Power testing: Endurance nation vs Chris Carmichael test
Chris Carmichael suggest to do a warm up and then do 8 minutes on and then 10 min easy spinning and then 8 minutes back on and then the highest of the two and then have percent of FTP to establish training. After 10 minutes you then run 8 minutes to determine pacing for running. This appears to work as Craig Alexander as well as others and documentations that this testing procedure is better or as precise as any other time testing. It seems to me that 20 min on and then a break and another 20 minutes on appears just to be long winded and power is going to drop off on the next 20 min and not be as accurate and does not have a run there after. It also appears that you are going to be as accurate on either test. Information on his testing is in his book " Time crunch Triathlete" Any opinions out their on doing one or the other or advantage or disadvantages. I can't imagine Carmichael would not have valid testing.
Comments
The BEST way to fitness test is using race information and distances, because we all know that ability to hold pace generally fades as distances grow. I think our testing protocols fit nicely inside of bounds of enough to give us something to work with, and short enough to still recover inside the training structure.
I would have to agree with this. That does not sound like it would calculate FTP. Perhaps some other metric. There are other FTP testing protocols out there. The most accurate being riding for 60 minutes. RnP settled on this because they feel it yields accurate results and is not as debilitating as a full hour all out. It's a killer workout in itself which is in line with the type of work we do here.
The running bit doesn't make sense to me at all in relation to bike FTP testing. Functional Threshold Power is a bike metric alone.
I did a quick search on the Carmichael test. I didn't see it referred to as an FTP test. I just took a quick glance though. It is identified as a test to determine training intensities for the Carmichael program. Interesting.
No way that test would estimate FTP, way too much anaerobic contribution to yield useful results. Like Matt mentioned sounds like pacing for a specific program.
Good answer, This is Chris response on page 92 of his book: One of the reasons some coaches prefer longer field test efforts is that longer tests result in average power/HR/pace values that are closer to actual lab tested lactate threshold values. The reason for this is that you can maintain an effort well above your lactate threshold for a short period of time, but because lactate threshold pretty much defines the upper limit of your sustainable effort, if you go long enough you'll settle into a pace that's very close to - and most likely below-your lactate threshold power/HR/pace. But this is another situation in which sport science doesn't necessarily work to an athlete's benefit. Yes a 60 minute cycling time trial could provide a relatively accurate estimation of your lactate threshold power output, but only if you can stay motivated to ride all out for a full hour. Most age groupers struggle with such a long, intense training intensities that are lower than should be, and if you could maintain such a period of time, it would be difficult to intergrate that into your training program on a regular basis because its such a demanding workout. The accuracy of their method was proven in the Klika et al. study(2007) . The study found that participants max sustainable power outputs, as measured by the CTS were 7.5 percent higher than their lab-tested power at Lactate threshold.
It appears that they are indicating the 20 minute test is good, as well as the one they indicate to use with the adjusted calculations to determine in power zone. As indicated on page 93 where it mentions Andrew Coggan test as well.
See research study Published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research(Klika et al. 2007) of what was found
Review page 84-97 Time crunched Triathlete by Jim Rutberg and Chris
I did the Carmichael Time-Crunched Triathlete program just before I switched over to the EN system in April. Their test is not intended to give FTP (which I still don't use even in EN), it gives a set of heart rate or power zones. My bike LT was 172 w Carmichael, and 171 with EN a few weeks later.....so not much difference. Distance and speed were a bit better, but had been training hard for a while, so no surprise.
The run, however, showed a big difference. My LT was 164 with EN, but was close to my bike of 172 with Carmichael. Not sure which is better to use. Later in the training plan, my RPE was way up at a HR of 164, so I've stayed with that for now. The EN paces listed with my zones are way off, too.
I do like the zones set up in Carmichaels, but like the bike test better here at EN. Potato, potato......(guess that doesn't work when you're not saying it out loud).
Why would power drop in the second interval of the 2x20'? You should pace yourself properly so this is minimized. Hell, most everyone here can do anything for 8 minutes. And why bring up running?
This is in his "Time Crucnched Triathlete" book right? So I'm guessing you take the higher power output from the 2 8' sets and then take a percentage of that number, say 75-80% I'm guessing, and that is your FTP. Why on earth would running be added to this I have no idea. I'm not trying to say Carmichael doesn't know what he's talking about, but he's clearly condensing testing for athletes who truly don't have much time. I really don't see what value his testing protocol would have here. Plus isn't his book geared more towards shorter distance triathletes.
There are many methods to testing FTP. Many of which Rich has written up in the Wiki, so 2x20' isn't the only way of doing things. But that is what most have done and continue to do here in EN. And run testing is done separately as well to yield better results more applicable to the run paces prescribed in our training plans here.
Do the 2x20', it won't kill you and might even make you stronger!
It's not po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe, it's apples and oranges. The test we use and the "Carmicheal" test are designed to guide workouts within the specific training plans of each program. So using one test to guide the workouts of the other's plan would be ... useless. Don't do it, don't try to compare the two.
There are alternatives to the 2 x 20'(2') test to derive power guidelines for EN workouts. See the wiki for discussion. Personally, I use the 5/10/20 method indoors on the trainer (5' as hard as I can, 10' easy, then 20' as hard as I can; FTP is 0.95 X my 20' power), and the 2 x 20(2') outdoors.
The 2x20, with some adaptive training in the weeks prior to the test, is still the "test of truth" for long course tri, I believe, and sets the bar at the start of the season maybe a bit conservatively, thus allowing for good 85-100 work and less chance of digging an early grave.
Stephen, drink the kool-aid!
Stop reading other coaches books and join the team. RnP have proven, their plan makes Ironman athletes successful. These responses have said it all. I have read every book out there on the process of making a triathlete. I joined EN in April and haven't bought a book or read a triathlon magazine since. I get all the information that I need from these forums. The books and mags just garble the information, they are written by has-been-blow-hards that read some books themselves. Hell, with all the books that I have read I should write my own book.
Chris Carmichael is a fine coach I am sure....but when was the last time you saw him at a race suppoting his age group athletes?
What Tucker, Al and Steve said:
All due respect to Chris Carmichael, I would happily put several of your teammates in an Ironman power-coaching cagematch with him and just about every other coach in the tri spaces. EN has power-game, no doubt. Most importantly, the mass of the power knowledge possessed by the entire team as a whole is just...nuts. No other space in the tri-space comes close. Listen to your teammates, they know what they're talking about.
As others have noted, there are multiple ways of approximating the FTP, but EN has settled on and recommends the 2 x 20. The number the Carmichael test you describe (8 hard, 10 easy, 8 hard; take the higher of the two 8s) will certainly be higher than the 42 minute test we do, but might be possible to recalibrate if you knew a correction factor. (e.g., the 5% factor for a single 20 minute test, as described by Al)
However, if you're going to do the EN program, there are two reasons to do the 2 x 20 test as I see it:
- The 2 x 20 test is already worked into the schedule as a hard workout day. By taking it out, you have to rejigger the week, or at least that day's workout. Why bother? The test itself is a workout...and frankly, a mental workout as well. It's one that has served me well at least in HIM racing.
- Since the EN workouts are calibrated to the FTP as determined by the 2x20, if you're ever going to go away from that test, you want to be really pretty sure of the conversion factor required. Getting your FTP off by 10 W is a fairly large error in the training zones. I hate to be the guy to re-invent the wheel.
Totally agree.
To echo what Al said (likely more concisely than i will here): the tests in the EN protocol are designed to work with the EN training and race strategy, whereas the tests in the Carmichael protocol are designed to work with his training and race strategy. Mixing and matching between the two will give you a hybridized system that's been tested by no one. You take on a training program because you want to benefit from the tuning and refinement that's gone into that system over time; to gain the most benefit from it, you should adhere to it as best you can. Taking parts from one and parts from another may end up working out, or it may not, but you'll be on your own and not able to benefit from the experience and research of others.
Really, you should just choose one. I'm sure the Carmichael plan is well thought-out. You're likely far better off just choosing one of the two than trying to hybridize your own plan.
Yes EN and many other use 2x20' to determine FTP. 95% of 20' is also used. Some use shorter TTs and take a percentage of that. It really doesn't matter what you really want to determine is a testing method that is repeatable that you can then use to guide you through your training and racing.
Now the run. Yes you come off the bike and must run. That is why we do bricks. But we do not do run tests off of a bike test for a few reasons. We're mainly a long course team and are never coming off the bike at FTP in a HIM or IM. And we should not be running at threshold off of the bike in those races either. RnP have moved the run test to a different day precisely for the reason that your legs will be fresher. They also have separated the long run from the long bike for this reason. The thinking is to allow you to work on improving your running without having the added fatigue of just having ridden say 4-6 hours.
EN running is based off of Jack Daniels testing protocol. He's a pretty smart dude that Jack Daniels. I'm pretty sure he wants you testing on fresher legs. I'm not really sure what testing off of the bike would gain you. On fresh legs you will test faster. Then your training paces will be faster. This way you are doing more work to get you faster and fitter.
As I said before, Carmichael's book is tailored to more short course athletes. Given that it might make sense to do as he says. But it doesn't make sense here in EN.
Good questions.
No. That actually makes very little sense. But then if you are going to chose to ignore those who have responded including R and P than I imagine that you will ignore me also. But, since I can't resist...who gives a shit how you run "on tired legs" in the "real world" I think you missed the entire point of well, pretty much everything. Are we really back to that nonsense? Even if that crap mattered at all for determining run pace off the bike, how in the hell would how fast you can run after going really hard on the bike for 8 minutes or 10 minutes tell you anything? If you were to actually go and read the EN materials you would be able to answer all of your questions. The reason for brick workouts is more of an admin/time saving issue than anything else. If anyone mentions that Charmichael coached lance so must be right I am going to do what RIch used to do to people that chose to race on fancy race wheels rather than with a power meter.
Glad I held back earlier so I could see this. Well done Chris.
Chris, you've been wrong frequently wrong (but never in doubt) many times on this board and no one jumps your shit like you jump others when they misspeak or don't immediately chug the kool aid and bow at the alter of RnP. But, as you yourself have admitted, you're kind of a jackass. This guy is offering up some thoughts for debate and seems to want to learn and you step on his neck. What's the point? You feel better? Did you go through a learning curve or have you had it all nailed from day 1?
You can easily temper your comments but you choose not to. Save that crap for Slowtwitch. It's never been what this place has been about.
Maybe you are right to a certain extent. However, there has been a trend in the forums. People, new, old members, whoever, read a blog, one liner on facebook whatever and then post about this "theory". While that CAN lead to good discussions and is the kind of thing that has taken place in the past when the argument/points/whatever are made by people who have not taken the time to educate themselves it will lead no where. There is for sure a learning curve, there are a TON of materials out there. People should take the time to actually read them. Then they will have a better understanding as to not only what the point is but why. The forums should not be for spoon feeding people tri 101. If that is the case then there is more noise than good information and the people on the bottom end of the learning curve will never learn. The blind are not the best guides for the blind.
"The alter of R and P"? You realize that this is the house that R and P built correct? If you want to debate whether the EN methods, or plans or philoshpies are a good or bad thing I am not sure this is the place, is it?
Lets step back at what the OP wrote and the debate he is pushing and the context. You have an EN team person, likely in the middle of an IM plan but clearly not having taken the time to read or understand the basic EN materials but taking the time to read Charmichaels book and questioning the EN test protocol in the EN forums. While I may well be a jackass and you are entitled to your opinion about that, I assume that you do not think ALL of the people who expressed the same view I did are? If so you are really wasting your time and money having anything to do with EN.
I have spent countless hours helping folks with their personal learning curve and will continue to do so. I will not however ignore the nonsense. If everyone ignores the nonsens the forums are no longer a resource.
Also, Craig Alexander is a pro. He is advised by CTS and also Dave Scott. I'm pretty certain he doesn't follow the testing protocol you originally described. But regardless, I repeat, he is a PRO. It is his job to train. We age groupers have nothing in common with them. We don't have the ability to train and recover for up to 40 hours per week. But you say Alexander is your friend. Ask him what he thinks. Could you also get us a typical training week, I'd love to see it and am sure most of us would love to see how a pro spends his week.
Re: EN vs. other styles of training. It's an open house, there are trial memberships to test it out, and sometimes EN isn't right for everyone. EN isn't saying that their plan is the only way, what we do say is give the plan a chance to work, do it as written and see if you get the results you were looking for (and by doing a training lifestyle that is different from 99% of other long course plans). There have been plenty of triathletes that have had lots of success using EN plans (just like you'll find people who have had success using other plans). I think some of the problem is that you are questioning the EN protocols without doing them. EN is much more of a show don't tell place. Do the plan, if it doesn't work for you then switch to another training plan. I think we'd all be surprised if you didn't see improvement by doing the plan.
But simply citing other plans to debate whether the 2 x 20 FTP test and not basing running tests on a brick is good or bad isn't relying on concrete results you should be basing your decision off of. It's much better to say, hey I've done the EN way but I found this other option that seems to estimate my FTP better what do you guys think? This is why there are several alternative FTP options in the wiki, because people have come back and said "this worked better for me, let's test it out with some ENers and see if it works for some others." But as mentioned above, EN is different than 99% of the plans out there, so the mixing-and-matching that goes on with other plans is difficult with EN plans because of the style of work we do. That needs to be taken into consideration too.
I think some of the issue here goes back to your OP. You being a new member + the comment "It seems to me that 20 min on and then a break and another 20 minutes on appears just to be long winded and power is going to drop off on the next 20 min " immediately said to me that you didn't read on how you should perform a FTP test which is explained in the power webinar and all over the forums. As Tucker said, you should be pacing it so that your first 20 is near, at, just slightly above your current FTP and the second 20 is where you start pushing to raise it. Otherwise you blow up. So to me, reading that, it seemed like 1. you haven't done an EN FTP test else you would have already asked about this or searched the forums or the wiki and 2. you were questioning something you didn't try yet. As mentioned, we are very show don't tell here, so try it out, see what you think. Otherwise, you know what EN finds as successful FTP tests (link from Al in the wiki).
Good luck with your training! I think you'll find that EN gives you a lot of bang for your buck in considering the # of training hours you put in and the results you will achieve from them. But the only way to see that is to do it
All, this is how we do things in EN:
Bike
Run
Everything is framed within the system of training/racing by pace created by Jack Daniels. This Jack Daniels VDot system has been used successfully by millions of runners, for decades.
To review, EN training and racing system:
With regards to what other coaches do...I don't know. I'm too busy coaching you guys
. But I'm also a very simple guy. My method is
Bev, I have a similar situation with a 5k @ 5-6% hill that I regularly, as my interval session. Takes me 18-21' to climb in varying degrees of fitness and fatness.
I will often take 7% off my best, tongue in the spokes effort and call it my FTP. I've learned this is a decent approximation for the differences that occur as:
The final test is to bounce this TT watts minus 7% number off of my experience with riding at that number: "Is this a number I could hold on flat ground for 60' with a gun to my head?" If the answer is no, or if my TT up the hill was an exceptional performance, I'll subtract 8 or 9%.
Sounds like you have a lot of experience with a similar situation and could probably perform the same math exercise above if you sat down and really thought about it.