sort of
(remember that one?) Hilarious
for reference:
No, you werenât. Approximately 1 h as a descriptor is not defining FTP as precisely 1 h.
In exercise physiology, fatigue has historically been defined as âfailure to maintain the expected or required force or power outputâ. IOW, itâs a square-wave phenomenon, and has nothing to do with the perception of effort.
4 Likes
Agreed. As I have mentioned before, in studies I have routinely coaxed 30 min of supra-steady state exercise out of completely untrained individuals.
3 Likes
Sorry, I was away walking my dogs. Hopefully the answer given by Mr ^^checks upthread^^ Coggan will suffice until I can come up with something more definitive via Google. 
2 Likes
Ooh, fire and running around with gas can! More!
1 Like
Ok. If FTP is âthe highest power that a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state for approximately one hour without fatigueâ AND fatigue âhas nothing to do with the perception of effortâ then FTP cannot be determined from any type of graded exercise test where perception of effort determines the test result ie ramp test, 20 min test, etc?
The end of the test is failure not any perception of effort metric.
isnât that what he is saying in this post in this thread ?
Then how does one determine FTP?
Ask @DrSanMillan
1 Like
I stand by my point (very) above ⌠The Kolie Moore test solves nearly all these issuesâŚsuck it up and ride for 40 mins. If blow up then week after repeat process starting 15 watts lowerâŚ
5 Likes
Iâd also say for trainingâŚI would MUCH rather under estimate FTP by 5-10 watts than over estimate and as a wise man once saidâŚif your FTP doesnât end with a 0 or a 5, your kidding yourself about accuracy!
8 Likes
I would hate to miss quote Andy Coggan, but reading his posts in this thread have given me pause for thought , you can filter by his name and just read through his posts if that helps
1 Like
Fatigue (as in, failure to maintain the expected or required force of power output) during volitional exercise occurs when you can no longer increase central command sufficiently to drive the failing muscles hard enough to keep going. Part of the reason for that is noxious feedback from group III/IV afferent nerves, which monitor the metabolic state of the muscle. Said feedback also contributes to the perception of effort (as do feedforward mechanisms). So, the perception of effort does enter into thingsâŚmy point was that I didnât use âfatigueâ in the lay sense, i.e., as referring solely to the perception of effort.
ETA for those who want to go down the rabbit hole:
1 Like
This thread is so funny. People arguing with the scientist who came up with a term/concept like they are experts. Then getting thoughtful rebuttals form said scientist with sources - and theyâre still in denial.
I hope the library of congress saves this so it can accurately mark what a cycling forum is.
I donât even care what FTP is anymore - this is TRUE ENTERTAINMENT
21 Likes
A little something that I posted 20 (19, actually) y ago:
"Original source: http://lists.topica.com/lists/wattage/read/message.html?mid=910290920
Andy Coggan wrote:
âŚer, ways of determining your functional threshold power (roughly in order of increasing certainty):
- from inspection of a ride file.
- from power distribution profile from multiple rides.
- from blood lactate measurements (better or worse, depending on how it is done).
- based on normalized power from a hard ~1 h race.
- using critical power testing and analysis.
- from the power that you can routinely generate during long intervals done in training.
- from the average power during a ~1 h TT (the best predictor of performance is performance itself).
Another method that could be added to this list would be to do an incremental exercise test to determine âMAPâ, then estimate functional threshold power as being ~75% (range 72-77%, using Ric Sternâs guidelines) of this value. You could then use this estimate as is, or if necessary/desired, further refine it using one of the methods described above (e.g., by doing a TT).
BTW, the reason this approach works is because in trained cyclists, LT falls within a fairly narrow range as a percentage of VO2max, and there is tendency for those with the highest LTs to have the lowest anaerobic capacities (and therefore a slightly lower MAP relative to power at VO2max), and vice-versa. In any case, at the very least knowing your MAP will help âbracketâ what could be considered a reasonable range into which you expect your threshold power to fall."
Nothing has really changed since then, except that you could generalize sin #5 to âvia mathematical modelingâ to incorporate the more sophisticated models that have been developed in recent years (e.g., the model I devised for WKO4âŚwhich in fact is what WKO4 - and now WKO5 - even exists in the first place).
12 Likes
As a coach, I use the above in practice, largely power distributions from multiple rides almost always including some kind of proxy MAP test (5min power, e.g.) alongside longer form testing efforts of at least 30 minutes (or preferably more) and via WKO5 modeling. Once I have some history on an athlete, Iâll also use HR response to tests and intervals to help me pinpoint threshold and when we exceeded it, etc., but thatâs inexact and less about the raw number and more about the trend in longer intervals.
2 Likes
Hey, Iâm just a chatbot, remember?
14 Likes
Ha!
While youâre at it, ask him why Brooksâ study using the lactate clamp provides no support for his claim that elevated lactate lactate levels suppress lipolysis during exericse.
âItâs a challenging dilemmaâ, I tell you.*
*Kudos to anyone who can figure out the allusion.
1 Like
You probably mean âestimateâ but I donât know why anyone in this community has a problem with a 40km TT once or twice a year.
I mean, are you here to get faster or not?
2 Likes