’m aware of, running power estimation is much less accurate than cycling power and I’m honestly not familiar enough with running versus cycling threshold to be able to critique the study. Hence why I used the word “speculating”.
If you have some helpful suggestions related to the concept/topic of the thread, I think all of us would be happy to hear them. You’ve posted frequently about a lot of studies across various threads that are deeper on the physiology side, so I’d imagine you have some knowledge to share that is a bit more prescriptive.
If not, totally up to you, but I’m not the right sparring partner for what it seems like you are looking for.
My point was that you don’t have to even measure power to determine TTE - just put somebody on a treadmill or stationary bike at a fixed intensity and see how long they last.
Knowing nothing of running threshold, if they used a 5km TT to establish the running speed for TTE testing, they may have been above threshold, which doesn’t equate to the same concept of TTE
Again, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. TTE is TTE at a particular intensity. It seems to be a common way for sports scientists to measure exercise performance.
For example, just picking at random here’s a study that measured TTE @ ~90% of VO2max…the subjects only lasted 8-9 minutes.
IOW, the TTE that you’re interested in seems to be TTE @ FTP. (Is that too many TLAs for one sentence? LOL!)
On TTE, I continue to remain convinced by the concept of TTE, but doubtful of its practical application for the amateur athlete.
You’re basically asking how long you can hold your Maximal Lactate Steady State power. And unless you’ve measured that in a lab, then everything is to some extent guesswork. Including - perhaps especially including - WKO.
Say your TTE increases. Has it increased? Or is your old FTP now 97% of FTP and you can therefore hold that power for longer? Or was your old FTP an overestimate? Or are your shorter duration efforts on the PDC sub-maximal, as @bbarrera discovered? Or maybe you HAVE increased your TTE. Who really knows?
Or if you do a longer intervals session - let’s say you complete 3x20 at threshold. Does WKO pick that up (genuine question)? Does it see those intervals and recognise that your TTE is probably 45+ minutes at that power? Or does it only spring into action if you knuckle down and actually do 45 minutes all at once?
For example, there plenty of stationary bikes out there that don’t measure power, but simply allow you to pedal at level ‘X’. As long as ‘X’ is the same each time, you could see how variable your TTE @ ‘X’ is from one day to the next.
It’s exactly the same for a runner running on a treadmill, so there is no reason to think that TTE is any more (or less) variable in one sport vs. another.
That’s not what you said at first. So I was confused by what you meant. Anyway, no worries.
As far as your second point, if you’ve set it at level X you’ve fixed the power. So you DO know what it is. It’s not in watts, it’s an arbitrary value, but you still know it. It’s X. My only point ( and I think it’s yours too) is that X+1 gives you a different “duration until I fall over”.
@stevemz’s hypothesis was that TTE should be more reproducible in cyclists than runners because it is possible to measure power more accurately (not more precisely) during cycling than running. We seem to be in agreement that this is not true.
So if I understand correctly for me with 45min TTE target 20-25 minute intervals at 95-105%. Progressive to 150% TTE? Thats really hard! When i will start with 3x10min i have to choice the 10min target on the PDC?
Based on this study, anywhere between about 50 and 100 minutes.
33 to 77 minutes in this study.
There seem to be quite a few studies out there, but these two are the most recent, and used trained cyclists.
Edit to add: what is noteworthy is that the variation between subjects in these studies is equal to the variation within a given subject in others. That means that a subject who stopped the earliest and the one that lasted the longest could actually have the exact same true TTE - one just had a bad day while the other had a good day!
I have no issues with being pointed out I’m incorrect.
I’m trying to have a good faith conversation and make an effort to further the discussion and add to it.
At a certain point, if I’m going to be nit picked without any sort of effort from the other side to progress the discussion constructively, I have plenty of other better things to do with my time.
