Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Can time to exhaustion at MLSS / FTP be extended without power at MLSS / FTP increasing?
Suppose my FTP is 250 watts and TTE is 30 minutes, if I extend TTE to 60 minutes, wouldn't 30 minute power have increased? Can TTE be extended without increasing FTP?
Depends how well trained you are and what you have trained.
You can extend time to exhaustion without getting a higher FTP.
You can do it and get a lower FTP.

So as always, it depends.
Yes, you can certainly have substantial changes in TTE whilst only having negligible changes in mFTP.

I've noticed this happen particularly when I put in a hard effort at longer time periods (>>TTE e.g. 120 mins).
awenborn wrote:
Yes, you can certainly have substantial changes in TTE whilst only having negligible changes in mFTP.

I've noticed this happen particularly when I put in a hard effort at longer time periods (>>TTE e.g. 120 mins).

I know it can happen in WKO4, but I'm asking if it can happen physiologically. TTE can change dramatically if you feed in new data, but has the physiology of the rider changed?

I can't see how just one or two rides can change a riders physiology, obviously though WKO4 can only work with the data it has been fed.
Trev wrote:
Can time to exhaustion at MLSS / FTP be extended without power at MLSS / FTP increasing?
Suppose my FTP is 250 watts and TTE is 30 minutes, if I extend TTE to 60 minutes, wouldn't 30 minute power have increased? Can TTE be extended without increasing FTP?
As has been explained to you ad nauseam, the power-duration curve at these durations is very flat, such that normal day to day variability alone can result in quite a sizeable change in TTE attainable for a given power output. This is normal.

It can also be the result of a change in fitness.

Have a look at a few decent MMP curves and calculate the % variance between ~30-min and ~60min power (being a 100% increase in duration). You'll see that it's like ~5% difference in power, or something of that order.

So it stands to reason that even a 1% change in power output capability (well within day to day variability levels) can result in quite large differences in TTE (e.g. 10-12 minutes) at power levels at/near FTP.

Which is why TTE isn't quoted with any great level of precision.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

My rhetorical question was prompted by the following article on TrainingPeaks.
I'm well aware Andrew Coggan has made it clear many times that TTE is not as accurate as some of his other metrics.

My point is that it would seem TrainingPeaks and some of their coaches do not understand the impreciseness of TTE and may be misdirecting training because they think it is a useful metric. We now have an article posted on TrainingPeaks giving complicated methods of estimating FTP and quoting TTE as a useful metric. They certainly give the impression TTE is an accurate measure of how long one can maintain power at MLSS.

There is a danger that people self coaching or coached by those who put too much store in TTE could be seriously misled and they should be reminded of Andrew Coggan's seven sins.

Here is the article.

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/...w-testing-protocols/
Many popular training methods today are aimed squarely at improving 20-minute power. While improving 20-minute power can be a sign of progress, we donâ€™t know if weâ€™re truly increasing FTP, which is the amount of power that can be put out at maximal lactate steady state (MLSS). While in this state, an athlete will fatigue in between 30 and 70 minutes (known as time to exhaustion, or TTE)1 rather than the traditionally defined 60 minutes. Itâ€™s easy to see that FTP is not always 95 percent of an athleteâ€™s best steady-state, 20-minute effort. In WKO4, the Aerobic Anaerobic Contribution chart will show us how power at 20 minutes can be different relative to FTP. This chart is pictured below for a well-rounded elite female road cyclist, and we can see an 11-watt anaerobic contribution at 20 minutes with a power of 279 watts. Her FTP of 268 is 96.1 percent of this power, and she can hold it for about 40 minutes. The second chart below is from an elite male track racer. At his 20-minute power of 262 watts, there is a 24-watt anaerobic contribution. His FTP of 238 watts (at a TTE of 75 minutes!) is 90.8 percent of his 20-minute power.

AlexS wrote:
Trev wrote:
Can time to exhaustion at MLSS / FTP be extended without power at MLSS / FTP increasing?
Suppose my FTP is 250 watts and TTE is 30 minutes, if I extend TTE to 60 minutes, wouldn't 30 minute power have increased? Can TTE be extended without increasing FTP?

As has been explained to you ad nauseam, the power-duration curve at these durations is very flat, such that normal day to day variability alone can result in quite a sizeable change in TTE attainable for a given power output. This is normal.

It can also be the result of a change in fitness.

Have a look at a few decent MMP curves and calculate the % variance between ~30-min and ~60min power (being a 100% increase in duration). You'll see that it's like ~5% difference in power, or something of that order.

So it stands to reason that even a 1% change in power output capability (well within day to day variability levels) can result in quite large differences in TTE (e.g. 10-12 minutes) at power levels at/near FTP.

Which is why TTE isn't quoted with any great level of precision.
Last edited by: Trev: Jan 22, 18 0:45
The sooner people stop wasting their time doing complicated tests to feed into WKO4 and did a proper test as advised by Andrew Coggan from day one the better.

An entire generation of cyclists have got bogged down with thinking FTP is 95% of 20 minute power, and doing 20 minute tests, not even following Hunter Allen's protocol set out in the original book, that was bad enough, but now they are being encouraged to do loads of tests to help WKO4 come up with a decent estimate, when all anyone has to do is measure power over a 40k TT, or a TT of approx 60 minutes, which is what Andrew Coggan has said is the best way to estimate FTP all along.
Trev wrote:
... all anyone has to do is measure power over a 40k TT, or a TT of approx 60 minutes, which is what Andrew Coggan has said is the best way to estimate FTP all along.

Andy does not say this now. He used to say this before we had a better, easy to use tool. 60 min CP does not = FTP. It was an approximation. Using the whole power/duration curve, we can estimate closer.

FTP = The highest power a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady-state without fatiguing. Nothing here about one hour.

Geoff from Indy
http://www.tlcendurance.com
http://www.chandlervideo.com
http://geoffreydean.wordpress.com/
geoffreydean wrote:
Trev wrote:
... all anyone has to do is measure power over a 40k TT, or a TT of approx 60 minutes, which is what Andrew Coggan has said is the best way to estimate FTP all along.

Andy does not say this now. He used to say this before we had a better, easy to use tool. 60 min CP does not = FTP. It was an approximation. Using the whole power/duration curve, we can estimate closer.

FTP = The highest power a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady-state without fatiguing. Nothing here about one hour.

Well he said this on this forum the other day. He still thinks the best way to ' estimate ' FTP is to take the average power during a TT of approx an hour. By ' we ' who do you mean?

Seven deadly sins

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...st=last-6538379#last
Last edited by: Trev: Jan 22, 18 11:13
Trev wrote:
My rhetorical question
Which suggests no answers are required.
/endthread

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Trev wrote:
Can time to exhaustion at MLSS / FTP be extended without power at MLSS / FTP increasing?
Suppose my FTP is 250 watts and TTE is 30 minutes, if I extend TTE to 60 minutes, wouldn't 30 minute power have increased? Can TTE be extended without increasing FTP?

Am I the only one on this forum that is pig sick of cycling coaches debating FTP/WKO/Testing protocols etc. ad nauseam and trying to slag each other off all the time.

Its a triathlon forum, why can't you go slag each other off all the time on some cycling forums somewhere?

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.
earthling wrote:
Trev wrote:
Can time to exhaustion at MLSS / FTP be extended without power at MLSS / FTP increasing?
Suppose my FTP is 250 watts and TTE is 30 minutes, if I extend TTE to 60 minutes, wouldn't 30 minute power have increased? Can TTE be extended without increasing FTP?

Am I the only one on this forum that is pig sick of cycling coaches debating FTP/WKO/Testing protocols etc. ad nauseam and trying to slag each other off all the time.

Its a triathlon forum, why can't you go slag each other off all the time on some cycling forums somewhere?
Trev is no coach.

He's a persistent troll that continually seeks to misinform, hence the ongoing game of "whack a troll".

Unfortunately he also infects cycling forums as well.

But that said, no one is forcing you to open up any thread about the topic. I only open perhaps 0.5% of threads on the forum.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Please explain to me, I don't understand.
Can you improve the time you can hold your power at threshold, apart from increasing your power at threshold?
Is there any literature on this? What methods (if any) are validated to measure this?
Ooh, I was just reading about this question, it seems that you absolutely can increase TTE at MLSS without increasing power at MLSS. Without specific training athletes were found to maintain MLSS for 40-50 minutes max. To improve they trained at or near to MLSS which saw TTE improve significantly but power at MLSS improve only slightly.

It's referenced in the Billat review of MLSS. See p416 here.
liversedge wrote:
Ooh, I was just reading about this question, it seems that you absolutely can increase TTE at MLSS without increasing power at MLSS. Without specific training athletes were found to maintain MLSS for 40-50 minutes max. To improve they trained at or near to MLSS which saw TTE improve significantly but power at MLSS improve only slightly.

It's referenced in the Billat review of MLSS. See p416 here.
It only requires a small change in power to create a large change in TTE. That's the point. TTE measures are much more sensitive to various influences, including normal day to day variations in capability.

Ask yourself the question - what is the normal change in power demand used between each of the 30+ minute tests used to establish power at MLSS? If you are careful in how you choose the initial test you might be able to do it with 10W increments, but often the tests used have greater power difference.

Even 5W can result in quite a substantial difference in TTE.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
I think you misunderstood Alex,

TTE@MLSS was increased for the same wattage by training 2-3 times a week at MLSS. Power at MLSS itself hardly changed.

Mark
liversedge wrote:
I think you misunderstood Alex,

TTE@MLSS was increased for the same wattage by training 2-3 times a week at MLSS. Power at MLSS itself hardly changed.

Alex understood perfectly. You are the one who seems to have missed his point:

(From https://www.facebook.com/.../?type=3&theater)

ETA since your link to Billat's review seems to be broken:

"Unpublished data recently collected by our team confirmed this estimation in non-elite middle aged (41 Â± 5 years) long-distance runners. Time to exhaustion at MLSS was increased after 6 weeks of training (two sessions of 30â€“50 minutes at MLSS per week) from 40 Â± 10 to 62 Â± 16 minutes (+50%) while MLSSw was only increased by 3.4%."
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jan 25, 18 13:59
The TTE@MLSSw is for the NEW value of MLSSw.
liversedge wrote:
The TTE@MLSSw is for the NEW value of MLSSw.

...which doesn't change the fact that the two are always going to change disproportionately, because the slope isn't anywhere close to 45 deg.
liversedge wrote:
I think you misunderstood Alex,

TTE@MLSS was increased for the same wattage by training 2-3 times a week at MLSS. Power at MLSS itself hardly changed.

Mark

No, I understood perfectly.

It only requires a few watts to create a decent TTE variance. A few watts may not even be measurable/detectable as representing a change in power at MLSS (or FTP) but TTE can increase at the same power.

It's just another expression of the flatness of the PD curve at that point and that training can make it flatter (or not).

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Whats the error in the MLSS measurement?

____________________________________
Swimming Workout of the Day: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=5784860#5784860;
Favourite Swim Sets: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...m.cgi?;post=5004659;
Winner of the 2017 50 fly east coast Smackdown. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6294538#p6294538
JasoninHalifax wrote:
Whats the error in the MLSS measurement?

short version: don't know.

It takes between 2-5 mins to hit MLSS, so no issues in needing more than the 30 minutes to get there.
The increments in power used are, I guess, the error range, I couldn't find any reference to a standard approach.
I suspect its a judgement, indexed off other test results like MAP.

Mark
A 3.4% increase in power at MLSS isn't insignificant.

Andrew Coggan wrote:
liversedge wrote:
I think you misunderstood Alex,

TTE@MLSS was increased for the same wattage by training 2-3 times a week at MLSS. Power at MLSS itself hardly changed.

Alex understood perfectly. You are the one who seems to have missed his point:

(From https://www.facebook.com/.../?type=3&theater)

ETA since your link to Billat's review seems to be broken:

"Unpublished data recently collected by our team confirmed this estimation in non-elite middle aged (41 Â± 5 years) long-distance runners. Time to exhaustion at MLSS was increased after 6 weeks of training (two sessions of 30â€“50 minutes at MLSS per week) from 40 Â± 10 to 62 Â± 16 minutes (+50%) while MLSSw was only increased by 3.4%."
Talk to Mark. He is the one who said that it "hardly changed."
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jan 28, 18 4:35
This graph was pointed out to me the other day. It is rather interesting because the 'small' increase in power is approximately 9% ( 25 watts). This isn't a small increase. The graph also shows that to increase the time to fatigue shown, at approximately 275 watts, FTP has to increase approx 25 watts to approx 300 watts. This is exactly the point I was making earlier in the thread. If you increase time to exhaustion or fatigue you must increase FTP ( note the graph shows 60 minutes as FTP and I use the term only because that is the term used on the graph.)

I also use the word approximately because on a small IPad it's hard to see exactly the watts and seconds, but the point is, looking at that illustration, the so called small increase in power is about 25 watts, about 9%.

Another point is how the graph illustrates how the power duration curve in that area, from 1800 seconds to 7200 seconds drops smoothly and shows no sudden tailing off, no thresholds, no elbows or kinks in tails - there is no visible threshold.

Obviously specific training can alter the shape of the curve but if you improve time to fatigue / exhaustion, say from 40 to 70 minutes, you will almost (I use the word almost because you might be using duff data or software) certainly have increased your power at 30 minutes, 40 minutes and 60 minutes.

Andrew Coggan wrote:
liversedge wrote:
I think you misunderstood Alex,

TTE@MLSS was increased for the same wattage by training 2-3 times a week at MLSS. Power at MLSS itself hardly changed.

Alex understood perfectly. You are the one who seems to have missed his point:

(From https://www.facebook.com/.../?type=3&theater)

ETA since your link to Billat's review seems to be broken:

"Unpublished data recently collected by our team confirmed this estimation in non-elite middle aged (41 Â± 5 years) long-distance runners. Time to exhaustion at MLSS was increased after 6 weeks of training (two sessions of 30â€“50 minutes at MLSS per week) from 40 Â± 10 to 62 Â± 16 minutes (+50%) while MLSSw was only increased by 3.4%."
Last edited by: Trev: Jun 9, 18 9:54

Prev Next