Need FTP race advice for IMOO
Hi, I did a couple FTP tests in the Feb and April on the Trainer road virtual power training device. I did not own a PM at that point. My 1st FTP came in at 265ish, and my last one I hit 279 indoors. I then got a PM and have been riding up to this point with it outside. I had all my metrics set off the 279 FTP test I did on trainer road. I have doing my long rides at 66-67 IF, and have been feeling good, not to taxed, and feeling stronger each weekend. But through this period, I have always had a feeling that the 279 was not realistic #, because I could never really get close to that top end on many workouts. I was always riding in zone 1 or maybe 2..zone 3 was a big stretch.............SO, today I did a FTP test outdoors on the bike I am riding for IMOO... conditions were perfect.., no traffic, no stops, flat course.... I left nothing in the locker room..all out for 42 minutes including the 2 minute rest between sets. my normalized power reading came in at 240. When I then transfer that to riding IM at 70%, it is way below what I have been training at. .....At the "false" reading of 279, week after week, I kept backing it down on the IF scale, to where at 65-67 I felt right. Now I know I have not been running 26 miles after these rides, but my only focus on the bike is to get off with enough to do a good marathon. I have in the past at IMOO left it all out on the bike course, and that is so very, very ugly, so I have some experience of being stupid out there. I have been training on the bike only one thought... lead me to a good run....what are your thoughts on my situation???????
Thanks!!!!!!!!
Comments
1) you're testing in the middle of an IM build, on what are likely very tired legs. The 240 number is probably lower than what you could put out with a little rest.
2) 65% of 279 is the same as 70% of 259, which may be a little closer to what you could achieve in an accurate FTP test.
3) you've done a race rehearsal or two, right? How did the 6 mile run feel after that.
At this point, you've probably got a pretty good sense of what the wattage you're holding in your workouts is, as far as goal IM watts. Go with that, and if you're concerned, knock the goal watts down a touch.
Suggest you ride at 68% of that new FTP for the first 2hrs then dial it up a slight tick to 69-70%. Review my notes from last year, in the '11 group about riding with a low VI, etc. you can make a lot of time on the course by not coasting
I have been struggling with similar question as I try to decide my race day FTP....I did most of my early testing on Trainer Road without the benefit of a powermeter....and I have used those numbers for all of my training...that number was 243......an unsuccesful roadtest (wanted to use a race but had power meter issue)...led me to lower that to 230
However on my RR ...under hot/humid and unrested conditions I had to dial back the intensity considerably...and while I had a good final RR relative to running well off the bike...I was well under goal watts on the bike.....
and am trying to decide to I set a low target for the bike at Louisville or do I go with my 230 numbers? Whats the downside to underestimating your FTP for htis purpose by 10 watts? 20watts?
I'd say that the downside for 10-20W is a better run. There is an exponential increase in effort to hold higher watts and you really won't be gaining THAT much speed for the effort. Better to drop it down a litle and ensure that you're running the whole marathon and if you have anything left the last few miles then pick it up some.
If you use WKO+ and download the PM data, you should be able to get a fairly close accounting of your true outdoor FTP.
Look at the PM data for the past 28 days and break it into 5 watt buckets.
Where there is a significant drop off from one watt bucket to the next after the peak, then the last tall peak is where your FTP actually is.
I have been using this technique with accuracy during the season to double check everything.
Of course, I am not out to KQ.
Well I'm not so sure about this method Michele...I have a question about it and will post it here as well as in a separate thread...I agree that it is a method and I have used it as well.....I understand its application....however...if I consider my training over the past 28 days...leading up to IMLou...I have added alot of volume at much lower intensity levels...ie. Z1-2-3 and very littel Z4 ....If I use the chart as typcial...it would give me a much lower FTP reading....I think????... If the last time I tested was prior to this period I wouldn't have a alternative read and has my FTP really dropped off in 4 weeks?
This change from Fast to Far...when looking only at the past 28days....impacts all sorts of numbers on the WKO dashboard (ie. avg. power/wt ratio); especially I added a high volume Bike Week as well - 300 miles in 5 days all at Z1-2 (mostly)....I wonder what the coaches would say on this?
Perhaps I should use a longer time frame...like the full 10-12 weeks of race training? Thoughts?
FWIW - I would go with the lower number and have a better run. IIRC, you are a strong runner so this will play to your strengths. Like CoachR says, 'If you think you biked too easy, prove it on the run."
I can't recommend this most excellent article by a great looking guy (just added to Wiki under Tapering section):
http://www.endurancenation.us/blog/bike/fatigue-ftp-your-final-weeks/
Basically I race IM at like .68 of my OS/peak FTP...so while I hit 345 in the winter, by the time the race rolls around and volume is done I am probably closer to 320 or 325. It's not that I not FIT any more, just that I have SHIFTED MY FITNESS from FTP to FIVE HOUR POWER for my race.
That said, curious to see if my minimalist approach for Kona with 2 x FTP and one long ride will allow me to keep that FTP up right to the race...could be interesting.
I just checked the calendar and you have 1, 2, 3 weekends before the race. I recommend that you take the advice above and then do your final RR, or something close to it, with these numbers.
In other words, you still have a few long rides in which to validate what is best for you. When I was training for IMWI last year I had my FTP, derived from several methods but I also 2 x race files from having raced IMWI in the past, plus 2 x high quality RR rides on the course during our camp and my final RR ride here in LA. That long ride data was more valuable, in my opinion than FTP x 74%
Great article...exactly the discussion I was having in my head...
Thanks!
This is one of the reasons we do RR x2 to make sure we can run well after we pratice our proposed bike split.
Make sense?
just my 2 cents.
I rode St George at .67 IF and with a TSS of 310 and still ran a decent marathon. Didn't really hit any sort of wall cause it was there all day. You have raced Wisc before and will be fine. We will be on each others wheels.
What we've found over the years is that if you're riding at <~.70 IF and you are on the bike for a length of time that has you going over 300 TSS for the ride, you're still ok. For example:</p>
In other words, not all TSS points are created equal. So 310 TSS points created by riding at a higher intensity is different from 310 TSS points created by riding at a lower intensity.