@RChung thanks I played around with GC late last night looking at some older data where there were enough near maximal efforts to represent “good enough” data for a model. The extended CP model basically gave the same result as WKO’s mFTP, that was a bit of a surprise as so many say that CP is higher than FTP. FWIW it seems I can feel out the border between stable and unstable, just using breathing and heart rate. All of my 2017 and later FTP estimates that I did a spot check on, they all line up with the extended CP model. Some were exactly the same, like when I did a long 50-70 minute effort at FTP. And some like training leading up to a big climbing ride I self assessed at 263W (using WindWarrior’s NI™ power-vs-HR, plus breathing on above threshold efforts) and GC’s Extended CP gave me 265W and WKO gave 261W (for Aug-Nov 2017 time period).
Wasn’t sure about the model’s default search interval for aerobic at 420-1800 seconds (7-30 minutes), and long aerobic 4000-30000 seconds (66 minutes to 8.3 hours). Will go look at source code, check GC site, or drop into the google group.
The Veloclinic plot made perfect sense after reading the article.
You’ll simply need to do a ton of aerobic work. On 6-8hrs you may have to do it right on LT1/VT1 due to the low volume.
The more the better. It won’t happen quickly. We’re talking months, even years to really see substantial gains.
Essentially, nearly all amateur athletes are underpowered aerobically. The result of being time poor and the predisposition to do far too much intensity.
You’re obviously gifted anaerobically. You can afford to let that drop in relation to your aerobic power. Additionally, just a few weeks of anaerobic capacity work close to an event will be ample to ramp it back up.