Author Topic: Slightly controversial video questioning ftp predictions  (Read 1880 times)

Arno

  • Arno
Slightly controversial video questioning ftp predictions
« on: March 15, 2017, 09:09:08 pm »
worth a watch whether you agree with him or not https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Gik9lxCek
he also links to his own ftp-prediction spreadsheet there https://www.dropbox.com/s/r4bswgn8v8jjkwx/FFT_FTP_predictor2017.xls?dl=0

zigzag

  • unfuckwithable
Re: Slightly controversial video questioning ftp predictions
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2017, 09:27:18 pm »
i've seen this before, in my case it gives me a 60min estimate ftp which is only 2w lower than the usual .95 rule.

i understand his point and i agree there is some truth in there, .95 rule is a bit like 220-your age for max heart rate, the only way to find out is to do the full proper test.

Re: Slightly controversial video questioning ftp predictions
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2017, 10:43:24 pm »
Surely FTP is like left leg only power meters. It is a useful guide which allows work of repeated measurable magnitude but is not actually what it says.

Re: Slightly controversial video questioning ftp predictions
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2017, 08:22:31 am »
I did the 20m test on Zwift - managed 306w for 20m
Had blood lactate testing and went over threshold at 238w.

That spreadsheet gives me 259w, but the lower end of the LT zone is 236w.

The chap that tested me has said that he thinks the 20m protocol on Zwift is a bad test.

simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: Slightly controversial video questioning ftp predictions
« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2017, 05:26:17 pm »
I watched the video.

The problem is equating anaerobic threshold with hour power. TrainerRoad are clear that this doesn't work. They say this: the 95% prediction is what you might be able to achieve with sufficient training.  It's exactly what the video says - except they try to quantify it.

There are two things you might want to know: 1. How to set your training zones. 2. How much power can you produce for an hour.

Personally I have little use for the latter. However, I think the difference between 1 and 2 is down to muscular endurance (which is what the spreadsheet tries to model) and AT. 1 would be the physiological tipping point and 2 is that plus ability to extend time at or near that point. For training to improve 2 I think you need to know 1.

I reckon this year my 1. is not so high.  However I've spent longer at that intensity so my muscular endurance seems decent.