Pacing the 2x20' FTP test?
Since so many of us in the Team Turkey did ours yesterday, I thought this might be a good time to discuss. Been riding with power for about 6 years, so some experience with what I think I can do. But going into yesterday with some success at the 12' and 15' stuff of the last few weeks, I decided to do a data based "roll of the dice" Previous test week 1 gave me 220 as a FT. I had been able to put up 230 fairly well over the past couple weeks. So, my plan was to sit on 230 for the first 20, see how that felt, then at the 15 minute make in the second one start to ramp up from 230 if I could. First 20 was spot on at 231, and although it was tough, it didn't crush me. Started the 2nd one and I just couldn't quiet get back to 230, was running in the old 220 range. I rallied toward the end with 230 in minute 41 and a 248 for the last minute. I was suffering, but didn't loose my breakfast. Sometimes I think I'd do better with a straight set without the 2' break at maybe 5 watts lower??
This is perhaps my 5th or 6th time to do this test over the years, and I still don't think I know when I've executed it correctly. I tend to have a goal and just push like hell to hit it. And I already know Rich's response will be to ignore HR, but once mine starts getting up to around 165bpm(age 52, max 180), I start wondering if I'm leaving the threshold range and heading into another territory. Plus, I don't need any heart attacks. At 165bpm, 35 minutes in everyhting is hurting, muscles, lungs, etc, so I'm thinking that is my clue to just try to maintain.
So, my question is this. For those of you who feel like you nailed this test, what was your pacing strategy? When I've done it in the past and had a higher number on the second 20', I wondered if I left something on the table. In this case, I was 231 on the first, then 226 on the second. I'm going to use 230 going forward, because, 1. if I'd had a gun to my head I could have done it, 2. I want to go into V02 with a challenge, no sandbagging, 3. I was able to pick it up for the last 2 minutes suggesting maybe I didn't give it enough in the middle(pacing) 4. I think I'm within the margin of error for this to round to 230.
Maybe I did OK, but I would have liked to not have had the drop off on the second 20' Below is some minute by minute data pulled out of WKO+ and into Excel. I welcome any thoughts and feedback on this and I'm sure some of the noobs doing this stuff for the first time have questions. My girlfriend is in that camp and was asking questions about how to properly execute this test.
|
Min 1 |
Watts 226 |
HR 140 |
Cadence 83 |
| 2 | 238 | 154 | 83 |
| 3 | 226 | 155 | 83 |
| 4 | 226 | 157 | 82 |
| 5 | 232 | 159 | 82 |
| 6 | 226 | 159 | 82 |
| 7 | 230 | 160 | 81 |
| 8 | 233 | 159 | 81 |
| 9 | 233 | 160 | 81 |
| 10 | 232 | 159 | 81 |
| 11 | 230 | 160 | 88 |
| 12 | 232 | 161 | 91 |
| 13 | 230 | 161 | 81 |
| 14 | 231 | 161 | 80 |
| 15 | 231 | 161 | 75 |
| 16 | 235 | 161 | 75 |
| 17 | 229 | 162 | 80 |
| 18 | 231 | 162 | 80 |
| 19 | 232 | 163 | 90 |
| 20 | 233 | 164 | 80 |
| 21 | 97 | 151 | 55 |
| 22 | 81 | 138 | 49 |
| 23 | 223 | 142 | 79 |
| 24 | 220 | 156 | 89 |
| 25 | 224 | 160 | 80 |
| 26 | 229 | 162 | 75 |
| 27 | 229 | 162 | 70 |
| 28 | 226 | 163 | 74 |
| 29 | 223 | 163 | 80 |
| 30 | 225 | 165 | 90 |
| 31 | 226 | 164 | 79 |
| 32 | 218 | 164 | 72 |
| 33 | 223 | 165 | 83 |
| 34 | 226 | 166 | 81 |
| 35 | 226 | 165 | 74 |
| 36 | 226 | 165 | 80 |
| 37 | 226 | 166 | 89 |
| 38 | 221 | 166 | 78 |
| 39 | 214 | 166 | 71 |
| 40 | 223 | 163 | 69 |
| 41 | 230 | 166 | 75 |
| 42 | 248 | 167 | 82 |
Comments
All of my best tests where I have exceeded my expectations or seen the best results have been paced with a "negative split" strategy.
1st 20 - stay steady and don't do anything dumb. I stay as close to my current FTP as possible and do not exceed it during the first 15' ever. If I am really feeling great or my last FTT was not a good one, I go a little harder in the last 5'. This of course is dependent on a accurate current FTP and not a good startegy for folks new to power or the OS plan.
For the rest I just spin super easy, no reason to try and hold any watts here
2nd 20 - this is where the work is done. Whatever number I think my new FTP should be I now try to hold for the first 10'. This is hard but not horrible, if it is too hard then my expectations were off. I then re-assess at 10' - if feeling ok I kick it up a little, if I'm already starting to suffer I stay steady. At 15' I do the same re-assessment again and typically no matter how bad I suffered I can suck it up for the last 5' and go harder. By about 17' into the 2nd interval of a good test I'm at the point were I litterally feel like I'm about to blow up any second but somehow I usually can manage to just hold it together. The clock definitely goes backwards here and each second feels like 30.
FWIW, I have never had a great test where the 2nd interval was lower than the first. Everytime I went even just a little to hard in the first 20', I gave back much more in the 2nd.
Becky, I believe you were with EN during the OS least year, correct? If so, I would do this test just like you did your HR test and just let the power numbers come out how they come out for the first one. Once you have a baseline for your power then you can start to aim for certain watts.
So on Monday I started and after my first 2 minutes I was sitting at an average of 295 watts. I then settled down and was consistently hitting 285-287 watts for most minutes after that.
I finished the first 20 minutes with an average of 287.
After the 2 minute break I am already broken in...so I was quick to settle in at a pace of about 290 watts and finished the 2nd interval at 292 watts.
My npower was 286.
I just like starting strong for the first little bit. Gives me a little cushion. :-)
The goal of the FTP test is to put yourself on that razors edge of rapid lactate accumulation.
Rapid lactate accumulation hurts.
Hurting is what makes most of us slow down.
So anything you can do to avoid early onset of that hurt is beneficial.
So, I'd argue that if you simply flipped the results, then no, its not a 'better' test. But, you may have been able to hold more in the second interval if you hadn't tried to 'bank' those watts. In endurance sports, banking time almost never works.
I'm one of the nobs - (nov OS) starting FTP = 192
My new test results = 1st 20' @ 224 & 2nd 20' @ 215 ( I was fading last 5 min
)
I know my splits weren't optimum but since I'm a noob I wanted to insure I ran out of gas on the CT - next time I'll try to balance a little better.
If I apply RnP 42' my new FTP = 212 ish (linear ave of watts & min)
I know I can't really ignore the 2' easy but I'm tempted to use 216 in the VO2 block
I've been reading Hunter Allen - "training w/ power" - his FTP test = 20' @ max - 5% = therefore mine = 213
I've learned the EN kool aid works - but tastes like ... about 30 min into the test
Here is my whole perspective on this. It comes from what others have said here as well as my own experiences as a collegiate distance swimmer.
Overall negative splitting is good. When in doubt, go for the negative split. It is the most effective.
HOWEVER...every now and then it is not only good, but GREAT to go harder than you think you can really maintain. This is how truly GREAT performances are born. Being conservative is safe, but it does not necessarily lead to greatness.
Having said that...there is a time and a place. Going out harder than you can maintain every time is just stoooopid. But every now and again if you've flat-lined a bit or are frustrated and angry...go for it. I'd say this is especially important as a noob when you don't really know how hard you can go. Pain is an effective teacher...and going out too hard is a great learning experience.
You don't know just how hard you can really go until you've gone TOO hard.
I like going into my FTP tests with a goal wattage based on my training...and then I'll add wattage based on how I feel immediately prior to and during the test. Some days you've got it, others you don't.
Caution- That's not how the Hunter Allen 20' test works. In that test, you have to do a 5' ALL OUT effort followed by 10 min at "endurance pace" before you do the 20' time trial. Unless you followed that protocol, you can't just take 5% off that first 20' interval and call it your FTP.
Use the results the 2x20 test gave you. You might not have done the test perfectly, but you did complete it and those results are going to be as accurate as you can get right now. Don't be tempted to up the FTP number just 'cause you feel you "failed" the test.
Bill- really good point about how the 2x20 teaches us proper pacing. And I'll be reminding myself of that point when I do my first 2x20 of the OS in January! The first 5 minutes I always think I'm going too "easy" and by minute 8 I'm crying for mercy. Funny how quickly the RPE changes!
@Jeff, what Nemo said above is very correct. Read up again on Hunter/Coggan test protocol. It has a very specific sequence for warm up and a 5min all out effort aimed at "toning down" your VO2max contribution to the test, therefore more closely correlating the result to your true FTP, after that 5% is subtracted.
The way you are ending with this is over estimating your FTP. Most experts agree that it is better to slightly under estimate it as the benefits are still there, opposed to going the other direction and constantly overcooking yourself.
Pick one testing protocol, get very familiar with it, follow that protocol's instructions to the T consistently in order to track your progress correctly.
On the separate note, EN testing protocol is for sure the most brutal one, but I think most appropriate for the type of training done in here, due to the amount of FTP work done. It is the one most likely to yield the closest number to your true FTP. If anything, it is more likely to prevent you from over estimating your FTP.
That all being said, I have previously tested using Skiba's version of Monod's CP protocol. I am about to test for the first time here and trying to decide whether I stick with CP protocol for consistency with previous year or I switch to EN. Having hard time with this. Brutality of this test is just making me want to skip it.
Ummm I respectfully disagree.
There is one other way to measure FTP that is much worse than a 2x20 protocol. I am reluctant to mention it on the forum because I am a little surprised RnP don't already use it as a method of torture. Perhaps the week 20 final test.
The method of which I speak is not an estimate at all, rather it is a 1 hour TT ride at 100% in all its glory.
That is the truest FTP test there is.
@Eric, fully agree. Coggan says it too: Best predictor of performance is the performacne itself.
I will do that as I intend to race some cycling TTs in 2011.
@ AT - I don't know that I would worry too much about consistency. Many (most?) of us switch from trainer based testing to outdoor testing and don't give it a second thought (wsell, some obsess about it, but learn quicly it doesn't matter). Last year, when I started the OS, I did the 20x2 test first, then 1-2 weeks later, did the 5/10/20 test as part of the power hack. There was minimal difference (like, 0.5% or something). This year, I did the 5/10/20 test last week (starting Jan OS a bit early due to anticipated interruptions to training in Jan and Feb), mosly because I lost all my nerve and endurance in my forced lay-off Sept-Dec. The shorter test was a big step forward for me; I doubt that I would have had the same upbeat drive to complete a 2x20 at this point.
@Al, thanks a lot for your response. I think you are correct. I am really leaning toward 5/10/20 test as I just cannot see myself wright now suffering for 40min without at least some prior 2x20min work. I am more likely to blow the test and make it invalid due to lack of mental drive and toughness this early.
Later, I can completely see myself doing it.