Perhaps, but I think part of his challenge to himself it to accomplish this with essentially zero "expert" help. He is convinced that many of the training techniques of cyclists are sub-optimal. If he can accomplish this doing it his way I think he will make his point. Maybe he will change his mind with a little more experience. We will see.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Precisely.

So, if for example he had the choice of two aero helmets, how would you suggest he make a sound choice about what would be faster without delving into the numbers?

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Well, there are several ways. The way most would probably use would be to choose the helmet they thought either looked the fastest or looked the coolest. Or, if one were a pro, perhaps they might choose the helmet of the company that offered the best contract. But, if one wanted to know which was really fastest I would suggest experimenting. Perhaps repeated time-trial efforts over the same course under similar conditions and effort? Of course, that does require those pesky stop watch numbers. If there was a substantial difference one would eventually know. If there were not a substantial difference the choice is not important.

As I stated earlier, several world champions seem to be able to train and race exceptionally well while making such equipment choices without the need of knowing any power or aerodynamic numbers. I know many people think these numbers are exceptionally helpful but there simply is no good evidence that knowing them is necessary for optimal training.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Really? How would you know when you don't have the numbers?

What would you call substantial? We're talking hour records now. Records are hard to beat.

If I said using one helmet gave a 1 to 2 lap distance improvement over another, would you call that significant?

If not, then bear in mind that Chris Boardman beat Merckx's UCI hour record by a mere 10 metres.

And if you do think that 1-2 laps is significant, how would you propose it be reliably tested without the numbers?

I know I'd be pretty pissed if I used the wrong helmet and failed by a few metres.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Reminds me of this intro slide about aero testing from my case study presentation on the Masters Hour record:



My rider had the choice of several helmets, including one provided by a sponsor. That helmet turned out to be a dog (for him), so we chose not to use the sponsor's helmet.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Hmmmm. If only there was a device that allowed one to measure this.

Rik

Just been in the wind tunnel and tested the popular
Casco Helmet as used by many Kilo riders and produced far more drag than a Giro aero helmet. My rider training for London Paralympics is pretty damned happy his coach into the numbers.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

You're not the first to find same thing with that helmet, although helmets are pretty individual as to which is better.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

OK - Trying to bring this thread back on topic. I repeated my testing from yesterday. Same course, same time, same bike set-up. The wind was pretty high (8-10mph) this morning (at daybreak) so I knew the first FTP interval was going to be a)fast and b)harder to keep on the power. I also knew that the return FTP interval was going to a)suck going into the wind and b)a little higher power. My "goal" power was around 245 but threw that out the window on the return trip. The 2nd interval felt like a 20k TT.

Here's the 411:

• Original 40k race (7/24) - Power 236, HR 164
• Yesterday's 2 x 0:20 (8/19) - Interval #1, Power 240 (1.02% of FTP), HR 152. Interval #2, Power 255 (1.08% of FTP), HR 161
• Today's 2 x 0:20 (8/20) - Interval #1, Power 248 (1.05% of FTP), HR 154. Interval #2, Power 262 (1.11% of FTP), HR 166

Todays #'s even better than yesterday...but definately felt HARD. First set was comfortably hard...second set was just plain HARD.

So, what's the verdict? If all you had to go by was the 2 recent days of FTP work...what you put my "new" FTP at? I'd guess in the 255 range??

Thanks for the pain!

New repeat numbers - see above. Thanks.

I recommend being slightly conservative with the FTP increases. As you mentioned in a previous post, the training is quite hard already. If you inadvertently bump it too much, then you start failing workouts, which just plain sucks.

At this point, don't worry so much about the exact percentages of FTP. Just try to build from one block to the next, progressively getting stronger, as you are currently doing.

If I had to put a number on it though, I would say probably 245. You might be hard pressed to go do 60 minutes straight at 255, remember that is what FTP is defined as, at least in this context. Don't get discouraged by my conservative estimate though. You will likely blow through 255 soon enough!

Why would you guess that your FTP is now in the 255 range??

My reason for asking is FTP is what you could hold for 1 hour and your race I am guessing was around 1 hour, but all your testing is only :20 minute intervals.

I would say your FTP would be in a range of 90-95% of one of those testing numbers. If you want to go with your best interval which is 262 your range would be

235.8-248.9. Just to be narrow the range I might guess it to be 240-245, by taking 5 watts off the top and bottom. So you are somewhere in the range of 5-8 watts of improvement, which from what I have read is not easy to do.

I am sure I could be wrong, but that would be my estimation.

Assuming it's actually 245 (or 255), Is it a help or hinderance doing 2x20 intervals at 100-108%? Basically, should I be holding back on these more? Or letting it fly?

I would put it a little higher than 255, 258 maybe. I am basing this on the fact that graphing your HR vs your power resulted in a pretty straight line graph. If your original HR correlated well to your hour effort HR then I would expect that to be about the same. Your new power for a HR of 164 is about 158. One way of evaluating that data and answering your question.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Frank, he has zero data to suggest his FTP is anywhere near 255+ other than your idea that graphing HR/Power is going to give an accurate estimate. It will not. HR is too variable for these purposes.

To the OP, please don't get hung up on trying to nail your FTP down to the nearest watt. I always set my athletes FTPs in increments of 10 watts, so they always end in a zero. You have recently completed the best FTP test you can do, which is a 40k time trial. Use that number, round it up or down, doesn't really matter. I would probably round it up in your case. Your FTP is 240 or 250 NOT 243 or 247 or 252 etc.

If you think it is higher then test again in a formal manner. You don't get the FTP you think you have or want to have, you get the FTP you have shown in a formal test or race situation.

And last, if you can do 108% of FTP for 20 minutes, you probably need to adjust up at that point, but still would be best to formally test first.

More just a WAG. Here is my reasoning...

Yesterday's test (which was proceeded by an easy 90 minute spin the day before) I was able to hold 255 watts for 40 minutes (if you take out the 90 second "active" rest - with it included -it was 253). HR average of 159. I could have held 255 for another 20 minutes I believe. Possibly more if in a race situation.

For reference, through the first 40minutes of my 40k "test" last month, my average HR was 161 (with a pretty good taper leading into it)

Today's test I was able to hold 257 watts for 40 minutes (90 second active rest not included), HR average of 160. I "could" have held on for 6-10 more minutes in a race situation.

I'd say let it fly. I just think it is dangerous to use 95% of a 20 minute effort for everyone out there. You want to be pretty darn confident of what you can or could do for 60 minutes.

Next time you do the 20s, go for "best average" for the two efforts. Sort of like you are doing two TTs and going for lowest total time. Rest for two minutes between each. Take normalized power for the whole 42 minutes. This is generally pretty close to what you can do for 60 minutes steady.

Just keep progressing stronger. FTP will sort itself out over time.

Some people are OK doing these intervals at FTP or greater. Others are not. The original post was more on the conservative side, b/c most people don't do enough long, hard intervals. Diving straight in to 2x20 at 100 & 105 would kill many people.

Just keep rocking them! Don't put the brakes on. As FTP is improving, it is quite dynamic, so you still have to go by feel. The PM gets you close, but how you feel mentally and physically that day will determine where the chips ultimately fall on a given day. I'm a firm believer in using good legs when you have then and resting sour legs when you aren't feeling it.

What was the NP from today's interval session where you did 20, 1:30, 20? That's a pretty good start. 250, 252?

The problem with this approach is that even at the same power, heart rate is almost always higher when racing than in training. IOW, the comparison you've made is really apples-to-oranges, and hence likely biased too high.

I was also going to suggest that he attempt to even out his efforts, versus saving something on the first and really pushing it on the second.

If he does so, though, there's no need to calculate normalized power for the 42 min, as it will be within a watt or two of the average of the two work periods.

NP for today for the 41:30 of work was 254.

Thanks for all your input...we'll see what another 2+ weeks gets me...

Wait. You had an athlete lose 50W at FTP in season? The only explanation I can think of is that he moved from sea level to altitude (at least 6k ft) and started with an initial FTP north of 400W.

Hamish: Which disability category does your Paracyclist compete in?

Keep up with the program, I'm cheering you on!

off topic slightly: if I do a 2x20 for my test or for that matter a 60 min TT both on my computrainer, should i use a flat course or a 2% incline as I've seen suggested?

Whereas the average of the two efforts was 255 W...hence my statement that calculating normalized power doesn't really tell you anything novel in this context.

Well, it is a reasonable approach knowing what we know. I wasn't aware that HR varied with effort based upon whether one is racing or training alone in a TT effort. I could perhaps accept that the racing HR might be a little higher for the first few minutes due to the sympathetic nervous system being turned on for races, but this effect I would expect to be usually transient. Anyhow, two questions/comments.

1. If we know the offset then we can use that data to calculate the FTP from this data.
2. Do you have a reference documenting this offset "problem"?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks