FTP vs. physiological tests

Jan 18, 18 12:33

Post #1 of 246 (11218 views)

A new study supporting what I have been saying for almost 20 y, and refuting previous false claims by the likes of Mark Liversedge and Nathan Townsend:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29334005

To be specific, if you take the 60 min TT power as a valid estimate of FTP (which it most certainly is, even if that isn't the *definition* of FTP), here is what is shown in Tables 1 and 2:

FTP vs. VT2:

FTP: 235 +/- 33 W

VT2: 226 +/ 48 W (N.S.)

Correlation coefficient: 0.82 (P<0.01)

FTP vs. LT (Dmax method):

FTP: 235 +/- 33 W

LT (Dmax method): 237 +/- 38 W (N.S.)

Correlation coefficient: 0.75 (P<0.01)

IOW, what this study demonstrates is that, *on average*, there is close agreement between functional (i.e., 60 min power) and physiological (i.e., VT2 and LT determined using the Dmax approach) "thresholds", precisely as you would expect (since performance is the ultimate integration of physiological and psychological factors). At the same time, however, the various measurements aren't really *interchangeable*, as is true/has recently been emphasized with respect to strictly laboratory-based measurements. Given this lack of perfect agreement, it worth emphasizing one additional finding of the paper:

FTP vs. FTP:

FTP: 235 +/- 33 W

FTP: 235 +/- 33 W (N.S.)

Correlation coeffcient: 1.00......

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 18, 18 15:42

Post #2 of 246 (11074 views)

Thanks for the info, Andrew.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 19, 18 3:34

Post #3 of 246 (10739 views)

Thanks for sharing.

Think it will hush Trev as well?
Nah....me either, but then who really cares what they think. :-)

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 19, 18 4:44

Post #4 of 246 (10660 views)

I guess I need to respond to this trolling.

1) Concrete tests are fine.
2) FTP estimates from a 60m TT work for me, its you that spits bile on that one.
3) Drawing conclusions about FTP and MLSS is invalid without evidence
4) We still don't have a concrete test for FTP - my main beef

Haven't read the paper so can't comment, would look closely at the correlation coefficients since they're not that impressive.

Mark

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [liversedge] [ In reply to ]

Jan 19, 18 6:31

Post #5 of 246 (10543 views)

liversedge wrote:

2) FTP estimates from a 60m TT work for me, its you that spits bile on that one.

Wrong. In fact, power from a longer TT is #1 on my list of seven deadly sins.

liversedge wrote:

3) Drawing conclusions about FTP and MLSS is invalid without evidence

Who said anything about MLSS?

liversedge wrote:

4) We still don't have a concrete test for FTP - my main beef

You just contradicted yourself (see point #2 above).

liversedge wrote:

Haven't read the paper so can't comment

So why are you?

liversedge wrote:

would look closely at the correlation coefficients since they're not that impressive.

Only someone lacking in understanding of statistics would focus on the magnitude of the correlation coefficient - it's the standard error of the estimate that tells the true story, since that also takes into consideration the range of the values. In this case, they are comparable to what you see when comparing various physiological tests against each other.

Of course, it is also important to never lose sight of the fact that performance is really the independent variable here, i.e., the best predictor of performance is performance itself.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 19, 18 6:38

Post #6 of 246 (10526 views)

I'm not interested in arguing with you Andy, sorry to disappoint you.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [liversedge] [ In reply to ]

Jan 19, 18 7:54

Post #7 of 246 (10465 views)

liversedge wrote:

I'm not interested in arguing with you Andy, sorry to disappoint you.

No, rather than discuss actual data (such as that from the paper linked above) you much prefer just disparaging me/my ideas on twitter, e.g.:

https://twitter.com/...s/953578629946068992

https://twitter.com/...s/953576981991391232

https://twitter.com/...s/953298146754523136

https://twitter.com/...s/935943320685211649

https://twitter.com/...s/935946847864147968

As I said before, even normally-diplomatic Alex Simmons felt the need to call you out on your crusade:

https://twitter.com/...s/935945038508331008

Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jan 19, 18 8:31

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Felt_Rider] [ In reply to ]

Jan 19, 18 7:57

Post #8 of 246 (10453 views)

Felt_Rider wrote:

Think it will hush Trev as well?

Of course not, because with respect to FTP at least there is really nothing particularly original about the study, i.e., what it demonstrates has been known for decades. That large literature hasn't stopped Trev or Mark yet, so one more paper isn't going to do so.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 19, 18 10:16

Post #9 of 246 (10372 views)

Andrew Coggan wrote:

liversedge wrote:

I'm not interested in arguing with you Andy, sorry to disappoint you.

No, rather than discuss actual data (such as that from the paper linked above) you much prefer just disparaging me/my ideas on twitter, e.g.:

As much as I can tell you want to argue, I'm not interested.
I responded above since you called me out personally.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [liversedge] [ In reply to ]

Jan 19, 18 10:51

Post #10 of 246 (10340 views)

liversedge wrote:

I responded above since you called me out personally.

And I will continue to do so, to try to prevent you from further misleading/misinforming people.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 19, 18 11:09

Post #11 of 246 (10311 views)

Andrew Coggan wrote:

liversedge wrote:

I responded above since you called me out personally.

And I will continue to do so, to try to prevent you from further misleading/misinforming people.

Like I said, I'm not interested in arguing with you.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 19, 18 21:45

Post #12 of 246 (10129 views)

Quote:

power from a longer TT is #1 on my list of seven deadly sins.

....what I don't understand is why mFTP is not reflected by an hour test (even though, in may case, TTE was approximately 1 hr) . (though the new TP recommendation tells us that we need to do 5min more than the duration we are interested in assessing!).

If "the best predictor of performance is performance itself", why doesn't the model reflect the performance?

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [liversedge] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 0:32

Post #13 of 246 (10074 views)

liversedge wrote:

Andrew Coggan wrote:

liversedge wrote:

I responded above since you called me out personally.

And I will continue to do so, to try to prevent you from further misleading/misinforming people.

Like I said, I'm not interested in arguing with you.

Per your tweet, you're interested in "the truth".

I'm sorry but that's where I stop listening. People who use that expression are (in my experience) only really interested in putting down other people.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [rmba] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 0:38

Post #14 of 246 (10071 views)

rmba wrote:

....what I don't understand is why mFTP is not reflected by an hour test (even though, in may case, TTE was approximately 1 hr) . (though the new TP recommendation tells us that we need to do 5min more than the duration we are interested in assessing!).

If "the best predictor of performance is performance itself", why doesn't the model reflect the performance?

You need to look at the fit of the PD model to your MMP curve. The data at times below (and to a certain extent above) the estimated TTE will also have an effect on the mFTP at that TTE, e.g. if you have particularly strong 5–20 minutes MMPs relative to your 1 h MMP, that can shift the PD curve down at longer durations. Beyond that it is hard to say anything without seeing a screenshot of your curves.

(FWIW for a month or two last season my mFTP and sFTP (taken from a ~50 minute test) were exactly the same, but that perfect synchronicity is the exception not the rule – IMO as should be expected for a model-based approach.)

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Felt_Rider] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 1:53

Post #15 of 246 (10041 views)

Felt_Rider wrote:

Thanks for sharing.

Think it will hush Trev as well?
Nah....me either, but then who really cares what they think. :-)

You should understand that Trev is a fictional satirical character.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [fb] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 2:36

Post #16 of 246 (10027 views)

fb wrote:

liversedge wrote:

Andrew Coggan wrote:

liversedge wrote:

I responded above since you called me out personally.

And I will continue to do so, to try to prevent you from further misleading/misinforming people.

Like I said, I'm not interested in arguing with you.

Per your tweet, you're interested in "the truth".

I'm sorry but that's where I stop listening. People who use that expression are (in my experience) only really interested in putting down other people.

You really don't know me, or the number of times I've had the same debate with Coggan.
If you want to get at the truth, look at the evidence yourself, not debates on internet forums.

On this article, its no surprise that long TTs are more closely correlated with LT than short ones.
I have no issue with that, and never have. It would be shocking if the reverse were true.

Mostly my arguments with Coggan come down to claims he makes about his 'ideas' and how they related to other's work in the literature.
When you look closely there is scant evidence for his claims and nothing is ever published and peer reviewed. Yet he is quick to dismiss work of others from the literature as not meeting his 'high standards'.

I basically think he is a charlatan, and replaying that same debate in forums like this one has become tiresome and boring for everyone.
So no, I don't want to debate him here.

Mark

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [rmba] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 4:14

Post #17 of 246 (9986 views)

Because "the map is not the territory" (to quote Korzybski).

IOW, a model is just that, i.e., a model of reality, and not reality itself.

Of course, some models have been carefully validated and others have not, but that's a different story.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [liversedge] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 4:20

Post #18 of 246 (9980 views)

That's okay, Mark, I think that your basically someone all too willing to express unfounded opinions in areas where you clearly lack expertise, who then gets wound up when he runs into somebody who knows the topic at hand inside-out, upside-down, and backwards. That wouldn't be an issue, except your constant false statements and incorrect claims only serve to confuse people. If only you stuck to speaking only about things you really understand, the world would be a better place.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 4:25

Post #19 of 246 (9976 views)

Andrew Coggan wrote:

That's okay, Mark, I think that your basically someone all too willing to express unfounded opinions in areas where you clearly lack expertise, who then gets wound up when he runs into somebody who knows the topic at hand inside-out, upside-down, and backwards. That wouldn't be an issue, except your constant false statements and incorrect claims only serve to confuse people. If only you stuck to speaking only about things you really understand, the world would be a better place.

All this baiting for an argument is quite sad.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [fb] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 4:33

Post #20 of 246 (9970 views)

The irony of Mark's statement is that coaches and athletes understood the underlying " truth" of the FTP concept long before that term was coined. Even some of Mark's Twitter buddies who claim to be critics will slag on me/my ideas one moment, then turn right around and recognize both the reality and the utility of the notion the next.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 4:34

Post #21 of 246 (9970 views)

"you're" (damn autocorrect!)

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 4:56

Post #22 of 246 (9939 views)

Out of interest and because I can't get the whole article, was mean power calculated across the 3 different time trial length? Was there discussion or presentation of correlation coefficients and p values at each time trial length separately?

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [AndrewL] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 5:24

Post #23 of 246 (9917 views)

Yes, and yes.

With respect to the latter, the physiological tests tended to be better predictors of performance at longer vs. shorter durations (as you might expect, at least for VT and Dmax).

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [liversedge] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 5:56

Post #24 of 246 (9877 views)

Don't bother reading the paper. It's terrible and pointless.

Physiologist. CEO/Founder Go Athletics. Coach/Consultant to Pros, Olympians, NCAA Champions, HS and Recreational coaches and athletes. 5x TeamUSA member, Ex-Pro Runner, NCAA All-American, now enabling others to achieve their potential.

Re: FTP vs. physiological tests [liversedge] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 18 6:03

Post #25 of 246 (9868 views)

well said

Physiologist. CEO/Founder Go Athletics. Coach/Consultant to Pros, Olympians, NCAA Champions, HS and Recreational coaches and athletes. 5x TeamUSA member, Ex-Pro Runner, NCAA All-American, now enabling others to achieve their potential.

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.