Home General Training Discussions

FTP based on 40k Oly tri Question

Hello, I just joined EN and have been browsing through some of the power/pace topics.  For a little background, I've been using a PM (maybe not always correctly) for the past 5-6 seasons and have been training with the "fast than far" philosophy d/t job constraints for the last 4 years.  I recently completed an Oly Tri and averaged  206W AP with a decent run (I was fatigued going into the race from a heavy training cycle).  Unfortunately I don't have a NP as the zeros were not recorded however the course was extremely flat with zero rises or dips. 

Please correct any incorrect assumptions I may be making. . .If I raced a 206W AP and ran comfortably, I would guestimate that this 206W would approximate an FTP of 216-242W if I took my 206W to be b/t 85-95% of my FTP as is typically recommended for a 40k Oly distance ride.  Now in my indoor training I had been basing my workouts on an FTP of 235W. 

My question is this:  What should my indoor FTP be based on this race?  I understand the simple answer might be to do an indoor test but I also know that I perform these tests horribly and it would in all likelihood be significantly lower thus leading to incorrect intervals.  As I have been basing my indoor workouts at 235W FTP and they have felt comfortable, should I continue at this wattage as my FTP or go higher/lower.  In the past for the offseason I have increased FTP (typically every 4-6 weeks) if I could consistently feel comfortable during threshold interval workouts.  I realize this is not the way to do it, but it is how I've done it d/t my hatred of the FTP test.

Thanks in advance.



Kar-Ming

 

Comments

  • First off, welcome to the team! A few points...

    1. There can be noticeable differences between indoor and outdoor FTP (with outdoor being higher). 20W is not uncommon.

    2. With an indoor FTP of 235W (have you done 40+ minutes at 235 on the trainer?) I would have thought your Olympic would have been nearer 215-225W.

    3. Learn to love the FTP test :-) Doing the indoor test, while painful and hard, allows for better controlling variables and can provide more meaningful data over time.
  • Coming from a guy who just suffered through an indoor FTP test this morning, I say do the test.
    (But only because I did and want everyone else to suffer along with me).

    Seriously though, you could make the assumptions that you listed above but I wouldn't. For a couple of reasons. The more specific I am with my testing data, the more specific I canbe with the results. AND there is value in being able to execute the test as written.

    Now if only I could get my FTP up to yours...
  • Welcome!

    I would say bite the bullet and do the test. The test is basically just a 2 x 20' (2') set and is an awesome workout. Plus, learning to test well is learning to race well. It is all about pacing your effort. A skill you will use in all three triathlon disciplines. If you think the results will be off, test three time over the course of three weeks. Those results will speak volumes.....
  • Test for the upcoming OS are a VO2 max test and a 20 minute FTP test
  • Thanks for all the quick replies.  I know, I know, suck it up and do the test

    I can learn to appreciate the test, still I just hate it. 

    As for the 206, I wasn't quite up to snuff with the bike and suspect that I could have pushed it a little bit harder if I was fully rested. 

    I had read somewhere that 1 hour long rides are a better test than a 2x20' with 2' recovery.  Unfortunately they are obviously not easily repeatable d/t the recovery, time, etc required.  I always knew that I would have to pay the piper and do the test as a measure of my fitness.  

    Perhaps my indoor FTP might be on the high side but I've been able to do a lot of 90-95% FTP work with 10-20' sets with my unscientific FTP (non)testing so I always assumed that it must be in the ballpark. 

    Lastly knowing myself, it is a matter of ego.  I don't want to go down on my FTP but am coming back to the realization that I probably will need to.

     

  • As John mentioned, the testing protocol has changed. I noticed that the 2013 OS plans are now available, and have the testing protocol in them.
  • Hey Car-Ming,

    Here is another thought. Average Power is not even the right measure. Normal Power is what you want. Even if the course was flat, if you surging or pushing it through turns, whatever, you could have a higher NP number by maybe 5-10 watts. All of this keeps adding variation on top of variation as you use this one 40K TT to back into and in door FTP number. I just seems very complicated.

    Do yourself a favor and do a really intense 2x20"(2') workout. Don't call it a test. Then after the "workout" use that number.... image
  • I hate the 2x20' tests as much as the next guy, but now looking back on them over the last 2 yrs I have gotten some really good data. I have definitely gotten better at executing the test over time, but it's really nice to have a good benchmark that is repeatable over time so you can measure the improvements. You always reserve the right to swag the numbers up or down for training and we all have good days and bad days, but the history of the tests provides a nice record of things.

    I agree with Dino. Don't do a test per se. Simply do a nice hard 20' interval at what you think your FTP is, then take a 2 minute rest interval of about 60% of that number. Then do a 5' set about 2-5W higher than what you kept in the first 20', after this 5', roll straight into another 5' just a little higher with no rest interval. Once you get to the 10 min mark of this second set, see if you can hold a few watts higher for the next 5'. Now tweak it a little higher and let your eyes roll back in your head as you try to do a VO2 set for the last 2-3 mins. Voila, 20'-2'-20' "workout" that will give you a very close estimation of your real indoor FTP. If you screw it up the first time, there's always next week... image
  • Lastly knowing myself, it is a matter of ego. I don't want to go down on my FTP but am coming back to the realization that I probably will need to.

    Your statment makes me immediately think of others in the house that felt the same way that you did, let their ego get the best of them, and then either burnt out or got injured. We test in the house to find out where we are at the moment. I beg you to reconsider and do the indoor test to find out what your numbers are, so you will be around for the full season.
  • If you are guesstimating an FTP range between 216-242, you are going to get yourself into trouble. That range is quite large and you run the risk of grossly underestimating yourself or digging yourself into a massive hole trying to chase an arbitrary number. If you can knock out a serious 20' where you couldn't turn the pedals another rotation if there was a gun to your head, then just take about 92% of that until your next "official" test.

    I will also be amazed if your outdoor FTP isn't in the 250 range based on an indoor FTP of 235....I'd also not use the 206 from the race unless it was my NP. Just to give you a quick example, a person i know rode LP with an ave power of about 160, but his NP for the ride was closer to 200. Data doesn't lie when you compare the cost of AP vs NP
  •  Appreciate all the good points.  I have been doing tris since '97 but I admit that I've gotten lazy with the testing.  That's one of the reasons I joined this so I can be held a bit more accountable.  Plus I just want to rock Lake Placid.

  • I think your close in your estimates. My FTP is 230 and here is a recent OLY file AP 203 NP 205 IF .89 for comparison.

    Like others said do the test. Then again if you estimate wrong it will be painfully clear very soon.

    http://connect.garmin.com/activity/223507874

  •  I hate the indoors 2 x 20' FTP test, so I don't do it - I have no problems outside, but indoors, maybe I have ADD or something, I don't know. Anyway, 15-20 minutes warm up, 5 minutes as hard as I can, 10 minutes whatever pace I want, then 20' as hard as I can. I use 95% of the 20' power number as my FTP for training purposes indoors.

    On a trainer, the Avg Power and the Normalized power should be within 1-2 watts of each other, or you're not doing things right. So if you don't have NP, Avg power will do.

    The 5/10/20 protocol has the added advantage of giving you a truer VO2 max target (the 5 min reading is the "VO2 max" for EN purposes) to shoot for than the simple "120% of FTP" used. This comes in handy when we start doing those intervals.

  • Posted By Keith Wick on 03 Oct 2012 06:43 PM

    If you are guesstimating an FTP range between 216-242, you are going to get yourself into trouble. That range is quite large and you run the risk of grossly underestimating yourself or digging yourself into a massive hole trying to chase an arbitrary number. If you can knock out a serious 20' where you couldn't turn the pedals another rotation if there was a gun to your head, then just take about 92% of that until your next "official" test.



    I will also be amazed if your outdoor FTP isn't in the 250 range based on an indoor FTP of 235....I'd also not use the 206 from the race unless it was my NP. Just to give you a quick example, a person i know rode LP with an ave power of about 160, but his NP for the ride was closer to 200. Data doesn't lie when you compare the cost of AP vs NP



     

    Well-said. The range is way too big. FWIW my indoor this spring was 244 and outdoor 254. I typically do an olympic tri at 0.94.

  • Posted By Al Truscott on 03 Oct 2012 07:21 PM

     I hate the indoors 2 x 20' FTP test, so I don't do it - I have no problems outside, but indoors, maybe I have ADD or something, I don't know. Anyway, 15-20 minutes warm up, 5 minutes as hard as I can, 10 minutes whatever pace I want, then 20' as hard as I can. I use 95% of the 20' power number as my FTP for training purposes indoors.

    On a trainer, the Avg Power and the Normalized power should be within 1-2 watts of each other, or you're not doing things right. So if you don't have NP, Avg power will do.

    The 5/10/20 protocol has the added advantage of giving you a truer VO2 max target (the 5 min reading is the "VO2 max" for EN purposes) to shoot for than the simple "120% of FTP" used. This comes in handy when we start doing those intervals.

    While I've not tried the 5/10/20 protocol yet, my dad used it this year effectively. Having been in the room for the tests, however, I won't say it looks any easier than the 2x20'(2')!!! Btw I really like the idea of using the 5' as the VO2 max target...my 120% is around 300 and all year I did my z5 intervals as 2'(2') or 2.5'(2.5') at around 310-320. I did some all-out 3' priming efforts in certain workouts this year and was able to be in the 330 range, so I'm pretty sure in an all-out 5' I'd have been over 310. It sounds like the FTP protocol will be different this year and that may be a good change.

    All that said, I agree that 2x20' is a great key workout generally. Sometimes I have to be steeling myself all day to get ready to face one of those suckers!!!

  • I was thinking that while the 5/10/20 test might look easier than the 2 x 20' test on paper, I'm sure it will be just as painful, just different!
  • I never thought the test looked easier, it just looked different. I think doing VO2 for 5 minutes is going to really really hurt and then after the hurt you have to try to do Zone 4 or FTP eeek. I for one am just as scared as I am when we did last years test.
  • Posted By Matt Aaronson on 03 Oct 2012 09:45 PM
    Posted By Al Truscott on 03 Oct 2012 07:21 PM

     I hate the indoors 2 x 20' FTP test, so I don't do it - I have no problems outside, but indoors, maybe I have ADD or something, I don't know. Anyway, 15-20 minutes warm up, 5 minutes as hard as I can, 10 minutes whatever pace I want, then 20' as hard as I can. I use 95% of the 20' power number as my FTP for training purposes indoors.

    On a trainer, the Avg Power and the Normalized power should be within 1-2 watts of each other, or you're not doing things right. So if you don't have NP, Avg power will do.

    The 5/10/20 protocol has the added advantage of giving you a truer VO2 max target (the 5 min reading is the "VO2 max" for EN purposes) to shoot for than the simple "120% of FTP" used. This comes in handy when we start doing those intervals.

    While I've not tried the 5/10/20 protocol yet, my dad used it this year effectively. Having been in the room for the tests, however, I won't say it looks any easier than the 2x20'(2')!!! Btw I really like the idea of using the 5' as the VO2 max target...my 120% is around 300 and all year I did my z5 intervals as 2'(2') or 2.5'(2.5') at around 310-320. I did some all-out 3' priming efforts in certain workouts this year and was able to be in the 330 range, so I'm pretty sure in an all-out 5' I'd have been over 310. It sounds like the FTP protocol will be different this year and that may be a good change.

    All that said, I agree that 2x20' is a great key workout generally. Sometimes I have to be steeling myself all day to get ready to face one of those suckers!!!

    So true! That one and the 5k run TT. I start to sweat them / get psyched up for them a good 24 hrs out.



     

  • Brenda, just think of the 5/10/20 as sorta like the bike course at Hunter Mountain. There was that obnoxious hill in the middle of the long descending and then the continued descent and then the turn at the Pheonix pharmacy with that long slog back up to 23A. You can do it... ;-)
  • Having done both the 42' version and the 5/10/20 version (as part of a Vo2 max hack EN experiment about 4 years ago), there are some differences and things that may happen. Some people will never hit their actual FTP using the 20' marker as that first section of 5' all out just takes too much out of them. Even with the 10' recovery, they might not be able to produce anywhere near the same power metrics that they can using a 2 x 20 (2') format. I think this depends on your muscle structure and make up. I remember this coming up during the hack and that when some people retested using the 2 x 20' format, they could produce up to 20 watts more using that protocol. While I like have a true number for my Vo2 max, I may take caution in using the 20' power and just retest later that week using the 2 x 20"
Sign In or Register to comment.