It is definitely a key workout, so make sure you aren't cooked going in to it. You can get a broad idea of your FTP from any of your harder workouts. That is, if you have a workout like 4 x 10 minutes at your best average power on short rest, and you average well above your FTP, you can probably adjust your FTP a bit higher. Or if you ride, say, 2 hours at zone 3 and realize that you've averaged your FTP power. Or if you are well above your FTP in a race, etc. You won't necessarily have a hard number for your FTP all the time, but you can have a pretty good idea of it from your other target workouts.
A good place to start might be, since you had a good run at your IM, assume that your TSS must have been around 280 and work backward:
TSS = IF ^ 2 * Hours * 100
IF = Square root(Hours * 100 / TSS)
NP for your IM / IF = FTP

Of course, without a perfect measurement of your FTP, you don't *really* know what your TSS was, but it's a starting point. Hope that helps!

Thanks Will.
This would give me an FTP of 252W and an IF of 67% instead of the 230W I was using (+ 9%).
Do you know if the Endurance Nation plans with power includes the FTP test sessions? I was thinking of joining them.

"It should also be noted that much of the 2000-2006 period was plagued by more extreme weather than usual: Brutal winds in 2000 and 2001, extreme humidity due to race morning rains in 2002, strong headwinds in 2004, etc."

Hmmm...like I said...Frank hasn't controlled his little hypothesis at all...yet he talks as if it is almost gospel fact that PMs have not only NOT helped improve performance, but, in fact, slowed athletes down.

Arno,

The EN plans do include FTP test sessions, typically about every 3-4 weeks as part of the recovery week.

cramer

Surprised? It's the exact same thing, except inverted, as every powercranks thread. Totally uncontrolled hypothesis, yet he talks as if it is almost (scratch the "almost") gospel fact that PCs have not only smoothed out the pedal stroke, but, in fact, made athletes exponentially faster...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Obviously I don't really know whether your calculated FTP is quite right or not, but ~250ish definitely makes more sense than ~230ish, I would use that number as a stand-in for now.

Re: the endurance nation plans, I don't know anything about those, but it looks like cramer has got you covered. Good luck!!

I guess one could make that argument, although to my knowledge there was only one Kona winner in the period we are talking about who ever used the PC's - and he won't admit it. So, it would be hard to attribute the slowing to the PC's in that instance.[/reply]

"I guess one could make that argument, although to my knowledge there was only one Kona winner in the period we are talking about who ever used the PC's - and he won't admit it."
---------------------------------------

I'm guessing that refers to the 2001 and 2002 champion.

Haim

---

-------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes you need to think INSIDE the box!" -- ME
"Why squirrel hate me?"

Arno,

Something to keep in mind is that I wouldn't suggest depending on any one particular test or session to determine/estimate your FTP. There are a lot of people who just can't get motivated for a field FTP test. I find that short-course racing and an evaluation of a power dist chart to be more helpful in my case. It takes a bit of time to figure out what method(s) work best for you.

Another example of what we see a lot are athletes determining their FTP from a monthly test on the trainer. Again, this is a situation that almost always leads to an inaccurate FTP (especially for racing).

The EN stuff is great, imho, but I'm a bit biased because I work with those guys quite a bit. Having said that, I find there are very very few people out there who spend more time researching and sharing their knowledge about training and racing with power than the guys who run EN (Rich and Patrick).

Thanks, Chris

does a trainer FTP test lead to too high a result or too low?? Why is the use of the trainer for an FTP test not reccomended?

Most folks test indoors at much lower wattage levels than they produce outside. My rule of thumb is 10-20 watts but I've seen gaps that are larger depending a lot on the person, their specific model of trainer and the environmental conditions of where they ride indoors.

---

Jason
Dig It Triathlon and Multisport
http://www.digittri.com

Yeah, what Jason said, although, I would classify the difference in % -- usually around 5% lower than outside FTP from my experience.

I think an FTP trainer test has it's place for training purposes but I would never suggest you use the result from one as a basis for determining your pacing guidelines for IM or HIM.

Thanks, Chris

Interesting point. However, wouldn't a systematic underestimation of FTP lead to a more conservative race strategy and better run time. We are talking about 5% not 10-20%

In theory but trying to hold someone to a level they feel is super super easy versus just super easy in the early stages of an IM is hard enough . . .

In all seriousness, with indoor FTP tests and outdoor riding, the numbers are obviously so far apart I just can't see this approach working if your athletes are training consistently above zone 2 outside.

---

Jason
Dig It Triathlon and Multisport
http://www.digittri.com

Certainly it could. I think the point is that there's potentially a host of issues with defining your FTP for racing from a test on the trainer. In general, it's just not something I'd recommend for anyone who is relatively knew to racing with power.

Keep in mind that you're talking to someone who doesn't like field tests for FTP determination in general. Again, field tests are fine for training but I prefer power data from short-course racing because it takes into consideration the "motivation" factor, or lack thereof, which is an issue with a lot of people when doing a field test. Most importantly, I think you need to consider data from a few sources when it comes to using your FTP for racing IM.

The best example I can provide would be my current situation: I've had a very tough training year. I've been able to ride frequently and hard enough to maintain last year's ~270w FTP. However, if you put my ass out there right now for 5+hrs in my normal race position then I wouldn't be able to ride ~74-75% of FTP (let's say a TSS = ~285) and still run well. So, if I was to use my FTP to establish some pacing guidelines for IM within the next 2 or so weeks, I would have two choices:

1. Choose a more conservative FTP
2. Choose a more conservative TSS target which would result in more conservative real-time power targets for the flats and hills

Make sense?

Thanks, Chris

Lakerfan,

You describes what I have been doing. FTP test on the trainer, generally the week after an heavy volume weekend.
Could you please elaborate on the "evaluation of a power dist chart"?

Thanks

The goal is to leverage your training data. Mean maximal power (MMP) and the power distribution chart can be very helpful but the significance of this data for means of FTP determination does depend on how the individual trains. For example, if you're training 20hrs/week then you might be inclined to do a lot more L2 and L3 and little L4 than someone who trains 12hrs/week and doing a lot more L4 or even L5 possibly. The more L4 and L5 data you have then the more likely you'll get a good perspective on your FTP. After a couple of years it won't matter so much.

So, you can use the 30min and 60min data from your MMP chart (NP) to help you determine your FTP.

You should also set up your power dist chart in 10w increments and look for the first significant drop off. See if that correlates with your 60min MMP (NP). Honestly, in the past mine hasn't correlated that well because of the way I trained so it might or might not work for you. This is year I've been training less but harder so I see better correlation.

This stuff is covered in gruesome detail on EN.

Thanks, Chris

Apparently you haven't been reading what I have been saying. I have no hypothesis (actually, I do but it isn't what I have been posting). So, I will change my "argument". It is the aero wheels, not the power meters, accounting for the slowing. The strong side winds in Hawaii affect the aero wheels much more than the "older stuff" such that the riders can't ride a straight line as well and they have to work much harder to try to ride a straight line. Hey, it is an argument that tries to explain the data.

Look, the fact remains, the winning times became substantially slower, and it was not just an isolated year or two. It seems to me that people would be curious as to why.

---

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

So, the Coggan 20' test should give a close idea of the FTP (without the -5%).

And as always, amateur athletes often learn little by emulating elites.

Should I teach my 10-yo son how to do a layup like Lebron James?

"OK Kyle...now, when your hand is about 20" above the rim, just throw the ball down hard. No...you need to jump a little higher..."

Or, should I teach him how to do a layup like a 10 year old?

Frank...the fact remains that you'd better control all the other variables before you start spouting that PMs are slowing people down based on winning Kona times.

I wouldn't let a 5th grader get away with your scientific method.

Being curious why the Kona record has been stagnant for so long is a FAR CRY from pulling PMs out of thin air to explain the phenomenon. I don't think there are many here who aren't curious to know why that is the case. But you don't see us agreeing with your seriously flawed logic.

What on earth are you talking about? Scientific method. LOL. The fact remains that the times are substantially slower in the 2000-2006 time frame than they were in the 1990-1996 time frame. You apparently don't seem the least bit curious as to how to explain this. If one doesn't think about all the possiblities one cannot possibly ever come up with the correct explanation.

---

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

"If one doesn't think about all the possiblities one cannot possibly ever come up with the correct explanation."
--------------------------------------

IIRC Power Meters didn't really show up in the Pro field at Kona until 2004 or 2005, and even then only a handful of riders were using them (and most of those were only using them for data collection not pacing). Faris is the only IMH champion to have a PM on his bike, but (AFAIK) no one at the front in Kona uses a PM for pacing. They key off the top contenders. In addition, the bike course record has been set TWICE in the past few years. So, the possibility that PMs are responsible for slower winning times in Kona since 2000 is pretty much nil.

Frank has been in Kona enough to know all of this, so I'm guessing he is just having a little fun agitating the PM crowd.

Haim

---

-------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes you need to think INSIDE the box!" -- ME
"Why squirrel hate me?"

He does say right there that most are curious as to why...how can you say he doesn't seem the least bit curious? Makes no sense. Several possibilites have been mentioned to explain this "phenomenon", including one by Rappstar that made sense. You ignore all of them and keep coming back to your ludicrous powermeter argument. (Frank's reply, "Provide some data that my hypothesis isn't true then..." You act like a retarded pit bull, don't no shit but aint lettin go!

And regarding your flimsy grasp of the scientific method as evidenced by this statement,"If one doesn't think about all the possibilities, one cannot possibly ever come up with the correct explanation." Right there is your problem. Yes, hypothesis forming is certainly an integral part of the scientific method. It is not however necessary to think up all possible outcomes first. It is actually, impossible. At some point, you actually do the science and if you do it well, you find an answer or more evidence to form a new hypothesis to do more science. The correct explanation exists, whether you first think of it or not. The scientific method exists, in part, to lead us to the things we don't think of first. You think too much, cause you aren't good at doing. And you try to spread your demon haunted belief system like Johnny-fucking-shitforbrains-seed. Cause you believe yourself, which is the scariest part.

Look, your sig line is correct. You are clearly not a scientist. Deal with it.

LOL. Saying you are curious and actually being curious are two different things.

LOL again. I look forward to hearing from you how one would design a scientific experiment to answer the question as to why the times are slower now than they were the decade earlier. Only way I know is by a thought experiment and, the best way to conduct such an experiment, in my mind, is to consider all the possibilities. But, I look forward to your enlightening me.

I actually have developed my own ideas as to why the racing is slower now than it has been in the past and it has little to do with what I have put forth here, although these possibilities remain as possibilities and it is possible that the reason I believe the racing slowed down might be wrong.

---

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