Having grown up competing long before heart rate watches and (much later) power meters were widely available, going by feel comes naturally. I.e, I don't use WK04, Strava, etc. I don't bother with the PMC. I just use it to train harder and set my match burning limit.

Perhaps I would be better if I used all these tools as if it were my job instead of my hobby.

Not sure what was tech blatherty about my response. But can you appreciate my frustration when trying to outline this stuff to people so they appreciate their $500-$10,000 investment in a power meter when people say you can determine FTP from a 3min test.

Re 5hr power. Andy has pointed out many times that FTP relates well to power from a track pursuit all the way out to an ironman bike ride. I would add that no two Ironman's are the same and using some form of standard starting point to map out the build up to race day. Also that from 30min outwards the power duration curve tends to flatten out a lot.

I am teaching my riders to go by feel and use power as a guideline to monitor their effort. Advice to some is to go harder, advice to most is to go easier.

While I use WKO4 to crunch the data I did recommend to one weekend warrior that the metrics in Strava were fine for what he wanted to do. Shame that they, like many, don't acknowledge where they got the ideas for thresholds and performance managers from.

Shame that they, like many, don't acknowledge where they got the ideas for thresholds and performance managers from.

Seems to work pretty well

Copy, but in my defense the thread title is not what you would use if you want to start an academic discussion.

Thanks TriowaCPA. Feels like a knife to the heart everytime I read about someone doing an FTP test. Thanks for helping spread the word. Note that the latest iteration of Xert's algorithm incorporates some of the things we've learned from the What's My FTP? implementation. Users should see better analysis. So even if you don't have a Garmin device, using our web app will also provide you similar values for your FTP. Cheers.

---

Armando Mastracci

how should the average cyclist estimate than?

Deadly sin #6 is my favorite as well:

http://lists.topica.com/...e.html?mid=910290920

Another PPP of mine is that "training is testing and testing is training."

(I would recommend only changing your FTP in 5 W increments, though, as it's hard to pin it down any more precisely than that.)

This has me wondering. If we do FTP in 5 W increments, how sensitive are we to be to our weight? For example, it doesn't seem to be so sensitive (unless you say so) to change it for every pound we drop. Would you update rider weight gain/loss in 5 pound increments or when?

We have a very accessible, reliable and valid way of tracking weight. FTP testing is not as accessible and reliable and i'm not even going into the validity.

This has me wondering. If we do FTP in 5 W increments, how sensitive are we to be to our weight? For example, it doesn't seem to be so sensitive (unless you say so) to change it for every pound we drop. Would you update rider weight gain/loss in 5 pound increments or when?

FTP testing is not as accessible and reliable and i'm not even going into the validity.

We have a very accessible, reliable and valid way of tracking weight. FTP testing is not as accessible and reliable and i'm not even going into the validity.

A knife to the heart? Really?

Im not big on hyperbolae. so i'll just go with it pisses me off when people open bullshit threads to promote some product or other that they may or may not be aligned with. My FTP will never be modeled in WK04, I prefer to knife you in the heart.

I'm unclear which of your 11 posts explains the "knife to the heart" sensation. I don't think Dr Coggan explained it either, in his multiple posts. I recognize you claim no financial interest in TrainingPeaks or WK04, just like you might recognize that i wrote "may or may not be aligned with".

My data may be unworthy, we will never know. I'm fine with that.

Post 51

Post 51 isnt by you.

Post 51 isnt by you.
Indeed it isn't, try 58.