Supersquid wrote:
Trev The Rev wrote:
AGomez wrote:
If I may make a few observations based on a few years reading this literature I would summarize as follows. (disclosure: some of these are not my original observation but from a colleague who is much smarter than me regard testing and training but who does not want to be named here).
1. There is no perfect FTP test, each one has pros and cons, so there aren't really any deadly sins, just different methods which are all estimates. Without a true agreed gold standard, we don't know the true accuracy of any test, so it almost impossible to be 100% sure which tests are best for whom.
2. There is no fundamental "threshold" on the power duration curve, and definitely not one set at a specific time (eg 8mins, 20min or even 60mins) for everyone. The curve is complicated as will be known to anyone who has tried to model it mathematically across a large sample of riders
3. There is no entirely linear (aka flat) area of the power duration curve and it is probably not very useful to model it in a linear way (eg as a percentage). Indeed there is very rarely anything entirely linear in human physiology.
4. Research from various large sources shows around 90% of non-pros do *not* manage to achieve 95% of their 20minFTP test power in a 60min maximal effort. Heck 90% of non-pros don't do a 60min max effort, but lets ignore that!
5. The definition of FTP doesn't tie up with any known physiological measures in most (but not all) research studies, including this one, which is not a perfect study (is there any such thing?)
6. The entire concept of "lactate threshold" is probably incorrect or perhaps a huge oversimplification, no lactate testing protocol especially those with a fixed value (eg 4mmol/l ) has really proven that useful in itself (although they can add additional information in some circumstances)
7. The entire concept of "anaerobic threshold" is a huge oversimplification; in short energy systems overlap much more than previously realized and are hard to separate into distinct steps in reality.
8. The concept of FTP was once useful when the field was young but as with many early concepts but now, not so much. Further it is often misquoted which is a fault of those who both those who misuqote/misunderstand/misapply AND those who provide or perpetuate a vague definition without seeking to improve it for the benefit of the entire community.
9. The concept of FTP is mainly flawed because a. there is no threshold in the way commonly understood b. "without fatiguing" is plain wrong in the way that fatigue is commonly understood c. there is no precise time definition in the phrase "about an hour" d. there is no robust physiological verification . However FTP seems to be a more handy phrase than .......a convenient point on the power duration curve or CPPDC :)
10. The science of cycling and the science of human physiology is never perfected and never fully known. Therefore no individual (and no group) is the font of all true facts, rather the entire field evolves, and everyone who has a constructive comment, or can conduct a study contributes to the field and should be welcomed, not criticised or flamed or shouted down.
that's all, have a good day!
Good post. Some good points made.
Some might find this study interesting.
"Appreciation of the relationship and differences between MLSS and CP has been obfuscated by the persistent but perplexing notion that the maximal metabolic steady state should correspond to an exercise duration of approximately 1 h. This is evident in the assumption that MLSS corresponds to a so‐called ‘functional threshold’ power that can be sustained for 60 minutes (Gavin et al. 2012; Morgan et al. 2018). This is a convenient but entirely arbitrary definition that is devoid of physiological meaning. There is nothing any more ‘special’ about 60 min of exercise compared to, for example, 65 min, 44 min, or 23 min. Indeed, maximal exercise of 60 min duration is positioned squarely within the heavy‐intensity domain (Black et al. 2017) such that the physiological responses to maximal exercise of 50–55 min or 65–70 min duration, in terms of end‐exercise values and response dynamics, would likely be very similar. A more justifiable scientific approach is to define the maximal metabolic steady state as the speed or power output which separates distinct physiological response behaviors, irrespective of the corresponding exercise duration. Such an approach, which is enshrined in the CP concept, would be expected to better predict performance capability and be of greater utility in exercise/training prescription (Jones et al. 2010; Vanhatalo et al. 2011a). "
https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.14814/phy2.14098
" CP is therefore the appropriate metric when the goal is to evaluate the maximal metabolic steady state. "
"the persistent but perplexing notion that the maximal metabolic steady state should correspond to an exercise duration of approximately 1 h."
" This is a convenient but entirely arbitrary definition that is devoid of physiological meaning. There is nothing any more ‘special’ about 60 min of exercise compared to, for example, 65 min, 44 min, or 23 min."
I agree that 95% of 20 minute power is not a good estimate of FTP, although the big issue there isn't FTP. It's that everyone does the test wrong. The book Training and Racing with a Power Meter has the test in there and it's very clear that you're supposed to do a 5 minute all out effort first. Yet all these online training platforms cut that out and then have everyone do 20 minutes all out and multiply that by .95 and tell people that's their FTP. People need to read the book.
I've done the test correctly and it will over-estimate my FTP by a bit (I've compared it to an hour all out), but only by about 5 watts so it's close. I think they should have just defined FTP as your 60 minute power, told people to test it with an hour all out, and not claimed it estimates MLSS. Maybe there wouldn't be so much arguing about FTP then.
Personally, I don't understand the constant attempts by people to discredit FTP. Is it because of Coggan? I understand that it's probably not grounding in physiology, but it has proven to be an effective way to train. I like to follow the science and read studies, but it's hard to translate that to training when no one can even agree on a set of terminology to use (MLSS, OBLA, VT2, CP, etc.). FTP comes with a book that gives you a way to test it in the real world and build a training plan around it. Sure it has limitations - like you should probably plan your VO2 Max efforts off a percent of your 5' power rather than a percent of FTP - but we don't need to scrap the entire concept of FTP to evolve and change the way we set up workouts as we learn more.
I guess my big issue with the attempts to discredit FTP is this....if I stop using FTP for training, what should I use? I can test my FTP and use that to measure progress, determine my zones, build workouts, etc. I've done some coaching and my athletes all saw progress over prior seasons using those methods, and it gives coaches and athletes a set of terminology to use. And in the end, I don't even care that much if it's grounded in physiology because all I really need is an effective way to train. So if FTP has so many problems, what replaces it?
The Critical Power model predates FTP by nearly 50 years.