And now that you learned to trust us.... take another piece of advice.... No pretending you're "normal" at least until the weekend.
Thursday you're going to think you're ready, but you won't be. Just get that in your head right now. :-) You can do easy stuff this week, but the most important thing is to rest/recover enough to hit your next block hard. If you're in the midst of plan, which it sounds like you are.... Saturday might still be a little off. If you've got plenty of time until the next race, you will NOT hurt yourself taking it easy all the way for a week. Swimming is ok, but even then (at least if you're like me), you'll know it's sub par.
Your IF of .66 is very low for a half Ironman. With your bike split I'd expect about a .83 or so. .66 is an easy recovery ride, especially for 2.75hrs.
Any insights into that? Powermeter working properly? Correct FTP set up in WKO?
Sukhi Monster! You totally rocked it and man are you fast... Your IF did seem really low to me as well. If you dial that in, and nail the nutrition, you'll be even faster which is truly scary...
@ Rich - OK here goes with this one. I use Golden CHeetah as I'm a mac user. And yes, now being 24 hrs after the race I don't believe that IF = .66 is correct. It certainly didn't feel like an easy recovery ride. I've checked all the software and its correct. So I believe my FTP may be incorrect.
THe ride felt more like IF=.75. I've done 3 FTP tests and my numbers over the last 4 months have went from 202, to 252 and then last week to 279. The 252 and 279 were tested the EN way 20(2)20, NP for 42. Here's the catch... I live on the west-coast and I'm 10 minutes from 3 ski resorts = you're either riding up or down. I actually have to drive across town to find a 10 minute stretch of flat open road. So I've done my last two FTP tests on the same steady climb. How incorrect is my FTP then???
I believe most of my improvements have come from neural adaptations too, I've just never ridden a bike this hard before. Yet I know that FTP testing on an incline may give you an elevated number. Having said that with my FTP of 252 I was always able to hit my Z3, Z4, Z5 training numbers. I changed my FTP in GOlden CHeetah to 279 this weekend and it gave me these results for the race:
FTP of 279 = IF 0.665, NP 185, Relative Intensity 0.655, TSS 120, VI 1.048
When I went in and changed my FTP back to what it was before last wednesday this is what I got for the race:
FTP of 252 = IF 0.733, NP 185, Relative Intensity 0.723, TSS 146, VI 1.048
My subjective perceived exertion felt more like a .73-.75 effort for most of the ride. Given I had no taper and wanted to run sub 90 mins, I played it conservative on the bike so I never aimed for .83.
So where does this leave me??? Still learning so much about watts... do I experiment in training to see if I can hold my zones with an FTP of 279? Do I throw my bike in my vehicle and drive an hour for some flat terrain and retest? Given I tested both 252 and 279 on the exact same road and feel that the 252 felt correct, could the 279 also be correct and my cumulative fatigue of training through this race make .66 feel like .73?? By mile 3 of the run my legs felt better than they've felt in any race, so I certainly wasn't killing it on the bike.
Any insights are appreciated Rich and from all the other power experts.
@ Jimmy - This is a great place to be, you'll be rocking it no time!
Sukhi - The good news is ... your body was wise enough to keep you under control despite what your mind saw on the power meter read out. It "knew" your FTP was more like 250 than 280, and kept you under control. Make sure you tap into that inner RPE meter you've got for advice on race days.
As to getting a "flatish" FTP - might be worth the time/effort. I live in a very hilly area - three ways out from my house, all up 6-12% grades for .75 miles, and it goes on like that for 5-10 miles in every direction. I often will drive 12 miles (and a $4.00 bridge toll) to get to a much better spot for FTP testing ... where a 6 mile warm up leads into a 15 mile round trip over a flat road, wide shoulder, no lights/stop signs. I trust that FTP more than one generated on a steady hill, and for sure more than one on endless steep rollers, which have me grunting going up and spinning out going down.
Sukhi, for what it's worth given I did the same race, my FTP is 250 and with a slightly faster bike than you I had a .83 IF. I am new to power too and use both the garmin connect and power agent software.
You could also assume you rode at 82-83% of FTP for the race and back out your FTP from that. This would be good enough for training purposes. I, like you, do a lot of climbing:
I have a couple hills with a long history of TT efforts. One is about 18-20' long, the other is 40-44' long. I know, with great certainty, that my FTP is 93% of a TT effort up the shorter and 97% up the longer, on my road bike.
However, on the road bike, I don't really care what my true FTP is. I'm just looking for a number to put in my Joule so my IF and TSS numbers are reasonable.
For racing on the tri bike, I know that my in the aerobars numbers for the climbs above are 90% and 95% respectably. IOW, if I TT up the shorter hill at 330w, I'll take 10% off of that and call my flat, in the aerobars FTP 300w.
More importantly, this FTP is backed up refined by flat course efforts, longer rides, etc.
My point is that over time, as you ride a variety of terrain, on different bikes, different riding positions, and collect enough data you'll eventually narrow down a training FTP (good enough for the purposes of making sure you're working hard enough) and a racing FTP, from which you calculate racing wattage.
Finally, this racing wattage is verified / back up / refined through the collection of long bike data, race rehearsals, etc.
Comments
Thursday you're going to think you're ready, but you won't be. Just get that in your head right now. :-) You can do easy stuff this week, but the most important thing is to rest/recover enough to hit your next block hard. If you're in the midst of plan, which it sounds like you are.... Saturday might still be a little off. If you've got plenty of time until the next race, you will NOT hurt yourself taking it easy all the way for a week. Swimming is ok, but even then (at least if you're like me), you'll know it's sub par.
Sukhi,
Congrats on a great race and PR!
However
,
Your IF of .66 is very low for a half Ironman. With your bike split I'd expect about a .83 or so. .66 is an easy recovery ride, especially for 2.75hrs.
Any insights into that? Powermeter working properly? Correct FTP set up in WKO?
We've created a monster. I deem you "Sukhi Monster!" Way to rally, keep the faith and kill it!!!
@ Rich - OK here goes with this one. I use Golden CHeetah as I'm a mac user. And yes, now being 24 hrs after the race I don't believe that IF = .66 is correct. It certainly didn't feel like an easy recovery ride. I've checked all the software and its correct. So I believe my FTP may be incorrect.
THe ride felt more like IF=.75. I've done 3 FTP tests and my numbers over the last 4 months have went from 202, to 252 and then last week to 279. The 252 and 279 were tested the EN way 20(2)20, NP for 42. Here's the catch... I live on the west-coast and I'm 10 minutes from 3 ski resorts = you're either riding up or down. I actually have to drive across town to find a 10 minute stretch of flat open road. So I've done my last two FTP tests on the same steady climb. How incorrect is my FTP then???
I believe most of my improvements have come from neural adaptations too, I've just never ridden a bike this hard before. Yet I know that FTP testing on an incline may give you an elevated number. Having said that with my FTP of 252 I was always able to hit my Z3, Z4, Z5 training numbers. I changed my FTP in GOlden CHeetah to 279 this weekend and it gave me these results for the race:
FTP of 279 = IF 0.665, NP 185, Relative Intensity 0.655, TSS 120, VI 1.048
When I went in and changed my FTP back to what it was before last wednesday this is what I got for the race:
FTP of 252 = IF 0.733, NP 185, Relative Intensity 0.723, TSS 146, VI 1.048
My subjective perceived exertion felt more like a .73-.75 effort for most of the ride. Given I had no taper and wanted to run sub 90 mins, I played it conservative on the bike so I never aimed for .83.
So where does this leave me??? Still learning so much about watts... do I experiment in training to see if I can hold my zones with an FTP of 279? Do I throw my bike in my vehicle and drive an hour for some flat terrain and retest? Given I tested both 252 and 279 on the exact same road and feel that the 252 felt correct, could the 279 also be correct and my cumulative fatigue of training through this race make .66 feel like .73?? By mile 3 of the run my legs felt better than they've felt in any race, so I certainly wasn't killing it on the bike.
Any insights are appreciated Rich and from all the other power experts.
@ Jimmy - This is a great place to be, you'll be rocking it no time!
@Shaughn, Enrique, Al - Thx!
@ Greg - Yup here to stay!
@ Tim, I'll see you at IMC, I'll be volunteering in a kayak during the swim!
@ William... got it... a chill week!
@ Jenn... Love the name... : )
@ Peter n John, Thanks guys, always more to learn!
Sukhi - The good news is ... your body was wise enough to keep you under control despite what your mind saw on the power meter read out. It "knew" your FTP was more like 250 than 280, and kept you under control. Make sure you tap into that inner RPE meter you've got for advice on race days.
As to getting a "flatish" FTP - might be worth the time/effort. I live in a very hilly area - three ways out from my house, all up 6-12% grades for .75 miles, and it goes on like that for 5-10 miles in every direction. I often will drive 12 miles (and a $4.00 bridge toll) to get to a much better spot for FTP testing ... where a 6 mile warm up leads into a 15 mile round trip over a flat road, wide shoulder, no lights/stop signs. I trust that FTP more than one generated on a steady hill, and for sure more than one on endless steep rollers, which have me grunting going up and spinning out going down.
You could also assume you rode at 82-83% of FTP for the race and back out your FTP from that. This would be good enough for training purposes. I, like you, do a lot of climbing:
My point is that over time, as you ride a variety of terrain, on different bikes, different riding positions, and collect enough data you'll eventually narrow down a training FTP (good enough for the purposes of making sure you're working hard enough) and a racing FTP, from which you calculate racing wattage.
Finally, this racing wattage is verified / back up / refined through the collection of long bike data, race rehearsals, etc.