All methods work well on certain riders, you just have to know which method works for you.
I think @oldandfastâs 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 âoverestimationâ 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.
Yes, thatâs 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 âclose to 0 Wâ.
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 itâs uncommon to see NPâs 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 60âŚâŚ90 mins
c) other
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 wasnât true was a relatively flat crit race and a hill climb TT. (I donât have power data for those.)
(*) Most road races in Japan are circuit races or âvery long critsâ in the sense that you do a loop 3â7 times. Theyâd typically involve 2, sometimes 3 climbs, one of them quite steep where youâd be in Z6 (i. e. above VO2max power) for up to a minute.
Did the Rapha 10k gravel ride yesterday in Stockton, ILâŚ.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 screenâŚ.it literally took me a minute to figure out what field I was looking at because it made no sense âIâve gone farther than a mile, Iâve climbed more than 99 feetâŚwhat field is that?!?!?â
Sure, but Iâm certain you wouldnât 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 Iâm the spirit of âperformance is the best predictor of performanceâ, this is the least bad tool, with fewer assumptions, and perhaps we didnât need FTP in the first place?
Different tools in the toolbox. Pick the right tool for the job at hand, or realize none of the tools are going to help on a particular job. IMHO you need to learn to feel where you go from stable to unstable physiology. The tools being discussed simply help inform after the fact. Use structure to train above and below, itâs often more productive than training in the border zone power range (at threshold / FTP).
Itâs an endorsement of limited power curve modeling, not any one particular model. I could just as easily call it a tacit endorsement of WKO4/5 (which it is). I have never quite understood why thereâs this big divergence in opinion on CP/Wâ vs. FTP/FRC modeling. Seems like people will ardently defend one or the other.
This wouldnât be smart as WKOâs model is derivative, opaque and basically a marketing strategy tool. Whereâs the CP model has a rich tradition of open research and physiology association.
âŚupon which a tool was built that ppl will actually pay for. I think where they have missed the mark is marketing and selling a âWKO Liteâ type of package targeting the individual self-coached athlete.
intervals.icu is enjoying that lunch.
I think there are six ppl in the world who still care about CP v. FTP debates. Even Skiba is like âclose enoughâ.
I went through a CP model > FTP model phase, largely because of my affinity to open source (not free source, open). But until someone builds a UI on top of that model that isnât right out of a junior high hackathon, then good enough is going to have to be good enough.
And yet Coggan himself endorses WKO because, well, he created the model for it. So, I am pretty sure it is âsmartâ to believe he is endorsing WKO, since he directly did so in post 212.
I use WKO alongside Golden CheetahâŚand I have to agree with you. But itâs a clean software that unfortunately still doesnât have some very basic analysis features. And Golden Cheetah is, wellâŚGolden Cheetah.
Iâve used a bunch of the analytics/models, in chronological order as best I remember: TP, Xert, Strava, Firstbeat/Garmin Connect, TrainerRoad, WKO4, GoldenCheetah, WKO5, and Intervals. Something I like in each of them. Far and away the most flexible and valuable for myself is WKO5.
You can take that up with him, but I took it as you saying it wasnât smart to say it was an endorsement of WKO4/5. Maybe you think actually endorsing WKO4/5 isnât smart, thatâs fine - youâre entitled to that opinion. Thatâs not what I took you as saying, however.
But again, my point was that arguing about FTP vs. Critical Power is kind of pointless, as is - in my opinion - arguing the viability of WKO4/5 vs. CP modeling software.
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.
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 wasnât true was a relatively flat crit race and a hill climb TT. (I donât have power data for those.)
