I have a newbie question. I just started with a power meter and performed the new test. How do I determine w/kg? Do I use the figures from the 20 minute test, the 5 minute test, the entire ride including warm up and rest periods? Am I missing something completely? Thanks.
Joe your FTP is 95% of your 20 min NP! Then you go to the resources tabs and enter your numbers into the vdot calculator. You should also enter them in the data tool under the training tab.
+1 on all of Mike's input. I did my first test with the new approach this week. I'd previously been consistently in the 250-260 FTP range. I went out WAY too hard for my 5', well over 300 watts and I was light headed toward the end and during the 10 minute light spin afterward. It's probably the most fatigued I've ever felt in a test. I was so spent that I didn't have enough juice left to complete my 20'. I ratcheted my VO2 back from my official results and estimated by FTP for now, and will be more restrained in the 5' sessions in the next test.
Normalized power does not equal average power, necessarily. If it does your VI = 1.00 (which is a good thing, and much easier to accomplish on a trainer, IMO).
Joe your FTP is 95% of your 20 min NP! Then you go to the resources tabs and enter your numbers into the vdot calculator. You should also enter them in the data tool under the training tab.
Normalized power does not equal average power, necessarily. If it does your VI = 1.00 (which is a good thing, and much easier to accomplish on a trainer, IMO).
Its kinda semantics specially with a 20min test. Most intervals themselves will be very close AP and NP. I actually get a higher AP than NP occasionally for just the interval. NP would be a lot more important on the old 2x20 with a 2 min rest in the middle.
Joe here is an example of a poorly executed test (mine). Both files are from the same test. Garmin gives me an AP 235 NP 235 and Trainerroad gives me a AP 233 and NP 234. All close enough! Interestingly to note is that trainerroad used the AP to calculate my FTP.
@ Rich -- you did (see instx below). some confusion on whether to use AP or NP as the starting point, but in most cases, that won't make a difference at all
**************
Bike Test, for Power Athletes ONLY! DO NOT DO BOTH WORKOUTS! WU: 10' easy, then 8' building from 50% FTP to 100% FTP in 2' increments, 2' easy. Fine to use estimated FTP if this is your first test. The intent here is to get in a good warmup, so use your best judgement. Test 1 -- Vo2 Max Test: ride 5' at the best (hardest) effort you can sustain for the full 5'. A good target is 120% of your estimated FTP. Recover 1: 10' easy spin, stretch, recovery. Test 2 -- Functional Threshold Power (FTP) Test: time trial for 20' at the best (hardest) effort you can sustain for the full 20'. Recover 2: Minimum 5' easy spinning.
Do only one of the two tests on this day: Power if you have power, HR if you are an HR athlete. Power athletes: The average watts for the 5' test is your Vo2 power, used for future Vo2 workouts. Subtract 5% from the average watts of the 20' test and this is your Functional Threshold Power (FTP), used to calculate your power training zones.
@rich & Mike, I thought I understood the instructions on the workout. I'm thinking avg pwr for 20' x 95% =ftp, right? but now I'm told to figure out my NP first? do i need to purchase the WKO+ and start downloading info? Maybe I'm too simple, maybe stay with HR training and just ride....hahaha
@ Joe -- in re-reading the instx, it's pretty clear that you just take 95% of your average power. NP is not going to be that much different than AP as discussed in the previous comments, so i'd say just use what you have
re: software, i just use garmin connect with my 910xt which calculates AP and NP for each lap. haven't signed up for WKO+ or Training Peaks, but it seems many in the Haus do. also trainer road seems to get great reviews around here, tho' i haven't used it myself
I would have thought conceptually that you should use NP as this is the physical cost (well an estimate of it at least) of achieving the AP — it gives a higher weight to watts above the AP compared to watts below the AP. However, as has been mentioned already if AP and NP are very similar, this doesn't matter. On the other hand, if you sit on your last FTP/0.95 for the first half of the 20 minutes and then find you can push harder than that in the secoond half of the interval (because your FTP has risen) the 0.95 of your AP will tend to underestimate your FTP. Just my $0.02 worth.
Again, this is the OutSeason. You are all months and months and months from your races. All we want from these tests is a good enough number to use for future interval workouts.
You can use your average power x .95 = your FTP
You can use your normalized power x .95 = you FTP
For 99.99% of you doing these tests, your average power will be very close to your normalized power so it doesn't really matter which one you use. If they are different by >5w...who cares, it's the OS. Personally, I would go with whatever flavor of watts yields the highest number because, at the end of the day, I get to say my FTP is a bigger number and that's really all that any of this is about...bigger numbers .
Again, this is just the OutSeason and guvment math is more than good enough for us right now.
Not the results of my impromptu test last week....I have lost more bike fitness than I expected. But, rather, the fact that I was able to just go and do it. As we know the 2x20' is daunting mentally, physically, and logistically for an outside test. But not the 5/10/20. I was easily able to accomplish it within the ride that I was already out doing.
Also, while I was dog-tired at the end of the 20' section, I wasn't affected on downstream workouts. Does that mean I might have left something on the table? Perhaps. But this new protocol is very easy to JUST GO AND DO IT.
A couple points to remember and one bit of advice. First, we should all be shooting to pace these efforts very steady so NP and AP should always be within a few W. If you see a significant difference you either went out too hard or too easy. Second, some folks have mentioned holding back a bit on the 5' interval so as ot to impact the 20' too much. That's fine but the absolute key here is to be consistent in order to track trends over time. So if you do this test the first time and take a little of on the 5' make sure you always do that otherwise you could be impacting your 20' result in different ways across multiple tests. Finally, both the new and old tests are simply shortcuts to estimate FT. If you want to know your exact true FTP then go do an hour time trial - that's the definition of FTP. Anything else is simply an estimate, which is fine, but the key again is consistency from one test to the next. Do the same test in the same way, ideally in the same mental, physical, fatigue, hydration state, every time for the most comparable results.
And now the advice - completely cover the power on your display when testing. You aren't supposed to be chasing a specific predetermined number and doing so could easily screw with you mentally. I either tape over the power or change my display settings when I test so I can focus on steady pacing based on PE. The results are unbiased by my expectations and reflect my actual abilities more accurately.
I disagree with the covering of the power field on the computer. If you have some idea what your FTP will be, the best pacing will be had when it's as consistent as possible so you start off at the right level. Even if you're off my 5 watts that's still better that going totally blind and risking being off by more than that. Say my last test yielded a 20' power of 285 watts. At this point in the OS, what would a relative increase in power be? 10-15 watts maybe. So I can simply start and shoot for 300 watts in my next test. If I overstimate my power it will be only a very low, insignificant number of watts. If I can do more I can crank it up during the second half of the test. Again, i'll only be off by a very low amount of watts.
Plus, for me riding with power is a huge motivational tool. It forces me to keep pushing hard, to not let those watts go down when I want to take it easier. An all out test regardless of duration when done at steady power for me never comes with a steady RPE. It definitely goes up, then plateaus at the level of 'im gonna throw up', then gets a bit easier the last minute when you realize you're about done.
My N=1: (Cover your ears Rich) I did them both in the same week. I went old skool early in the week, v 2.0 later but relatively well rested later in the week and got the EXACT same result of 207w.
Why? Honestly, simple curiosity and OCD. Going into my third OS I wanted to know that I was comparing apples to apples. Moving forward I feel good about relying on v 2.0.
I did find that my VO2 number was significantly higher than 120% (248w) at 265w. I'm glad I have the higher 265w to work with because it means I'm (hopefully) getting more out of the VO2 work. Also, if I interpret this correctly it means there is hope (room under my roof?) for my FTP!
Also, I find looking at the power number works as a whip for me so my eyeballs are glued to it. Personal preference, obviously.
I'm with Ben. However, I have overcooked myself shooting for a goal that was too high. Now I usually go by feel for a couple minutes, then check out the watts. If I'm happy with the watts, I'll sit there for a while. If they are lower than my previous test's FTP, I'll push them at least up to those watts. I start trying to inch further up the watts in the last 5' and give it all I have for the last minute. I like to see the watts increase while I'm testing for positive reinforcement. I've been doing the 2x20 test for 4 years now, so I have a round about estimate where I should be based on the previous test and previous year's data.
I thought the 5' and 20' would suck just as bad as the 2x20', but was pleasantly surprised at how not horrible it was. My test results were right in line with where I hoped they would be. And, I ended up with my V02 at 122% of the FTP without realizing it was that spot on until I looked at my data afterwards.
I disagree with the covering of the power field on the computer. If you have some idea what your FTP will be, the best pacing will be had when it's as consistent as possible so you start off at the right level. Even if you're off my 5 watts that's still better that going totally blind and risking being off by more than that. Say my last test yielded a 20' power of 285 watts. At this point in the OS, what would a relative increase in power be? 10-15 watts maybe. So I can simply start and shoot for 300 watts in my next test. If I overstimate my power it will be only a very low, insignificant number of watts. If I can do more I can crank it up during the second half of the test. Again, i'll only be off by a very low amount of watts.
Sounds like you aer a bit too reliant on your gadgets for feedback. Don't get me wrong, power meters and GPS units are great tools for training and racing but if you can't feel out a fairly consistent effort during a time trial or race then you're sure to have some major issues when (absolutely WHEN) your electronics fail during an important event. I understand how seeing the power is motivation but it can also be discouraging if you are under performing that day. If you feel like you NEED that feedback to perform at your best then you might consider intentionally doing some workouts "blind" to the data to get better at recognizing the appropriate RPE and getting better in tune with your body. Do what works for you but consider the benefits of a different approach as well. For me, having no idea what my power is during testing is liberating in a way. I know well enough that the initial effort should feel slightly on the easy side and gradually get more difficult. I could be completely bombing or on the way to a new higher FTP but either way I'm motivated to simply push as hard as I can to the end and see how it all shakes out. Either way it was a good hard workout.
I understand your perspective, and you bring up a good point about potentially relying too much on tools and gadgets. Then again, I simply carry a backup device to make sure if something happens, it doesn't impact me too much. I have a garmin 310 on my wrist in multisport mode and a 500 on the bike, never had any problems with either one of them so chances of both of them not working are very slim. If my 310xt works fine on the bike it'll work fine on the run too, if it fails on the bike I will take my 500 with me on the run.
When it comes to doing a test and underperforming, if I have my watts visible and I feel they are lower then what they should be I know the data is not going to be reliable to determine my training zones later on. So, my opinion would be to stop the FTP test, call it a day and try again tomorrow rather than continuing to bust my balls and then having to take a rest day before being able to do a new FTP test.
As a disclaimer, I am a scientist / engineer and I spend a lot of time separating people's scientific perceptions from data. In my professional field, perceptions and theories are highly unreliable so my general philosophy is that what can not be seen or what is not supported by data simply does not exist (just like the FDA does). That obviously carries through into my sports activities, hence the personal desire to study numbers during and after every workout. I've even gone to the point of driving somewhere to go biking, realizing i left my garmin at home and simply driving back home. ;-)
@ Ben: Haha, you and I are apparently the same person.
I've been using using my power distribution chart in WKO to track my FTP. Has anyone else been doing that? It's the simplest way, IMO, but I have a feeling that the watts I see there might be slightly higher than my actual FTP. Hmm, might as well actually do a test to make sure...
@ Ben: Haha, you and I are apparently the same person.
I've been using using my power distribution chart in WKO to track my FTP. Has anyone else been doing that? It's the simplest way, IMO, but I have a feeling that the watts I see there might be slightly higher than my actual FTP. Hmm, might as well actually do a test to make sure...
I've done that too, as well as the power vs time chart, as well as the Normalized power vs time chart. They ultimately all give very similar numbers.
Comments
@William, take your FTP divided by your weight in kg. FTP is AP of your 20 min test x .95
Joe your FTP is 95% of your 20 min NP! Then you go to the resources tabs and enter your numbers into the vdot calculator. You should also enter them in the data tool under the training tab.
Normalized power does not equal average power, necessarily. If it does your VI = 1.00 (which is a good thing, and much easier to accomplish on a trainer, IMO).
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/232039603
http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/86718
I'm pretty sure I included instructions in the workout to the effect that your FTP is 95% of your 20' power number, correct?
@ Rich -- you did (see instx below). some confusion on whether to use AP or NP as the starting point, but in most cases, that won't make a difference at all
**************
Bike Test, for Power Athletes ONLY! DO NOT DO BOTH WORKOUTS! WU: 10' easy, then 8' building from 50% FTP to 100% FTP in 2' increments, 2' easy. Fine to use estimated FTP if this is your first test. The intent here is to get in a good warmup, so use your best judgement. Test 1 -- Vo2 Max Test: ride 5' at the best (hardest) effort you can sustain for the full 5'. A good target is 120% of your estimated FTP. Recover 1: 10' easy spin, stretch, recovery. Test 2 -- Functional Threshold Power (FTP) Test: time trial for 20' at the best (hardest) effort you can sustain for the full 20'. Recover 2: Minimum 5' easy spinning.
Do only one of the two tests on this day: Power if you have power, HR if you are an HR athlete. Power athletes: The average watts for the 5' test is your Vo2 power, used for future Vo2 workouts. Subtract 5% from the average watts of the 20' test and this is your Functional Threshold Power (FTP), used to calculate your power training zones.
@ Joe -- in re-reading the instx, it's pretty clear that you just take 95% of your average power. NP is not going to be that much different than AP as discussed in the previous comments, so i'd say just use what you have
re: software, i just use garmin connect with my 910xt which calculates AP and NP for each lap. haven't signed up for WKO+ or Training Peaks, but it seems many in the Haus do. also trainer road seems to get great reviews around here, tho' i haven't used it myself
However, as has been mentioned already if AP and NP are very similar, this doesn't matter.
On the other hand, if you sit on your last FTP/0.95 for the first half of the 20 minutes and then find you can push harder than that in the secoond half of the interval (because your FTP has risen) the 0.95 of your AP will tend to underestimate your FTP.
Just my $0.02 worth.
*sigh*
Again, this is the OutSeason. You are all months and months and months from your races. All we want from these tests is a good enough number to use for future interval workouts.
You can use your average power x .95 = your FTP
You can use your normalized power x .95 = you FTP
For 99.99% of you doing these tests, your average power will be very close to your normalized power so it doesn't really matter which one you use. If they are different by >5w...who cares, it's the OS. Personally, I would go with whatever flavor of watts yields the highest number because, at the end of the day, I get to say my FTP is a bigger number and that's really all that any of this is about...bigger numbers
.
Again, this is just the OutSeason and guvment math is more than good enough for us right now.
Winner!!! Just when I gave up. I felt like such a quitter.
Not the results of my impromptu test last week....I have lost more bike fitness than I expected.
Also, while I was dog-tired at the end of the 20' section, I wasn't affected on downstream workouts. Does that mean I might have left something on the table? Perhaps. But this new protocol is very easy to JUST GO AND DO IT.
And now the advice - completely cover the power on your display when testing. You aren't supposed to be chasing a specific predetermined number and doing so could easily screw with you mentally. I either tape over the power or change my display settings when I test so I can focus on steady pacing based on PE. The results are unbiased by my expectations and reflect my actual abilities more accurately.
Plus, for me riding with power is a huge motivational tool. It forces me to keep pushing hard, to not let those watts go down when I want to take it easier. An all out test regardless of duration when done at steady power for me never comes with a steady RPE. It definitely goes up, then plateaus at the level of 'im gonna throw up', then gets a bit easier the last minute when you realize you're about done.
My N=1: (Cover your ears Rich) I did them both in the same week. I went old skool early in the week, v 2.0 later but relatively well rested later in the week and got the EXACT same result of 207w.
Why? Honestly, simple curiosity and OCD. Going into my third OS I wanted to know that I was comparing apples to apples. Moving forward I feel good about relying on v 2.0.
I did find that my VO2 number was significantly higher than 120% (248w) at 265w. I'm glad I have the higher 265w to work with because it means I'm (hopefully) getting more out of the VO2 work. Also, if I interpret this correctly it means there is hope (room under my roof?) for my FTP!
Also, I find looking at the power number works as a whip for me so my eyeballs are glued to it. Personal preference, obviously.
I thought the 5' and 20' would suck just as bad as the 2x20', but was pleasantly surprised at how not horrible it was. My test results were right in line with where I hoped they would be. And, I ended up with my V02 at 122% of the FTP without realizing it was that spot on until I looked at my data afterwards.
Sounds like you aer a bit too reliant on your gadgets for feedback. Don't get me wrong, power meters and GPS units are great tools for training and racing but if you can't feel out a fairly consistent effort during a time trial or race then you're sure to have some major issues when (absolutely WHEN) your electronics fail during an important event. I understand how seeing the power is motivation but it can also be discouraging if you are under performing that day. If you feel like you NEED that feedback to perform at your best then you might consider intentionally doing some workouts "blind" to the data to get better at recognizing the appropriate RPE and getting better in tune with your body. Do what works for you but consider the benefits of a different approach as well. For me, having no idea what my power is during testing is liberating in a way. I know well enough that the initial effort should feel slightly on the easy side and gradually get more difficult. I could be completely bombing or on the way to a new higher FTP but either way I'm motivated to simply push as hard as I can to the end and see how it all shakes out. Either way it was a good hard workout.
When it comes to doing a test and underperforming, if I have my watts visible and I feel they are lower then what they should be I know the data is not going to be reliable to determine my training zones later on. So, my opinion would be to stop the FTP test, call it a day and try again tomorrow rather than continuing to bust my balls and then having to take a rest day before being able to do a new FTP test.
As a disclaimer, I am a scientist / engineer and I spend a lot of time separating people's scientific perceptions from data. In my professional field, perceptions and theories are highly unreliable so my general philosophy is that what can not be seen or what is not supported by data simply does not exist (just like the FDA does). That obviously carries through into my sports activities, hence the personal desire to study numbers during and after every workout. I've even gone to the point of driving somewhere to go biking, realizing i left my garmin at home and simply driving back home. ;-)
@ Ben: Haha, you and I are apparently the same person.
I've been using using my power distribution chart in WKO to track my FTP. Has anyone else been doing that? It's the simplest way, IMO, but I have a feeling that the watts I see there might be slightly higher than my actual FTP. Hmm, might as well actually do a test to make sure...
I've done that too, as well as the power vs time chart, as well as the Normalized power vs time chart. They ultimately all give very similar numbers.