How old are you and how much to you weigh?
That increase in FTP of basically 25% in a 3 month period is pretty phenomenal. Your coach was obviously doing something right on that front.

Or OP was completely untrained at the start ... so not really a good comparison ?

remember that an FTP test result is not necessarily "really" your FTP. FTP is something that goes on inside of you physiologically that can't be directly measured other than through certain tests that to my knowledge themselves all have various issues. The FTP test uses your power over a certain distance filtered through a model as a PROXY for the stuff going on inside your body that can't be directly measured. So, there's no real reason to expect them to be the same. More specifically, let's assume for most cyclists, 95% of 20 minute power is "close enough" to the FTP you measure in a lab or with fancy equipment. However, there will be outliers. There are some people who are great at jamming out 20 minutes of power and maybe for them, their FTP is somthing more like 92% of that value. Or, some people are diesel engines who can push forever but have trouble reaching high peaks, and maybe for htem FTP is 97% of 20 minute power.

In any event, i wouldn't get too hung up on all of this for a few reasons, specifically:

- Big improvement is big improvement regardless of whether that technically is your "FTP"
- if you COULD actually measure FTP directly, you'd probably see lots of day to day variation based on all sorts of factors because we humans are imperfect machines
- training zones based around a 20 minute test probably get you close enough in any event
- more precision (i.e., having a coach interpret your blood tests) i'm sure is beneficial but probably more like icing on the cake rather than prerequisite.

The best cycling tip I can give

Cycle as much as you can. Mostly hard. Sometimes easy


You can complicate it more ... but that’s the best advice I have :)

Looking at those lactate numbers I would say that your gains are stagnant because you mostly train too hard.

If you are at 4.4mm at 195 watts- that is way too hard to be an endurance ride. Heck, 158 watts is also likely too hard.
Also- Your high lactic acid at higher levels shows that you don't filter very well.

Give this a listen- Might help you to better understand.
https://soundcloud.com/...ning-a-detailed-look

I'd be inclined to agree with Bootsie that you have been doing too much intensity (relatively, anyway).
However the question of where to place that low intensity zone is pretty tough.

I have a few issues with the lactate test.
1. The stage jumps were inappropriately high
2. Given a first lactate of 2+ mmol/L, the test should have been restarted at a lower workload after a short break and warm-up period.

For the moment, my recommendation would to train a significant portion of your time between 150 and 170 watts. Even if this feels extremely easy.

What was your heart rate during the FTP test?
What is your typical max?

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

I'm 32, 6ft 2" and around 220lbs atm, so not a small guy. But I think mvenneta is correct, back when I took the original FTP test just sitting on a bike long enough to complete the test was as difficult as pushing hard for 20 minutes! I also didnt do a FTP test 3 months ago when the coaching started, where I would have been able to go close to what I did the other day I'm quite sure, or at least bridged the gap quite a lot.

---

@the.lazy.triathlete

https://www.strava.com/athletes/18691068

This was my feeling as well, essentially the coach set my easy cycling days at a heart rate between 125-130bpm, rather than any power level. For some reason he uses 5Mmol as LT2, but still only ball parked that level based off 2 lactate readings on my first test. I did mention to him about these cycle sessions not being as easy as he described they would be, but it was shrugged off as me being new to the bike. I also had two weekly bricks at this intensity, so running off the bike was always a bit of a nightmare trying to keep my heart rate low enough, as my legs were cooked and the running was clunky. This was combined with 2 hard interval sessions at a sprint intensity (120+% FTP) i.e. 20x30sec, 15x60sec on/off, and a tough weights session once a week which was high rep to failure. It was too much for me and I had to skip at least one session most weeks, my recovery has never been a strong point.



The chart above is my strava segment for the 20 minute FTP test. The heart rate at the end of the test 167/168 is the highest ive ever managed to get it on the bike, usually by the time im hitting the low 160's my legs are feeling like they are dead, but I was able to cycle through that long enough just to complete this test. General max heart rate is 186, in running terms I would hold mid 160's for a tempo/10k pace. I seem to be able to get up to and hold much higher heart rates with running compared to the cycling, with a much lower perceived effort.

Thanks both :)

First, without the full protocol or at least a time for each step, the numbers are meaningless.
More than likely the only part of that test under threshold was the first level.
More than likely your baseline will be between .7 and .9 mmol.
The test shows typical results for somebody that is relatively untrained.
There is no real power without burning sugar at this stage, You pretty much use sugar all day.
There is good advice above, expect your real threshold to be well under 200 watts and the advice of targeting under 170w for a decent length ride is good.
The tester should have run at least a couple of preliminary efforts or examined some ride data and determined a more appropriate test configuration.

But realistically, this was a waste of time.
Your numbers will change dramatically after some training and this test showed nothing.
Just go out and ride and get some longer distance in you.
Find some similar level folks and go do some long and enjoyable group rides.

Advice: get another coach. A coach should listen to your feedback and adapt training. Also recovery is key to getting better. Listen to your body. Do not know what you your ambition / A-race is but first get the base right. Typically endurance rides and no they do not have to be > 4 hours. Start with 90 min and build slowly. If you want to do bricks just run of the bike in a easy tempo for 15-20min.

You said original test was on a wattbike. What’s the rest of it all on?

You’re looking at maybe over 20w differences between setups.

That tine period and weight, it isn’t out of possibility, but if that was the actual miles I doubt the newest number. Maybe 255ish realistically.

I’ve just been down this HIIT road recently and know what it looks like.

It took a while to not have my power duration curve not look like a cliff dive after 20min.

It is taking up TT ad a side hobby to fix that.

Both lactate tests were done on the Wattbike, my FTP tests are done on my Elite Direto/Zwift turbo setup. Just going off my perceived effort and HR response etc I've always found both setups very similar in terms of wattage, but I agree they are likely to have a small difference between them.

I'm pretty confident I cant hold that new FTP number for an hour straight, I just think I can hurt long enough anaerobically to inflate the test output. Going off feel I'd estimate I can probably only hold somewhere around 210-220w for the hour.

---

@the.lazy.triathlete

https://www.strava.com/athletes/18691068

The 20/80 rules says the opposite : mostly easy, sometimes hard

You did hold 271w for 20min and finished strong. I suspect you are underestimating your ability.

Even if you estimate your FTP at 90% of 20min power that is still 243w.

Since you probably don't know the quality of the lactate measurement device/protocol, and the fact you won't use it moving forward, I would completely ignore those lactate tests and would try and zero in our your real numbers using your power meter.

Someone smarter than me can explain why running slow a lot helps, but cycling slow doesn’t

The way I’ve found Most get faster on the bike is intervals and putting in lots of at / or higher than threshold efforts

Running , tho, I agree w you there

Have you considered doing a longer test of approximately an hour? That would give you a far more reliable estimate of power at MLSS than estimates from 20 minute tests.

Being able to compare the results of 20 min tests and 60 min tests will give far more valuable insight than just doing 20 minute tests.

https://www.triathlete.com/...0-20-training_334579

With the right definition of slow, it work also for bike.

I did that but I was untrained like the OP. For a halfway trained athlete I would agree with you.

That article assumes time is unlimited. For most, training is restricted by hours available in a day and time required to recover properly.

That article uses HR - 60% of MHR for me is easy Z1 and not aerobic yet

If OP is doing 5hr weekend rides and 15 hour weeks on the bike, then I agree that a disproportionate amount of those hours should be done in a z2 pace. But not 80% split between Z1-3

But OP has ridden 1300 miles in 10 months. Call that 32 miles / week. His ask of getting stronger isnt resolved by riding 80% slow

listen to your coach, your zwift ftp effort was poorly paced, last 8 min, but you have a good start. Now try to ride 258W for 20min and see how you will feel, should be very doable.

I was getting at this earlier, but, the mileage/time and the numbers don't align unless this is a very close crossover athlete. Like competitive rowing or something like that. Even just converting the engine over will take longer than that if the aerobic engine is there and not the legs.

You don't get to that 20min test number with sub optimal pacing by 32 miles a week.

I think there's background here (lots and lots of aerobic base from cycling or another sport with maybe a long break).

That kind of information would be helpful in terms of future work, despite my sounding skeptical. Which, I am skeptical given that mileage and numbers, but let's stay on topic.

Well I addressed that the coach had been dropped in my OP, due to being unsure on how to train me as I was an outlier to him. It seems he has a Plan A with his clients and when that doesn't work there isn't a Plan B. He literally told me he wasnt sure how to train me, and to paraphrase "The Russians would love to get hold of your blood results and muscle biopsy's mate", apologies to any Russians ;)

I tried to negative split the FTP test as I would a running race, the last 8 mins was more jumpy than I would have liked due to 2 of my smaller cogs jumping around on the turbo which I hadnt noticed prior to starting, and certainly wasnt starting again, so I had to shift several cogs back and forth to put more power down and then recover slightly as I couldn't get onto the cogs I wanted at a cadence which was "comfortable" to me.




No worries on the skepticism, its the internet after all; however, I linked to my Strava activity in my OP, but I'll include a link to my Strava profile, Powerof10 and my Instagram (has a few of my race breakdowns on it) below for you; They are all public and I can assure you they all correlate. My Strava has 99% of all endurance activities I've ever done, and I'm certainly not a crossover athlete of any sort. I'm naturally a sportsman and could turn my hand to most sports, but tbh it was always my endurance fitness which held me back even then.. 1 good run in rugby and I would be gasping for the next 20 mins! and from the age of 17-28ish the only endurance events I took part in involved eating and/or drinking.

I started running around June 2016, aiming for Swansea 10k that September (not on powerof10 due to not being affiliated at that point) which a group in work decided to do for charity. At this point in time I would struggle to get to a mile and take days to recover... I had always struggled with shin splints and had never done any endurance stuff party because of it, it turned out to be a touch of compartment syndrome according to my physio, which took a lot of painful months to work through, but im glad to say I've not had trouble with them in well over 12 months now. I've not done a great deal of miles, around 500-600 in 2017 and the same predicted for this year), but I have managed to become much stronger and have completed a few HM's, the most recent Cardiff 2018 in 1:57 which was a 7 minute PB... I'm hardly lighting the world on fire!

I bought a MTB last summer after not owning or using a bike since my early teens, to do another charity challenge with work, and a local leisure centre held its first Sprint tri about a month later which I decided to have a crack at; barely escaped the pool after not being in one for about 16 years, got absolutely trashed by the guys on the road bikes, and then stumbled my way to the end of the 5k... however I loved it. So I bought a road bike this year and I've been having a weekly swimming lesson which has brought my 400m down to 6:32 from just over 9 minutes.

My low miles/hours is more due to having had to build up slowly, rather than being tight on time, I actually have plenty of time... but I'm now recovering far better from workouts, which is why I was looking at the polarised approach, assuming that a lot of slower base miles/time is what I need in order to improve as I've never done any/much. But was unsure how to approach it due to my tests and hence this post, as I know there's a lot of experienced people here who could help advise me.

Strava profile - https://www.strava.com/athletes/18691068
Powerof10 - https://www.thepowerof10.info/...spx?athleteid=852580
Instagram - @the.lazy.triathlete

So i think there are a couple of ways to answer your question about which result to follow. I agree with the folks who think that there's strangeness and issues with the test protocol for the ramp / gas tests you did, but even if the results are valid, the results do not necessarily "conflict." Fact is, 95% of 20 minute power is just based on a model, and it may or may not be accurate for you (just like using 220 - age to estimate max HR).

So here are some things you could do:
- Get WKO4, drop in a lot of data and use the Power Duration Curve to model your estimated FTP, which I have found to be more accurate than a 20 minute test
- Redo the lab tests with better protocol

absent that, just use RPE or a combination of RPE and HR. I would think it'll getcha close enough

 
Hi,
I am happy to give some advise on how to move forward with the data you have if you give me some more details on what you are training for in the upcoming season and the exact protocol used in your testing.
As far as FTP & Blood Lactate results:

The two metrics are in theory comparable to one another but also comparably deficient, and thus ineffective training indicators. Neither FTP nor Lactate Threshold testing tells you the “what”, “why”, or “how.” In other words, “what” type of energy an athlete has available to perform work/training/racing; “why” the athlete may or may not be improving his/her FTP, LT, or performances; and “how” to the athlete should steer his/her training to improve physiology for better performances.
FTP is an arbitrary metric, and serves as a proxy for only one type of effort. Using % of FTP values as a benchmark for training will, as a result, over work some and under work others. “Lactate threshold” (LT) values in theory should be similar to an FTP value, but similar to FTP, a set “lactate threshold” value is a one-dimensional view of performance. Comprehensive blood lactate testing opens the doors to more dynamic analysis on how all energy systems are performing (not just one energy system like FTP/LT), each of which are just as important as all other areas of human bioenergetic availability in determining successful performance. Looking at either FTP or LT in a silo will give you a misinformed view of the truth.
Most physiological assessment protocols do not truly evaluate energy system capacities. Not all humans have the same physiological capacities at each percentage of work output of any value along the human energy continuum. If you base training percentages on a set value such as “LT” or FTP you are not taking into consideration the dynamic nature of one’s physiology and bioenergetic availablity. The notion that all people have the same capacity to do work at various percentage of effort is simply not the case in all humans and depends on the individual’s current bioenergetic availability and physiological profile.
Most protocols stick with a textbook “4 mmol” value as “lactate threshold”. The fact that human physiology is dynamic is the fundamental problem with basing training percentages, wattages, or paces on a standardized net lactate value or a field test metric such as an FTP test.
In the real world of actual human physiological profiling, a net lactate value of 4 mmol can be anywhere from 16 to 100 percent of one’s maximum net lactate. To note your results listed here are not even close to “highly anaerobic” in the grand scheme of entire human energy spectrum.
Those who simply look for “lactate threshold” or FTP values are missing the big picture of all of the energy systems involved in training. What most think are “lactate threshold” workouts or events that require this type of training are not the same for each athlete. Personally, I do not use the term, lactate threshold, when discussing lactate, lactate dynamics, or lactate application in training for several reasons;

1. 
   There are actually lactate thresholds at each net lactate level
   
2. 
   Each net lactate threshold is trainable and needs to be reevaluated via blood lactate testing on a regular basis
   
3. 
   There is not a sudden shift from aerobic to anaerobic metabolism at a net blood lactate reading of 4 mmol
   
4. 
   Inappropriate application and emphasis of training to enhance a supposed lactate threshold is most often responsible for bioenergetic deficit and underperformance
   

For most trained athletes, typical “lactate" threshold field testing protocols will actually be an estimate of their aerobic rate capacity. For most untrained, glycogen depleted, or bioenergetically deficient athletes, typical “lactate" threshold field testing protocols protocols are an estimate of aerobic efficiency.

---

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.