There are other factors at play outside, and going up hill, not just those you list above.

Also, from my own experience, my power is down inside regardless of the bike I am on. My outside power is pretty close on both my TT bike and road bike.

---

On the internet, you can be anything you want. It is a pity so many people choose to be stupid.

Yes most people's power is down indoors due to lack of cooling. But does this lack of cooling lower blood lactate threshold which is the justification given for using FTP.

Add TT bike in aero position and sustainable power will be down even further.

But blood lactate threshold will not occur at a lower power.

Not exactly, FTP is just supposed to be a general reflection of your sustainable, aerobic power. Whether that corresponds with a particular measure of lactate threshold, depends on which measure of lactate threshold you compare it too. They will tend to be close since they are all after the same basic idea.

The various differences you might get between uphill/road bike/tt bike should not be *that* large. 10/15 watts or so.

Since zones are rather large, fuzzy ranges, it isn't important that you nail your FTP down to the exact watt. Similarly, since tracking your TSS is just a general, high level way to track your training load, it doesn't matter if your FTP is off a little.

Use a consistent method to track your FTP and you will have a consistent way to track your training load and learn what it means for you. part art, part science, remember.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Dr Coggan chose 60 minute power because it correlates well with blood lactate threshold.

""Basis for system/number of levels
Power at lactate threshold (LT) is the most important physiological determinant of endurance cycling performance, since it integrates VO2max, the percentage of VO2max that can be sustained for a given duration, and cycling efficiency. As such, it is more logical to define training levels relative to an athlete's threshold power, vs., for example, power at VO2max (just as it is more logical to define HR-based training levels relative to threshold HR vs. maximal HR). On the other hand, determining the appropriate number of levels is somewhat arbitrary, since the physiological responses to exercise really fall on a continuum, with one intensity domain simply blending into the next. A compromise must therefore be made between defining more levels, thus better reflecting this fact, and defining fewer levels, for the sake of simplicity. In the present system, seven levels were felt to be the minimum needed to represent the full range of physiological responses and to adequately describe the different types of training required/used to meet the demands of competitive cycling. The table shown below lists the primary physiological adaptations expected to result from training at each level, although these will obviously be influenced by factors such as the initial fitness of the individual, the duration of each workout, the time taken between each interval effort, etc.""

Many riders find there is far more than a mere 10 to 15 watt difference.

The whole point of estimating FTP is to find power at lactate threshold so you can train accordingly.

It is also clear from this article below, which Dr Coggan recently posted on another forum, that he based the whole system, IF and TSS on blood lactate data.

""To derive an appropriate algorithm, I relied on blood lactate data
collected from a large number of trained cyclists exercising at
intensities both below and above their LT. This choice was made because many physiological responses (e.g., muscle glycogen and bloodglucose
utilization, catecholamine levels, ventilation) tend to parallel changes
in blood lactate during exercise – in this context, then, blood lactate
levels can be viewed as an overall index of physiological stress. To
reduce variability between individuals, the data were normalized by
expressing both the power output and the corresponding blood lactate
level as a percentage of that measured at LT. The normalized data were then used to derive a best-fit curve.""

http://lists.topica.com/lists/wattage/read/message.html?mid=907028398&sort=d&start=9353

Important bit in that quote there:

"On the other hand, determining the appropriate number of levels is somewhat arbitrary, since the physiological responses to exercise really fall on a continuum, with one intensity domain simply blending into the next."

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

True, and there is no need to stay in the zones anyway, but you should nail down FTP or LT accurately otherwise you may find you are riding too far below LT to get the optimum benefit.

If your FTP on a road bike outdoors up hill is 250 watts and your TT bike indoors FTP is only 225 watts and you set your FTP to the indoor TT figure you won't be doing your 2x 20 min at FTP at blood lactate threshold but 25 watts below it. Consequently you might not get the expected benefit. Add to this the uncertainty of estimating your FTP anyway and frankly many people are training no where near optimally because they are basing their training on the wrong power numbers.

Don't make excuses. Find your highest FTP from any one (or combination) of the disciplines and set your zones by that. Then train using these zones in all of the disciplines, indoors and out. The more you do it, the easier it will get.

---

---

I think if you are 25 watts difference from one bike to another you might fix the problem that is on the lower bike.

But, you should also notice obvious signs that things are wrong, like a 2x20@ ftp is easy

or 5x5@vo2 is impossible, etc

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Agreed, but then I know of situations where someone has found the difference between one TT set up and another is faster despite their power being down by 25 watts though.

Many riders can put out 25 watts more than on their TT bike.

Perhaps as technology improves we will soon be able to establish LT in real time on the bike, see if it is different on a road bike, TT bike indoors etc and train accordingly. Hope so.

Mind you that assumes there is a point in knowing power at blood lactate threshold.

It sounds like you're new to power. FTP is not going to be directly at LT. Lactate threshold is a term that a lot of people throw around as a proxy for paces and power of certain durations, but in the scientific community it's defined as a rise of 1mm of lactate over baseline levels. It's an intensity that can be maintained for 2-3 hours in well trained individuals (e.g. elite marathoners will race at their lactate threshold). FTP will be more closely aligned with (but not exactly aligned with) maximal lactate steady state (MLSS). My advice to you is to stop worrying about lactate and lactate terms because your performance will let you know whether or not you're improving.

Regarding the setting of your FTP, if you have differences of over 10-15 watts between climbing, outdoors in the TT position, and indoors on the trainer, you should worry about minimizing those differences first and foremost. L4/the "threshold" level as Coggan defines it is pretty large--using your example of a 250 watt FTP, it would be between 232 and 263. Levels and zones make things easier to break up, but training is all on a continuum so as long as your somewhat close, you're still going to be getting the benefits.

I know all that, and I know damn well what FTP is and if you read what I posted and things I have posted about FTP and the various definitions of LT you will see which definition of LT Coggan uses. And yes he does use the one you mentioned because he found that sustainable power over 60 minutes most closely correlates to it.


If you don't agree with me fine, but please argue about what I have said rather than try to tell people I must be new to power. I have used power since 1996.

The fact is many riders can't produce anywhere near their road bike power on a TT bike, and due to aerodynamics they actually go faster in a position which compromises power. Most riders produce far less power indoors.

I don't worry about this stuff for myself but I do worry so many cyclists are basing their training on a badly estimated FTP. Many are doing 20 min efforts they believe to be near FTP, but because they have based it on their TT bike performance they are in fact training well under Their true FTP.


If you knew much about aerodynamics and the speed gains that can be made you would know that a small 10 to 15 watt difference in sustainable power is an acceptable power loss, many top class TT riders will be sacrificing far more power than that.

I suggest you look over on the wattage forum at a recent thread called Fuzzy Threshold Power where most of this is hashed out with Coggan himself. Specifically he says the following:

from: https://groups.google.com/...jpm8%5B1-25-false%5D

That's in reply to a specific question, but you can see that Coggan says 1 hr power is approximately 15% higher than LT.


Why are you so concerned about others training "improperly?" Isn't that good for you if you're racing them?

Read also what I posted by Coggan earlier.


I'm not interested in getting involved in personal arguments but I believe Coggan's, system is flawed.

The fact that people's FTP is different climbing, to on the flat, different on a road bike to a TT bike and indoors to outdoors, on a turbo with low inertia to high inertia, proves it has serious limitations, is misleading and confusing at best.

It all depends really. If a triathlete is using his FTP to gauge intensity on his triathlon bike during the biking leg, then he certainly shouldn't base his training around a road bike position. He needs to train with the device he will be racing. Otherwise, trying to maintain XX% of your threshold (for example in a race), could be way too high if he is basing it on a stronger road bike position, and he would ultimately ride too hard on his triathlon bike and blow up.

Personal arguments? I don't see where anything got personal.

People trained successfully before Coggan's system, and people still train effectively without it. It's a useful tool for some people, less useful for others. If you don't like it, you should definitely check out that Fuzzy Threshold Power thread as people take him to task over the definition of FTP. The problems you see with with the system have also been discussed a lot over there if you're interested in reading about them.

Exactly. There is really no point in using a power meter which is supposed to measure power accurately, and bloody well should given the totally unjustified cost, if you are going to guess and estimate the FTP which is used to estimate Normalised Power and in turn intensity factor and training stress balance.

Why people would spend money to get precise data then base all their training on an estimate of an estimate god only knows.

Mind you if Tim Kerrison and Sky are happy enough to base their training on FTP derived from the data of the left leg and a guess of what the right leg produces you might as well use tarot cards.

For me the answer is easy. Because using the precise data, despite one application relying on an estimated parameter, is still better than any of the other metrics available to me, e.g., time, distance, heart rate.

Have you considered using the data which is fact instead of using the estimated parameter?

Time, distance and heart rate are all real, not estimates. It is illogical to discard fact in favour of a fashionable estimate.

If you use power which is a fact ( if your power meter is accurate) and heart rate in conjunction you are dealing in facts not estimates.

FTFY

I'm used to people mis quoting me. But it is a fact that people's FTP varies depending on temperature, hydration, altitude, position, road bike/TT bike, up hill on the flat, even different positions on TT bike, indoors on turbo to outside, fresh, fatigued, how motivated, etc etc,

FTP is a concept, it looks good on paper but in the real world it is Alison in Wonderland.

Other than simply bashing the concepts of FTP, how to determine/derive FTP, and training based on FTP, do you have a point? You seem to be complaining about a widely accepted way of training without offering any improvements or a better way of doing things.

I've never come across anyone who claims that the current state of power-based training is perfect. Rather many (most ?) people seem to believe it's the best approach that's been come up with to date.

You appear to believe you've identified major flaws with this approach, so do you have suggestions for a better method, or are you just loudly complaining that everything sucks?

Lies, it never gets easier, you are just able to push more watts.

I started training when time was all that was available and learned its limitations well. I then went through the same when distance became available and then again with heart rate. I know accurate power data answers questions I have about my training that the others can't. If you don't find power providing answers you can use, don't use it. If you can think of new ways to use power data toanswer questions that aren't available now, develop them.