trail wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
trail wrote:
I do completely understand the benefits of WKO4 (and similar) in providing things like great longitudinal tracking of parameters
Actually, I don't think you entirely do.
As an example: there is no test duration that would provide a 'pure' indication of FRC. It can only be separated from other determinants of performance via modeling.
Yeah, I just, personally, haven't found FRC all that useful. Not because it isn't inherently useful, just that it's not part of my current toolbox. Disclosure: I don't regularly WKO4 (though I bought a license and tried to use it). Not because of it's science/math underpinnings - other reasons.
Edit: But what I don't understand is the OP's implying he uses FRC as some sort of proxy for track TT power. When hopefully his athletes would do actual track TTs if that's what they're training for. That's sort of what I was needling him about - being uppity about modeled FTP accuracy then using a non-directly-measurable parameter like FRC as a proxy for something very easily directly measurable. Getting a solid track TT measurement for someone with access to a track takes 3-5 minutes after their regular track warmup!
So let's look at the life of a sprinter. Any major event they will ride 2-4 events: Sprint, Keirin, Team Sprint and Kilo/500mTT. So already there are four different performances. Really exponentially more as not two different races are the same. Even a TT differs with conditions on the track, shape of each track etc and then in the racing depending on position coming into the sprint and who you are racing against. PMAX/FRC and power at FRC and the associated times to exhaustion give you an indication of preparedness to perform in any situation if the build up is well planned.
Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach