Not if you accept the traditional definition of FTP being closely correlated to one hour power. The underlying metabolic marker is power at upper lactate threshold, and how your ability to maintain that power under race-like conditions is a good predictor of race success.
The shorter ftp tests are approximations to something (one hour power) that is already an approximation.
Doing an FTP test and riding a 40k TT are two completely different matters. One shouldnât be surprised when the power reading is different.
Your 40k lining up with your FTP means proper pacing, ignores environmental issues, mental aspects, course impact, and an infinite number of other issues that impact the form you arrive at the start with.
Not worth debating much. A well paced one-hour effort or 40k TT is perhaps one of the best approximations of ftp, using the original definition of power at lactate threshold as predictor of road race performance.
Keep in mind that both one-hour effort and 40k TT are approximations - you didnât actually measure lactate threshold. All the other protocols (ramp, 8-min, 20-min) are yet another approximation (e.g. 95% of 20-min as approximation for one-hour effort).
And yes ftp on a TT bike will differ from ftp in road race position or on a mountain bike. My long TT-like efforts are âMerckx classâ without aero bars, in my usual road bike aero position. Iâve done both 10 mile and one-hour efforts, and Iâve found it a really good predictor of performance for all the riding and racing that I do on a road bike (no aero bars). For example I need at least 250W ftp to have a reasonable chance of riding with the usual A group on Wed night races.
You can screw up any test or race effort, thats not the point. Pick an approximation and use that as a measuring stick for yourself.
Replying to my own post 
. Iâve just read the below article. Very good read. A relevant excerpt for this thread:
âWhat we do know is that successful and highly performing athletes usually spend about:
Or you could quote this bitâŚ
âCompared to the professional ârecipeâ of 10-15% high-intensity training, you might argue that riders with a lower training volume could take on a higher percentage of their total training time in the upper intensity zones.â
Yep. I think the important thing with intensity is to not over do it.
At 6 hrs of training a week, 2, maybe even 3 hours of intensity may be OK. 33-50% of training time.
But if doing 10hrs a week, 50% high intensity would likely be too much.
By the way, I think there are a lot of quotable paragraphs in the article. It was very informative.
Iâm sure youâre right, Iâm just playing devils advocate really as there tends to be a lot of dogmatic thought surrounding one practice being right or wrong rather than each having their merits in any well thought out plan.
âRide a lot, some of it hardâ and youâll head in the right direction.
Itâs the first time Iâve seen that article and it makes a lot of sense and written very well. The hierarchy of training principles is pretty much spot on IMO.
1. Ensure consistency first
2. Increase your training load
3. Balance your intensity distribution
4. Apply basic principles of periodizing & tapering
5. Finally, worry about the devil in the details
Not a great deal to argue with that I think.
From the article:
the emphasis on low-intensity training in the early stages of a riderâs career is a process that requires time before it pays off.
Coach Chad mentioned this in a recent pod, how the upper age groups are usually very competitive because these types of adaptations take years and years to be fully actualized. IMO, 80/20 is less and less valuable the older an athlete gets, simply because there is less and less time for those training effects to solidify. This is where training such as that offered by TR can come into play. Itâs not the most optimal, but it serves as a decent proxy for those who donât have enough time, both on a micro and macro scale.
If a person is 50 years old, the full effects of 80/20 âpower boostingâ may not show up until they are closer to 60 â and they have to realize that. Or they could do something like TR and get faster but not as âefficientâ gains, thus theyâll have to keep at it. Additionally, 80/20 would probably be much easier on elderly physiologies. Comparatively, if a cyclist is 15 and starts on an 80/20 planâŚthereâs many a reason why 28-30 is the prime power age. I can probably guess the dominant demographic of TR usersâŚ
Not sure what Iâm trying to sayâŚmaybe that no training methodology/ideology fits every situation.
Chad, I wonât even try to interpret what he said. I posted it so you can review it if you care to see what one of the most well known coaches thinks about Polarized training. I can tell you if you ever have a training plan by Hunter Allen, he works everything all year. AC, NP, SS, TH, Tempo and lots of Z2(coggan)
If you read his book Cutting edge cycling( from my memory) he and Stephen say that Old school volume will always result in better fitness, but that sweet spot training can be beneficial for time constrained athletes.
Chris Carmichael has written that typical High volume training âbreaks downâ at < 12 hours weekly, and inserting more intensity helps.
TSTWKT(sweet spot) is simply a way to drive CTL to a higher level with minimal fatigue, increasing overall fitness in those who are time challenged ( those of us with 10 hours or less to train per week.
Personally I think Polarized training is fine, but I agree with Hunter that I am not going to do VO2 max, etc all year, and for me 2 Sweet spot or tempo workouts a week definitely fill the bill, along with some higher end work as we closer to race season, particularly if I keep the rest of my training in mid Z2 ( Coggan levels). I am not sold that POL is better than SS in time challenged athletes and I havenât seen a study that say differently to this point. There is a study that compares Polarized to Threshold training, but it is flawed because there was no higher end work done in threshold group, which is not the way any of us train. It was also only for a short period. How would that change for 12 or 16 weeks when the threshold group started to do their VO2 and AC intervals? We simply donât know at this point from a study standpoint, only anecdotal reports of N=1. Bottom line is you can build great fitness either way, but CTL does matter and if you donât have enough time to drive it high enough with Polarized volume then you may need to start looking at other ways to do so.
Frank Overton and others who were involved in setting up the PMC have had great results using it, but to me even this can be flawed because before this Frank was training crazy hours as a pro and built a huge base. And then there is Kevin Metcalfe!
I find your experiment fascinating and this discussion is great to read.
Thanks
I agree, those are exactly the reasons I decided to pay for TrainerRoad.
On Sept 20 I registered with wattkg.com website for the pdf of the 9 week training plan. I now have 16 well written emails saved in my âmarketing examplesâ folder. They ended on Dec 29th with âIn a few hours the Polarized Plan launch closes.â and how I was going to miss out on launch plan pricing and 2 bonus offers.
If you want to save your inbox from well written marketing emails, below I give you the free 9 week polarized training plan from Sept 2019:
That version of the plan is based on:
StĂśggl T and Sperlich B. Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance variables than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training. Frontiers in Physiology, 2014;5:33 Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance variables than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training - PMC
Seiler S et al. Adaptations to aerobic interval training: Interactive effects of exercise intensity and total work duration. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 2013;23:74-83 Adaptations to aerobic interval training: interactive effects of exercise intensity and total work duration - PubMed
Rønnestad BR et al. Short intervals induce superior training adaptations compared with long intervals in cyclists â An effort-matched approach. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2015;25:143-151 Short intervals induce superior training adaptations compared with long intervals in cyclists - an effort-matched approach - PubMed
I canât speak for Hunter, but I feel like you are on the right path. We need those long rides to exhaust and recruit more muscle fibers. Both for fiber conversion and fat oxidation. Even long races have lots of intensity mixed in.
Loving this training discussion
Yep. Iâm running out of time
Yep. This approach is an experiment for me. Iâm planning to start SSBLV2 at the end of Feb, and augment that with long outside rides. Until then, Iâm following âmy ownâ plan - 1-2 VO2 max sessions a week, augmented with longer lower intensity rides.
Doing an FTP test and riding a 40k TT are two completely different matters. One shouldnât be surprised when the power reading is different.
I disagree that they are âtwo completely different mattersâ, even if theyâre not exactly the same. After all, a 40K TT has often been held up as the gold standard of FTP testing by the folks who invented the concept.
Iâm not saying you wonât have days where a TT might fall short for whatever reason. And some people might have an aero position that compromises power output (but if itâs a large delta, you can almost always find a faster position thatâs a better balance between power/aero).
But if TT efforts always fall well short of FTP, itâs probably time for a reality check. The âFâ in FTP stands for Functional. If you canât actually perform at your FTP for an extended duration, itâs not really your FTP.
Maybe Iâm under thinking the entire topicâŚPolarized exists in periodization.
FTP is marker used to pace efforts and build training plans. It is trying to approximate where you are aerobically constrained. Holding your peak aerobic steady state power for an hour takes a high level of muscular endurance. Improving your aerobic steady state is done by working near itâs current level. Improving muscular endurance is done by working for extended periods sub threshold. Capping someones progress because their muscular endurance isnât sufficient to hold an hour effort is arbitrary and useless.
âHour of Powerâ is a largely outdated benchmark for basing a training plan on.
Exactly â which is why there have been a lot of miscommunications about âSeiler vs Cogganâ on internet forums and websites over the years.
@mcneese.chad 's chart lays this out nicely. Say your FTP is 350w. Ok, 280w â 80% â is at the top of your Low Intensity zone. If your workouts are short, you could probably do a lot â but not all â of your low intensity rides at 76-80%, then the HIT is what the HIT is, FTP or higher.
Coggan has remarked that âLydiard got it right,â and Lydiardâs runners were doing their âbread and butterâ endurance runs somewhere between what we would think of, in cycling terms, as 70-80% FTP. Steady distance, not slow distance. After a 12-16 week build of Steady Distance with one or two â3/4 effort runsâ each week (what we know as âsweet spotâ), they would shift to doing VO2 repeats and higher.
In Lydiard-style base, 80% of the training sessions would qualify as Low Intensity. The âhardâ days are SST. So, the yearly volume would end up being âpyramidal.â
Pretty much any sensible, sustainable training program says âtwo days hard, everything else easy.â
Right. And if your FTP is too high, all those sweetspot sessions end up being threshold sessions, which is a great way to dig yourself into a hole. It may produce results in the short term but is a recipe for burn-out in the long run.
Itâs not outdated. A lot of really smart people still say longer tests are better. The shorter tests have gotten more popular because theyâre easier to pace and less intimidating, not because theyâre more accurate. Itâs just a simple fact that if you want your FTP to closely correlate to MLSS , longer tests are more accurate because shorter tests have greater anaerobic contribution.
