Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => The Knowledge => Further and Faster => Topic started by: chrisbainbridge on 25 November, 2015, 07:38:20 am
-
The health and fitness group have a list of their weight loss and somebody has made a graph for it.
Would anybody be interested in listing their FTP, possibly lactate threshold and then editing the page each time they test.
I would hope this was not willy waving (substitute appropriate anatomical part) but just a way of supporting each other keeping tabs on our own training, etc
So far this year I had an FTP of 210 in the summer then changed turbo and my new
FTP = 201 on 14/11/2015
-
OK, why not:
Date
| Methodology
| FTP
|
21-Feb-2015
| Ramp test + RQ
| 220W
|
21-Apr-2015
| Ramp test + RQ
| 240W
|
07-Jun-2015
| 20 minute TR + KickR
| 250W
|
07-Jul-2015
| 20 minute TR + KickR
| 256W
|
13-Aug-2015
| Ramp test + RQ
| 260W
|
23-Sep-2015
| 2x8 minute TR + KickR
| 254W
|
17-Nov-2015
| 2x8 minute TR + KickR
| 253W
|
3-Feb-2016
| 2x8 minute TR + KickR
| 259W
|
-
Most people on this forum have a set of scales. Few of us have a power meter or access to a wattbike.
Having said that, if you were to set this up, I'd be in.
-
My last ramp test was over a year ago. IIRC power at threshold (bit different from FTP) was a smidge over 200w.
-
I can probably adapt the graphing scripts I wrote to this fairly easily, if there's sufficient demand.
Note none of this will happen in the next week or two - I still don't have a working computer.
Adding weight to the table adds another metric (FTP/kg) which might motivate me to lose a bit of weight.
-
I'll join in. I like ftp/kg as well (yes, I can divide).
Given that I don't and won't test ftp even on a monthly basis there probably needs to be a bit of flexibility with timing. Ftp seems tougher than testing weight.
Mike
-
Indeed. I shan't insist on an FTP test every wednesday or you're out.
The table I wrote above is a starting point. Probably, I need to adjust the format to use numeric dates, for simplicity's sake, and add a weight field.
-
if i found a reliable and consistent way to test ftp i'd be up for this
-
In the vehicle emissions business, ( unless you are Volkswagen ) everyone measuring the pollutants from their products uses the same protocol according to EEC or SAE.
The engine and drive systems are preconditioned, temperature soaked and tested to the same procedure, so that the result compares with other manufacturers’ products.
Its called a ‘Global standard’.
In the industry, a ‘round robin calibration vehicle’ is shipped around to the test labs as a direct comparator.
Testing a human being’s power output on an ergometer requires the same due diligence, i.e. each cyclist follows the same warm-up; rest period and test which follows the same ‘drive trace’ or output stages.
Allen and Coggan ( Trainingpeaks ) devised the protocol for either a full 60 minute FTP, or a CT20 ( Critical Test 20 minutes ).
First, decide which protocol we use.
What Allen and Coggan did, in effect, was to commercialise the work done by N.A.S.A.; David Gordon Wilson and Francis Whitt in the 1960s.
Of course, N.A.S.A. didn’t call it Functional Threshold Power. More like ’60 minute power test’ which speaks for itself rather than something cryptic in a new made up language which racing cyclists have to learn to be ‘in the know’.
They attempted to keep the entire protocol secretive, selling it for hard dollars to cyclists who wanted to compare themselves against elite cyclists who were being tutored by Allen and Coggan.
We could of course, make up our own Protocol and call it something different that only we know.
-
In the vehicle emissions business, ( unless you are Volkswagen ) everyone measuring the pollutants from their products uses the same protocol according to EEC or SAE.
The engine and drive systems are preconditioned, temperature soaked and tested to the same procedure, so that the result compares with other manufacturers’ products.
Its called a ‘Global standard’.
In the industry, a ‘round robin calibration vehicle’ is shipped around to the test labs as a direct comparator.
Testing a human being’s power output on an ergometer requires the same due diligence, i.e. each cyclist follows the same warm-up; rest period and test which follows the same ‘drive trace’ or output stages.
Allen and Coggan ( Trainingpeaks ) devised the protocol for either a full 60 minute FTP, or a CT20 ( Critical Test 20 minutes ).
First, decide which protocol we use.
What Allen and Coggan did, in effect, was to commercialise the work done by N.A.S.A.; David Gordon Wilson and Francis Whitt in the 1960s.
Of course, N.A.S.A. didn’t call it Functional Threshold Power. More like ’60 minute power test’ which speaks for itself rather than something cryptic in a new made up language which racing cyclists have to learn to be ‘in the know’.
They attempted to keep the entire protocol secretive, selling it for hard dollars to cyclists who wanted to compare themselves against elite cyclists who were being tutored by Allen and Coggan.
We could of course, make up our own Protocol and call it something different that only we know.
[/b]
Now, there's a plan.
-
I've found the three protocols I've listed in my table to be consistent enough for my purposes.
-
The problem with the human body. Once it does some hard work, it adapts and changes. Either for better or worse. It very rarely stays the same.
The principle of using a repeated not-changing test procedure is to throw out doubt. The schedule you used today was the same as you used last month, and next month you will use the same.
Negate any variability in the test schedule.
By performing a rotation of different schedules and getting repeatable results tells me the tests and/or the intermediate training isn’t making any improvement.
Hunter Allen’s protocol went something like this, basing percentages on the immediate previous FTP result. When the tests are months apart, I found a deterioration of 2% per week was about right. NO amelioration. ;)
20 minutes easy increase to 55%.
3 x 1 min sprints at FTP with 1 min easy between
5 mins at 55%
3 mins 140%
9 mins at 55%
20 minute test.
Cooldown.
Multiply average Wattage for the 20 minute test period by 0.95.
This is what I use and got an FTP of 242 about two weeks before the last TT of this season ( August bank holiday weekend )
-
I take Ningishzidda's points about standardisation but this is not about saying my FTP is better than yours but simply an extra encouragement on the cold dark days to do our training and to share our successes. If my FTP/CTP/other measure is going up with your training then great. The only consistency I am interested in is my own internal consistency and getting/giving encouragement.
I think adding weight to give watts per kg would be great.
-
I'm in. And I'm not really interested in Ning's concerns. I'm well aware that I need to use the same test on the same equipment each time. It's only me I'm measuring and only my own progress I'm interested in.
-
11 Oct : 193W 20' test using TrainerRoad (average HR=152)
My plan is to do one approximately every 6 weeks
28 Nov: 200W (average HR=152)
-
(http://i1085.photobucket.com/albums/j433/Lighthorse2/CyclingPower.jpg) (http://s1085.photobucket.com/user/Lighthorse2/media/CyclingPower.jpg.html)
Here's the famous chart by David Gordon Wilson.
Notice the NASA 'Healthy men' line is just over 200 W at 60 mins.
I questioned the 'hump' between 20 minutes and 1 hour, or the 'drop off' at 30 - 40 minutes.
On researching 'Cardiac drift', published research stated a 'drop off' in power output when CD happens approx 40 - 60 minutes into hard cycle ergometer tests.
Coggan uses a 0.95 correction factor to get FTP from a CT20. This chart shows different.
The only way is to do the 60 minutes.
-
Hi Oranj, Thanks for that. I had missed it. I am perfectly happy for that to be resurrected and the two threads merged. I wondered if the concept would be of interest and it seems to be to a small number of people. It will be interesting to see if it stays active or dies.
-
This thread is getting a bit polluted with discussion.
The other thread shouldn't be merged, IMO, as it uses different metrics.
-
I'm in, FWIW - it is amusing how quickly you get sucked in to the numbers ;)
-
I'd be up for this - the gym I'm a member of has recently got a couple of wattbikes.
-
MMP test on a wattbike a couple of weeks ago gave 446w. Which means a FTP of about 300w which feels about right when training.
Cuurently two weeks into a four week base training. Will retest at the end.
-
had my first go at measuring 20min effort, which translates into ftp of 245w
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PRRge8ImhGg/VmRwl6CRfxI/AAAAAAAAEsA/kcapJbmVNhE/s871-Ic42/FTP%252520test%25252006-12-15.JPG)
-
had my first go at measuring 20min effort, which translates into ftp of 245w
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PRRge8ImhGg/VmRwl6CRfxI/AAAAAAAAEsA/kcapJbmVNhE/s871-Ic42/FTP%252520test%25252006-12-15.JPG)
I can't believe that your FTP is 245w, I thought it'd be higher. Try the three minute anaerobic test Zigzag, where you absolutely gunn it for three minutes. I find intitially that this is a better test to establish your training zones and what feels like your threshold as it requires less pacing as you are only pedalling for three minutes.
If you have not already take a memory stick with you, plug it into the back of the unit, do the 3 minute test and then input the value under your personal stats along with your max HR. It will then automatically work out your training zones for you from ZR through to Zmax. Your values in zone 4 will be roughly what your FTP is.
-
this was done outside in real world with some car traffic and potholes to avoid (and i'm nowhere near my summer fitness now). i have tried measuring power on turbo trainers (wattbike, bkool) and it comes quite a bit higher, e.g. 680w for 1min which i wouldn't be able to replicate on a bike.
i noticed the best way to keep the power output high is to climb a moderately steep hill.
-
I was surprised that number was so low and doing it outdoors won't have helped. I'm much slower than you and I recently tested at 253W FTP based on 2x8 minutes at 282W.
-
had my first go at measuring 20min effort, which translates into ftp of 245w
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PRRge8ImhGg/VmRwl6CRfxI/AAAAAAAAEsA/kcapJbmVNhE/s871-Ic42/FTP%252520test%25252006-12-15.JPG)
I can't believe that your FTP is 245w, I thought it'd be higher. Try the three minute anaerobic test Zigzag, where you absolutely gunn it for three minutes. I find intitially that this is a better test to establish your training zones and what feels like your threshold as it requires less pacing as you are only pedalling for three minutes.
If you have not already take a memory stick with you, plug it into the back of the unit, do the 3 minute test and then input the value under your personal stats along with your max HR. It will then automatically work out your training zones for you from ZR through to Zmax. Your values in zone 4 will be roughly what your FTP is.
The clue is in the first words.
Onna trainer, I appear to have an FTP of around 250. If my equipment is anywhere near accurate that reading seems to be consistent, although given I don't have any trouble holding at the "sweet spot" there's more than a chance that it should be a touch higher.
There. is. No. Chance. that Zigzag and I share FTP, even in "Winter Mode". As an old fart I would expect to be at least 20% lower, it therefore means that the playing field is not level and that, measured like for like, the differential would be seen.
-
i am wondering why is it easier to expend more energy going uphill. as soon as the road goes up, the power goes up with no peceived increase in effort. another question i have is - do i calculate my power zones based on my "road" ftp (as that's where i would be tt'ing) or turbo trainer ftp (which will show a different - higher - figure, which may lead to misjudgement of effort during the real tt)?
i rode on the hoods in blustery and drizzly conditions yesterday and 38.2kph average is what i would expect at 258w.
-
It leads me to suspect the numbers output by my turbo, it would be interesting to see how it measures up against a powertap or wattbike. Here's (https://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/2617135-20-Minute-Test) the FTP test I did, which appears to be really quite similar to zigzag. Did I mention I don't believe that? (btw, one thing about the Genius, it has road realistic-ish flywheel inertia)
Froome's recent data release is discussed here (http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/racing/tour-de-france/what-can-we-learn-from-chris-froomes-power-data-183677). The single figure that sets him apart from the likes of us?:
his power-to-weight was 5.78w/kg
-
Ham:
I suspect zigzag's FTP/kg is higher than yours or mine. My FTP is as high now as it's ever been. I had a 225W FTP in late 2009; I suspect it was 250W or higher in 2010 - but no test to confirm - and weighed as little as 68kg. Now that I'm 78kg my FTP/kg is probably lower than it was then. Currently it comes out as 3.25 or so.
http://www.bicycling.com/training/fitness/trainingpeaks-power-profiles-cyclists
Divide measured FTP by weight and look up the value in the 3rd column (FT) to put the FTP/weight value into some sort of perspective. Froome would be right near the top of that table, but not off the scale.
-
shame i cancelled the subscriptions to places where i can go and measure the power on a trainer. i plan to do another ramp/vo2max/ftp test in early spring as it's four years since i've done the last one. i'll keep doing 2x20min intervals over the winter to stay in shape.
-
Depending on your physiology some of us find it easier to produce an FTP-effort at +90 rpm on the flat. There was an academic paper about it earlier this year, but I'm damned if I can find it now. Chris Froome is also one such person which is why he spins along going uphill, to avoid getting into that lower cadence that most climbers use. (Mind you, for short tests I also find a slight incline useful in that it saves me having to change gear quite so often.)
You will find that your road FTP is different to your turbo FTP, partly due to the above, and also because (2) the turbo has less inertia and you spend a small amount of each pedal stroke forcing the pedals over centre, which inertia will take care of on the road; and (3) generally you're cooled by wind out on the road. There is a long and rather boring thread on the TT Forum about it. Some people have two FTP settings for each situation (and indeed you might have a third FTP for when you're hunched over the tribars, I do) - the easiest way to engineer this in practice is to have two Garmins, each set with different FTP values.
interesting! so if i understand it correctly, i should use my road ftp as a reference if i'm training outside, and use turbo ftp value for the indoor sessions?
-
Depending on your physiology some of us find it easier to produce an FTP-effort at +90 rpm on the flat. There was an academic paper about it earlier this year, but I'm damned if I can find it now. Chris Froome is also one such person which is why he spins along going uphill, to avoid getting into that lower cadence that most climbers use. (Mind you, for short tests I also find a slight incline useful in that it saves me having to change gear quite so often.)
You will find that your road FTP is different to your turbo FTP, partly due to the above, and also because (2) the turbo has less inertia and you spend a small amount of each pedal stroke forcing the pedals over centre, which inertia will take care of on the road; and (3) generally you're cooled by wind out on the road. There is a long and rather boring thread on the TT Forum about it. Some people have two FTP settings for each situation (and indeed you might have a third FTP for when you're hunched over the tribars, I do) - the easiest way to engineer this in practice is to have two Garmins, each set with different FTP values.
interesting! so if i understand it correctly, i should use my road ftp as a reference if i'm training outside, and use turbo ftp value for the indoor sessions?
I'd do an FTP test indoors on a trainer, that way the effort is easily (and better) paced then outdoors when you have to deal with elevations in the road, traffic and other things that could hamper you effort.
And I would not have two or three FTP's, power is power after all whether you are inside or outside.
And have you got a Virgin Active close to you? Check that your local one has a Wattbike, pay for a day pass and do the test that way.
-
Oh buggeryfuckbums. I did think that the FTP value from the first test made things a bit too easy. After this (https://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/2696911-Sufferfest-Rubber-Glove) it appears to be 299 now ::-) OOOOORRRR .... the kit is overreading (more likely)
-
I'd do an FTP test indoors on a trainer, that way the effort is easily (and better) paced then outdoors when you have to deal with elevations in the road, traffic and other things that could hamper you effort.
And I would not have two or three FTP's, power is power after all whether you are inside or outside.
And have you got a Virgin Active close to you? Check that your local one has a Wattbike, pay for a day pass and do the test that way.
i agree that power is power, however it seems to be easier to extract that power spinning on the trainer than on a real road. i'll keep experimenting and comparing the results. the thing to bear in mind is that if i get a 300w ftp on a trainer and start my 25mile tt on the road at 300w i will be spent way before the end, if my road ftp is only, say, 250w.
-
Doing an accurate FTP test outdoors is tough. You need to be focused to get an accurate number. Also the test protocol for 20 minute FTP testing uses a 5 minute all out effort when warming up in order to get ensure the test is aerobic power based.
You also need to consider position - an aero position likely compromises some power. For testing FTP ride in the most comfortable position. Then when training spend time in aero position while doing intervals. You can improve your ability to ride in position over time. But the perfect aero position might lose too much power so you may need to compromise.
I'd say it's much easier to work on this indoors.