Not an established fact. It is what you said it is, an estimate.

There is variability in the amount of lactate that athletes are able to accumulate before the onset of fatigue. Those who are better trained will likely have greater lactate levels at FTP.

4mmol is "a" term used for a threshold term I am making the semantic point for a reason.....there are at least 4 different "threshold" terms I know of for lactate and at least another 5+ for other "thresholds" and that's certainly the first time I have heard in a paper FTP being linked to a metabolic definition of a threshold.

---

David T-D
http://www.tilburydavis.com

If you were really interested you would ask on the wattage forum.

It is just another physiological marker like X% heart rate. It is predictive of performance across a range of race distances (or times) but there is some variance from person to person. It is used in studies because it is easy to obtain, and it is a concrete marker that is not influenced by motivation. Think about how much harder it would be to do a 60 minute time trial and compute average power. Having worked with humans as research subjects I can tell you that they make terrible research subjects. Anything you can do to simplify and increase compliance and reduce variability is worth it. That is why this marker is attractive to researchers.

---

Simplify, Train, Live

4 mmol = FTP? No way . I have tested hundreds of athletes and 4. turns out to be the number about 15% of the time. There is a lot more going on vis a vis inflections than lactate accumulation. That is why I prefer the term "metabolic threshold" over lactate threshold ( or any of the other 5 or so terms!).

That's the reason the study or abstract found poor correlation between race performance and 4mmol compared to CP.

If they'd have tested FTP using any of the recommended methods the correlation would have been higher and similar to that of CP.

Which recommended method?

Part of the problem is there is no definition of FTP, it's some sort of vague concept.

If you want to prove FTP correlates with anything, let alone CP, you must define it.

In the absence of a definition anything you or anyone claims about FTP is highly debatable, subject to question and can't be accepted as a scientific, logical or reasonable claim.

So when you claim FTP would correlate better or would be closer to CP, you must define what FTP is and thoroughly explain and define which recommended method should have used to estimate FTP.

As it is FTP has so many definitions, i.e, a number derived from a mathematical model ( unproven in any scientific journal ), derived from estimates of hard or very hard efforts, anything from 90% of 20 minute power to 98% of 20 minute power, average power from a 40k time trial, on a road bike or TT bike, on a turbo in a shed, or on the road in the hot or the cold, or somewhere between 50 minute and 70 minute power, or power at 4.0 mmol/L. Which is it? Any of these? If not what is it?

So what is FTP this month? Whatever Andrew Coggan says it is today, last week, last year?

If you want to claim FTP predicts anything, or claim FTP is worth using to base training levels on, or worth using to quantify training, you must define exactly what it is.

So please Dr Andrew Coggan, define FTP.

Why do you give a shit? Use google. This question has been answered many times. You just don't appear to like the answer.

If you want an answer within a few % do a 40kTT on fresh legs. It's not that complicated.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...t-is-threshold-power

"functional" threshold power is not a physiologic value it is "best 60 minute average power".

You can try to correlate with Blood Lactate levels, %Max HR, Perceived exertion levels. But why?

The whole purpose IMHO of having a functional metric is to make it more practical. Establish FTP with a simple field test and then use it "in the field".

How about trev goes and trolls somewhere else??

2nd that. All those in favour say aye!

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

aye!

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

I see the WKO4 modeled FTP correlates with 95% of maximal 20 minute power. But why not show a graph for 60 minute average power? Why use 95% of 20 min power as an estimate of FTP?
"and 95% of 20 min power as an estimate of FTP."

https://home.trainingpeaks.com/...ration-model-in-wko4

Figure 10. Correlation between 95% of maximal 20 min power and model-derived FTP.

aye!!

Originally 60 minutes duration was justified because it was claimed it correlates with lactate threshold.

http://freewebs.com/...2/traininglevels.pdf
"Average power during a 1 hour time trial, or functional threshold power (FTP), provides a logical basis for training levels since it correlates very highly with power at lactate threshold, the most important physiological determinant of endurance cycling performance"

You should come out from under your bridge more often, troll - see slide 19 here:

http://www.slideshare.net/...model-in-wko4-part-3

I appreciate the help in trying to stamp out Trev the Troll, but FTP has never been defined by me as average power for 60 min.

FTP is the functional (integrated) expression of the "metabolic control limit" (what someone else called "metabolic threshold"), i.e., the exercise intensity at which the regulation of muscle metabolism begins to change in a qualitative manner with respect to exercise intensity. As such, it is equivalent to maximal lactate steady state, the NIRS threshold, the iEMG threshold, VT2, etc.

OBLA, on the other hand, corresponds to this exercise intensity on average across both individuals and sports. For cyclists in particular, though, OBLA lies significantly below the metabolic control limit.

Finally, where CP resides depends on how it is calculated. If you use tests of suffiicent duration and/or the three parameter model, then it, too, corresponds to the metabolic control limit. OTOH, if you use tests of shorter duration in conjunction with the two parameter model, it significantly overestimates this intensity.

You're confusing correlation with equivalence.

Aye.

You described it as average power during a 1 hour time trial here.
http://freewebs.com/...2/traininglevels.pdf



"Average power during a 1 hour time trial, or functional threshold power (FTP), provides a logical basis for training levels since it correlates very highly with power at lactate threshold, the most important physiological determinant of endurance cycling performance"

And from 7 deadly sins,

1. from the average power during a ~1 h TT (the best predictor of performance is performance itself).

However, here you describe FTP as-


"The highest power that can be sustained in a quasi stable state for a prolonged period of time."

Page 11.

http://www.slideshare.net/...model-in-wko4-part-3

FTP seems to have become rather vague. How long is a prolonged period of time?

  
Now you say FTP is-

"FTP is the functional (integrated) expression of the "metabolic control limit" (what someone else called "metabolic threshold"), i.e., the exercise intensity at which the regulation of muscle metabolism begins to change in a qualitative manner with respect to exercise intensity. As such, it is equivalent to maximal lactate steady state, the NIRS threshold, the iEMG threshold, VT2, etc. "

Please explain at which power duration this exercise intensity occurs.

Is it 20 minutes, 40 minutes, 50 minutes, 60 minutes, or a prolonged period of time?

I'll say Naye. Nowadays Trev's posts seem to be to be quite reasonable and objective. Whereas wattage has become such a snake pit that I and many others who might have a positive contribution simply won't comment on there because we know we'd soon get struck down with an adhom attack from the great Dr Coggan. Likewise to any thread on here which he chooses to frequent. Thankfully individuals do exist who are thick skinned enough to take it on the chin and get up again, like Trev, Liveredge, Townsend. I take my hat off to them, not because they are right or wrong in the technical/scientific sense, but because they are prepared to challenge some very difficult issues in the face of these attacks and even in the face of moderators who also seem to selectively ignore the adhom attacks of Coggan and yet pick up on everyone elses.

Trev is looking for a definition of FTP. Sir Wiggins himself would certainly struggle with the definition of the "power he can sustain for a very long time". When you think that if did our local favorite 25m (~40k) course in Wales he'd be able to do that in about 43 minutes on a traffic assisted course, but there's no way he would sustain that same power for another 17 minutes. So the poor guy will be looking at his garmin at the end of that thinking omg I still don't know what my ftp is, now what do I do ? I know I'll do an hour on the track ! So he does that and then he looks at his garmin and thinks hmm I'm a good 10w down on my 40k there, now whats the definition, lets get on google, ahhh there it is in black and white, its a 40km tt, oh wait, no, its an hour, that one says its an hour, oh bum there's another one here that says 40km, and wait, here's another one, its the power I can do for a very long time, oh perhaps its my power in a 50 mile TT then ?

And then there's someone on Wattage who's posted his MMP chart - it shows that with some good aero work he'd beat 30mph for a 10 TT, and yet that red line says he would barely scrape 2 hours in a 50TT, and in a 100 TT, he'd take over 5 hours to do it, and would be at 160w for those 5 hours. Anyone who rides time trials can see how far off this is. So I think its right that people question the logic behind both the definition of FTP and the problem of working out the MMP using non maximal effort data points - so right or wrong I'll stand up here to fully support those who challenge these ideas and I'll finally just repeat its a shame that people will be deterred from challenging on the basis that they don't want to be subjected to personal criticism and insults in the public domain.