The "New" EN Power Test
Our vets in the OS have likely noticed a change in our power test protocol:
Old: 2 x 20' (2'). Normalized power of the 42' is your Functional Threshold Power. From this we then calc'd training zones, including Z5/120% of FTP that you would use for 30/30's and other Vo2 intervals.
New:
- FTP Test: 20' TT. 95% of this number is your FTP
- Vo2 Test: 5' TT
Why the change?
We wanted a test that was "good enough" for training purposes while also being less onerous -- one that you could insert into a week almost anywhere, especially the FTP test.
We'll roll with this through the OS and we'll likely keep it in the long course plans. However for long course athletes, especially Ironman, I want us to do a better job of dialing in your race day wattage pacing plan by using your long ride and RR data. That is, you're going to have:
- Your FTP, tracked very easily across your season using this much less onerous test and backed up the charts in the various software tools out there.
- Long ride data
- Race rehearsal data.
- Heart rate across all of these.
From the intelligent combination of all of these you'll have a much better picture of how you should pace on race day....but don't worry about all of that. For now, the "new" power test is more than good enough for the purposes of OS training.
Comments? Questions?
Comments
Thanks for the post and safe travels!
How does the Vo2 data get used for deriving target power numbers (if at all)?
Increased use of training data seems to be a good idea - 60' power (and others I am sure).
This is the test recommended in Training and Racing with Power by Allen and Coggan, and I've had good luck with it over the past season. For me, it makes the test more repeatable and makes pacing easier.
For those new to this test, it's worth pointing out that it's important to do the VO2 and FTP tests together. My inclination in the past has been to skip the VO2 interval and go straight to the FTP (after all, why start the FTP test tired?!?), but that doesn't yield a good estimate of your actual FTP. Put another way, in order to take this convenient 20' shortcut, rather than testing 60', you have to do the 5' hard AND haircut your subsequent 20' test by 5%. The book goes into a lot of detail about muscle physiology (which I love, but most people find boring) and how you have to tire out your fast twitch muscles in order for the 20' test to use mostly slow-twitch fibers, as you would in a true 60' test... but the important thing is you need to do both tests together.
I'm interested in this topic as well, and from what I've seen the goal of the Vo2 number is to give more specific wattage targets for shorter, more intense intervals like the Vo2 max sets.
However, as Al pointed out in his thread about 30/30s, taking a look at the discrepancy between this Vo2 number and your FTP could help provide some specific insight into your limiters in terms of your "power reserve". Using the house metaphor, a Vo2 Max power that is relatively close to your FTP indicates you have very little "headroom" for FTP growth, and thus need to specifically target raising your VO2 max prior to resuming FTP specific work.
The whole house metaphor is explained in more detail here, and while I’m sure there are some specific points that RorP might disagree with, the overall tone and takeaways are very consistent with the core EN methodology.
Along similar lines, when I saw the new test I found it somewhat reminiscent of the Critical Power test, which Dr. Skiba is also a proponent of. Critical Power is a similar, yet different concept from FTP that typically is measured by performing a series of tests involving short all-out efforts and a longer more steady state effort, such as 20 or 30 minute effort. These efforts are plotted and the slope between them is your “Critical Power”. This is very different from your FTP in that your FTP is calculated to be a specific measure of your peak 60 minute power, whereas your CP is intended to be a model from which you can theoretically project potential peak power at any duration, be it 20 minutes, 60 minutes or several hours.
But, all that background aside, based on Rich’s explanation above, that is not what we appear to be doing here. The VO2 power number is just a separate measure that coaches feel is helpful for reasons I assume will become more apparent over time, and is not directly used in the estimation of your FTP. (Edit: Reading Dan’s point makes more sense, the 5’ effort could temper out the 20’ effort some, which would be good, in my experience/opinion a 95% of 20’ test would trend to overestimate FTP alone).
A good resource on Critical Power, FTP, and how they all relate, a short whitepaper can be found here. The paper reiterates much of what Rich discusses above, including the rationale for finding a method to estimate threshold power that is easier to integrate into an athlete’s regular training schedule than a more conventional longer test. However, while shorter tests, such as the 95% of 20’ test are reasonably accurate, there is an obvious risk to relying solely on them important pacing decisions. Hence, it will be important for athletes to take Rich’s guidance above and validate their 20’ test data with more substantial data throughout the season before depending on it for something as critical as your Ironman pacing strategy.
That said, the OS plans as written will help you do this....this info is just meant to compliment your understanding of what you see!
Thx
http://members.endurancenation.us/T...fault.aspx
@R---Less onerous mean easier? Maybe on paper!
Great thread I think it will be busy!
Trainer road.com also has these tests they use. Should be ready to go when we have the dealio with TR.com
Warm Up:
20 minutes at endurance pace (about 65% of FT)
then 3 x 1min with 1 min RBI of fast pedaling > 100 rpm
then 5 minutes easy riding (about 65% of FT)
Main set:
5 minutes all out (max effort > 106% of FT)
10 minutes easy riding (about 65% of FT)
20 minutes time trial (at 100% of FT)
Cool down:
10-15 minutes easy riding (about 65% of FT)
Calculate FT by taking 95% of the 20 minute time trial average (not NP) power.
It's important to do the test as written. A 20 minute test without the warm up activities will yield a different, inappropriate result.
I used 95% of my NP but I did the ride on my trainer so I have the same AP number. We definietly need a standard, whatever that maybe. The Coaches will be back after IMFL so we will probably have to wait until then for RnP to chime in.
Gordon
I agree that this test is less onerous. The 42 minute test is a real mental test as well as a physical one. That doesn't make it bad... but it does make it something that's harder to get excited about after you've done a couple in a season. :-)
@Michael - Yes, your argument is what Hunter/Coggan say, but in the end, it's less important that we know exactly what the magic is and more important that the test is (a) reproducible and (b) predictive.
For those who have not read all the stuff that Trevor points out above about Critical Power, the good news is that the CP and FTP are very highly correlated and very close. So if you use software that spits it out, you can use your current CP as a very good "guess power" for your next test. In my experience, my 42 minute tests were 3-5 W higher than my CP. I will confess that over the last couple of years, particularly in race season, I have occasionally skipped a real test in lieu of already having the CP data in front of me. [You don't HAVE to overtly test to get the CP...you just have to conciously now and then do an all out 1-5 minute effort to get it to show up on the response curve...and the longer time stuff takes care of itself in your workouts.]
But ultimately, Gordon is right. Having a reproducible standard test is the right thing to do. And then knowing what to do with it (its predictive power) follows.
So does the data field automatically calculate your numbers and display them on your training plan on the Dash board page ?
@David. My daily training plan showed a number (247) next to VO2 that I presume was generated by my VO2 test a number. But, my VO2 was 280w. Perhaps it was some % of VO2.
All, has anyone else noticed is decline in FTP with the new test compared to the old test format?
Rich has indicated that the back end of the website is not yet caught up to the changes in the training plans from last year. The number you saw in your training plan (247) is probably 120% FTP, which was the VO2max target we used last year.
A lot of people have. My last test was the 2x20' format, and I haven't done the new format because I was travelling, but based on responses like that from Tom Glynn above, the new format is more indicative of the true FTP, as the VO2max effort tires out fast twitch muscle fibers which can skew the results of a single 20' effort.
I'm not so sure I would go so far as to say that the new format is more accurate than the longer format*, in fact I'd pretty safely say that it has more potential for error than the previous format because you are simply relying more on the projection of results than the actual collection of data.
However, I don't think the takeaway or the rationale for the change in test formats is that the new test is more accurate, but rather that it is simply accurate enough for the purposes that we will use the data, and the risk of loss of accuracy is made up for by the increased convenience.
To put it another way, a 95% of 20' test will always be way more accurate than a 2x20' (2) test that you couldn't motivate yourself enough to actually do.
*That assumes a certain set of caveats about how the test is performed. All of these tests are highly dependent on pacing, which can skew the results high or low with practice. For example, I can skew my results high by performing the last 2 minutes of my 20’ at VO2 max. Technically that is within the loose guidelines of the test of ‘maximal power’, but it invalidates certain assumptions of the model that your 2x20 will be at steady state threshold power with no major spikes. In the same way that your FTP will be overestimated if the test is performed on a hilly course.
George,
I don't think I saw a decline in my power number from a 20' test vs 2X20. Although this year I was well prepared have done some pre-OS work and up to 2X12's prior to the test so had a decent idea of my FTP going in. My thought was prior to the test was 235 and I did 282 on the 5' and 237 on the 20'. It was very hard at the end but perhaps I could have got 240. I don't think I would have got 240 on the 2x20'
As has been mentioned part of this is the focus on the longer test. I did fint the 5'/20' test somewhat easier from mental and recovery stand point.
Gordon
Perhaps I just had a bad day. During the test I felt as though I may have burned too many matches on the VO2 with 280w. I usually am able to negative split the FTP but not this time. My previous FTP from Sep was 234 which I maintained the whole season ( format was a 30' TT). Since that Sep test I felt like I maintained fitness and strength with the Preseason Plan strength training. Last year my FTP was 243w - so maybe I am just getting old but my brain still wants to blame the test
. Also, training with these new power zones seems way too easy.
You can always try retesting with the 2x20' (2') testing format to see what you get for the FTP. I'll be curious to see how I do with the new test as this did not work for me years ago during the Power Hack that we did inside EN. I was a good 10-15 watts lower on the 20' test, so I had to do both in order to get an accurate vo2 max and FTP. Prove your stronger by testing, not because you think your stronger.
-when paced properly, they seem to give about the same answer within 3-5 watts (close enough for government work)
-2x20 (2') has a higher risk of mental failure (ie. you've got it in the legs, but lose it in between the ears)
- 5/10/20 has a higher risk of the 5' interval affecting the 20
I've had many times where I've blown out the 5' interval, set a new PR, and watched my watts fall off the table 7-11 minutes in to the 20' effort. Very hard to set PR's on both the 5' and 20'. Personally, my best tests with the 'new' method have all come when I've deliberately held back just a touch on the 5' effort.
For me the biggest problem with the 2 x 20 is when I'm not sure what my FTP is likely to be which can have me too conservative on the first 20 — eg 1st 20 NP = 210 while 2nd 20 NP = 220.
As happened last season, I wasn't sure what my FTP was in this case. And the cost of retesting in the last month on an IM build when I was tired, I decided was too big an ask. Whereas I could have done a 5(10)20 test next week. Also, I think if I had done the 5(10)20 instead of 20(2)20 in the first place, I probably wouldn't have needed to retest.
HAHAHA!
I tried to execute the new test yesterday. I "killed" the 5' interval and then baield on the FTP test about 5 minutes in. I was just too tired to put up a respectable #. Gonna try again next weekend.
Ok, here I was, banging this out on the flight to IMFL and thinking I was fixing something, then you folks go and make it all complicated
. Here's the deal:
Basically, our job is to keep you focused, NOW, on what matters, NOW. And for the purposes of the OS, this test is good enough and as for how it will shake out across the rest of season...don't worry about it. We're not there yet
Thanks for setting us straight Coach. For the record I did find the new test had a lower mental cost.
Gordon