You might want to ping @Nate_Pearson - TR have talked in the past about a desire to support research, perhaps leveraging the data they collect through us. They have a recent vacancy in the training/physiology space too…
1 Like
Wasn’t you.
1 Like
I don’t think you realize how much it costs to conduct quality biomedical research, especially if you have to pay salaries (which on average account for ~75% of the cost of NIH grants).
Over the course of my career, I have been PI/Co-PI/Co-I/a consultant on 95 grant applications* seeking $93,980,367 in funding, or an average of ~$1M per application. Except for internal awards (which are easier to obtain), I personally don’t bother applying for anything <$75k, as it commits me to too much work for too little reward.
*Reflecting the fact that I have spent two-thirds of my career surviving on “soft money”, I have actually written more grant applications than original papers.
4 Likes
You are quite right - I have no idea 
No worries, most people don’t (just as they don’t understand the hierarchy among institutions, fields, etc.).
1 Like
Isn’t this method as questionable as Hunter’s?
1 Like
I would say that multiplying by a fixed factor (e.g., 75%) has the same issues, yes. I therefore didn’t include it in my seven deadly sins for the same reason I didn’t include Hunter’s 20 min test, i.e., too much effort for too little precision.
All of the other methods are fine, but I find this questionable. After seeing 100’s of MTB race files, I think this method grossly overestimates FTP in for certain riders, those micro spikes of 600w add up to the calculation and have nothing to do with MLSS.
1 Like
But it can and does work fine in some situations
About 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 cyclists can generate a true 'NP Buster’s. Those that can, though, can do so repeatedly.
You’re wrong about brief spikes in power, though. ATP synthesis, and PCr resynthesis, is essentially 100% aerobic in nature. You therefore can’t repeatedly perform such efforts unless your muscular metabolic fitness is high enough.
“The muscle is to be regarded as an accumulator of energy, energy available for
rapid nonoxidative discharge, stored during previous oxidations. The transformation of glycogen into lactic acid, the action
of the lactic acid on the muscle proteins,
and the neutralization of the lactic acid by
the alkaline buffers of the muscle, are the
vehicle by which this stored energy is
made manifest; during recovery the process is reversed at the expense of a portion
of lactic acid oxidized. The accumulator
has been recharged at the expense of oxidations required to run the dynamo. We
must regard the muscle, therefore, as possessing two mechanisms: (a) the anaerobic
one of discharge and (b) the oxidative one
of recovery.” - A.V. Hill, 1923
1 Like
All methods work well on certain riders, you just have to know which method works for you. 
I think @oldandfast’s example is a good one, though: in mountain biking it is very common to go above threshold for various reasons and power is much more variable. Sometimes the terrain forces you to punch it to get over an obstacle or climb up a short, very steep kicker. Both of these factors lead to a variability index that tends to be higher than in many road races. (Crits might be a different story, although good crit racers try to decrease VI by racing smart.) In short races where average power encroaches on your FTP, it might lead to an “overestimation” of your FTP based on the race file.
Moreover, MTB riders get accustomed to such efforts, so I think looking at mountain bikers pre-selects a subset of athletes where an overestimation might be more likely.
Another factor to consider is the frequency of out-of-the-saddle efforts… Comparing NP during mountain biking where you are frequently standing to average power when seated is comparing apples to oranges.
1 Like
Yes, that’s certainly a factor. Moreover, the (whole body) effort of handling your bike is not included in the power meter data either. Descents might be quite fatiguing even though you are doing “close to 0 W”.
2 Likes
Just a small anecdote about “NP Busters”. Here’s the power file of a recent ~1h hilly crit I participated in.
Normalized power 354W, while TR puts my FTP at 319W and I doubt my real 1h average power is over 310W. I may be a rarity, but I doubt it’s uncommon to see NP’s like these in hilly/rolling races And I only did a couple of out-of-sample efforts as I suck at those compared to just spinning away high cadence on a low gear.
@The_Cog what would you say is the most effective way to improve FTP.
a) 3-5 sessions per week doing shorter periods of 90-100% ftp work i.e 40-50 mins per session
Or
b) 1 or 2 sessions per weeks but really pushing time in zone out each session.i.e 60……90 mins
c) other
That’s the typical scenario that leads to an apparent ‘NP buster’ (right down to your uncertainty re. your true FTP).
One thing is certain: your FTP is closer to the NP than the AP for that race.
(Note: FTP is not defined as 1 h power.)
3 Likes
-
All roads lead to Rome (which should have been a PPP).
-
Sooner or later, you have to increase the power (which was one of the PPPs).
1 Like
An IF of 1.10 is quite high 
I did see values between 1.05 and 1.15 or so in a hilly hourish-long road race(*). Talking to other athletes in Japan, it seemed kinda normal to see IF > 1.0 for those type of courses and durations. I reckon the only races where this wasn’t true was a relatively flat crit race and a hill climb TT. (I don’t have power data for those.)
(*) Most road races in Japan are circuit races or “very long crits” in the sense that you do a loop 3–7 times. They’d typically involve 2, sometimes 3 climbs, one of them quite steep where you’d be in Z6 (i. e. above VO2max power) for up to a minute.
1 Like
Did the Rapha 10k gravel ride yesterday in Stockton, IL….82 miles, ~7k feet of climbing, but all relatively short, punchy climbs.
After a bit over an hour, I glanced down at my computer and saw .99 on my screen….it literally took me a minute to figure out what field I was looking at because it made no sense “I’ve gone farther than a mile, I’ve climbed more than 99 feet…what field is that?!?!?” 
Finished after 5:30 of riding time and a .85 IF.
2 Likes
Sure, but I’m certain you wouldn’t include them in any formal protocol to test MLSS, for a good reason.
Your list is a tacit endorsement of the critical power model. In retrospect, it seems that I’m the spirit of “performance is the best predictor of performance”, this is the least bad tool, with fewer assumptions, and perhaps we didn’t need FTP in the first place?