Did WKO4 mFTP have the 60 min at 310 watts data and include it in the estimate of 302 watts, or did it predict 302 watts before he did the 60 min at 310 watts?
to be fair, he said an hour at 310, but having been at th eTTs he is talking about, unless he went first, he only went 55min, as only the first rider in the 24hr TTT goes an actual hour, and 5 min of easy will put a big dent in the 310 avg in the new wko4. unlike wko3, it takes breaks between efforts as continuous. so my 309 avg for 60 min yesterday, ie 30 min at 304, 5 min break then 30 min at 314 only gives an hour est somewhere in low 290s, as it should as it was not an hour at 309.
if his 310 was 310 for 55 min and 200 for 5 min then his 60 min is going to 301ish
AC: this is going to seem like a really dumb Q, as it is to me, but where in the hell is the normal individual workout page? for the life of me, I have yet to find it.
Did WKO4 mFTP have the 60 min at 310 watts data and include it in the estimate of 302 watts, or did it predict 302 watts before he did the 60 min at 310 watts?
Do you recall that 60min isn’t special. And a few watts +/- isn’t important. People are missing the boat if that get fixated on knowing FTP to within 1-2 watts.
After 10+ years of power training, I just guess my FTP and go out and do workouts. If it seems too easy, I go harder.
Did WKO4 mFTP have the 60 min at 310 watts data and include it in the estimate of 302 watts, or did it predict 302 watts before he did the 60 min at 310 watts?
You’d have to ask supersquid, but for the validation of the model I explicitly excluded the TT performances from the mean maximal power dataset, to avoid issues of auto-correlation.
Did WKO4 mFTP have the 60 min at 310 watts data and include it in the estimate of 302 watts, or did it predict 302 watts before he did the 60 min at 310 watts?
Do you recall that 60min isn’t special. And a few watts +/- isn’t important. People are missing the boat if that get fixated on knowing FTP to within 1-2 watts.
As you know, Trev has a long-standing history of missing the boat.
AC: this is going to seem like a really dumb Q, as it is to me, but where in the hell is the normal individual workout page? for the life of me, I have yet to find it.
It should be one of the default Workout level charts (sorry, I’ve created/modified all of my own charts, so can’t tell you exactly what it is called!).
If only TrainingPeaks would get around to cleaning up the Chart Exchange, you’d be able to find it there…
ETA: Found it on my hard drive. It’s called “Horizontal Cycling Workout Pack DEFAULT.” If it isn’t already installed for you, you should be able to find it by searching your Chart Library from the Workout level.
Did WKO4 mFTP have the 60 min at 310 watts data and include it in the estimate of 302 watts, or did it predict 302 watts before he did the 60 min at 310 watts?
WKO4 had my mFTP at 302 after uploading the hour at 310. I didn’t do the indoor TT jeffp is talking about so I went a full 60 minutes. It was actually a spontaneous threshold test. I decided to race a virtual partner on Cycleops Virtual Training as a threshold workout and I was feeling really good that day so I decided to just keep going for an hour to see what I could do. So yeah, it was an all out effort.
The 302 vs 310 number doesn’t bother me. I think that’s pretty close, and I had a good day so 302 may be more accurate as a number that’s more repeatable for me. It’s this combined with the time that I did the indoor TT jeffp is talking about where I held 308 watts for 55 minutes and WKO4 shows my mFTP for that time at 321 that has me questioning mFTP. That’s a big difference between those mFTP numbers and my FTP was basically the same both times. One ride was 55 minutes and the other was 60 minutes, so I guess it’s not completely apples to apples. I was also doing more VO2 max work the time it had my mFTP at 321 so maybe that drove up the number. There were some all out 5’ efforts back then and I haven’t done one of those in quite a while.
yeah, I guess I have a bug, as I went to chart exchange to install it and it said it was already there, but it does not appear anywhere in the list of charts in the library and it is not in the chart tabs. ie I can’t find it in my trial version.
yeah, I guess I have a bug, as I went to chart exchange to install it and it said it was already there, but it does not appear anywhere in the list of charts in the library and it is not in the chart tabs. ie I can’t find it in my trial version.
Make certain that you are the Workout level when searching for it. As a Workout level chart, it won’t show up when you search from the Athlete level (and vice-versa).
well there you go, I need to find workout level. Thanks
well there you go, I need to find workout level. Thanks
Double-click on your entry in the left-hand explorer (LHE), and it will take you to the Workout level. Use the ← by your name on the top bar when you want to go back to the Athlete level. (WKO4 remembers where you were when you close it, so the program might open at either level.)
Thank you, interesting reading. I finally upgraded to wko4 last night and have been poking thru the data/features a bit.
It sounds like the %ST model will be a bit more accurate in the summer once it has a few crit starts to draw from. I can’t think of any other scenario where I’d be jumping hard from a dead stop. Although I have a powertap so that seems like it’ll be less accurate.
My (lifetime) Pmax is a bit higher than indicated by that plot, its only drawing from 2 early season circuit races and some group ride town line sprints. I hit 1230-1250 in a preme sprint last year and am expecting to post similar numbers this year.
I started working on FRC (or AWC, as I’ve been thinking of it until last night). Although the workouts I’ve done have put me more in the FRC/FTP zone. The intervals have been some form of 1’/1’, 2’/2’ or 1’/2’ (on/off). The last one barely cracks the FRC zone (those intervals were after the 2/2’s, fresh I’d think I’d do a bit better). Sounds like I need to have longer recoveries. Although noodling around in the rain for 5 minutes between intervals isn’t too appealing.
Hoping to get my FRC to a moderate level. I mostly (only) race road/track. I somehow snuck into three’s with my low-ish FRC but my first 1/2/3 race was a rude awakening.
I started working on FRC (or AWC, as I’ve been thinking of it until last night). Although the workouts I’ve done have put me more in the FRC/FTP zone. The intervals have been some form of 1’/1’, 2’/2’ or 1’/2’ (on/off). The last one barely cracks the FRC zone (those intervals were after the 2/2’s, fresh I’d think I’d do a bit better). Sounds like I need to have longer recoveries. Although noodling around in the rain for 5 minutes between intervals isn’t too appealing.
The iLevels are definitely helpful, but one thing to keep in mind is that they don’t take into consideration the length of the recovery interval. Still, incomplete recovery generally makes thing more, not less, aerobic, so if you want to specifically target FRC, making sure that your power gets up there (and stays up there) is important. (When training for my wife’s event, i.e., the pursuit, I would do 4-6 x 1 km all-out from a standing start, with ~10 min between efforts. After just a few weeks, my FRC jumped by almost 20%.)
Hoping to get my FRC to a moderate level. I mostly (only) race road/track. I somehow snuck into three’s with my low-ish FRC but my first 1/2/3 race was a rude awakening.
Have you tried these charts/chart packs?
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/products/wko4/library/power-duration-curve-pack
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/products/wko4/library/my-wac-score-chart
(BTW, note that the 1st sentence describing my WAC score is incorrect.)
If not, they might give you even more insight into how you presently stand.
Have you tried these charts/chart packs?
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/…-duration-curve-pack
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...y/my-wac-score-chart
(BTW, note that the 1st sentence describing my WAC score is incorrect.)
If not, they might give you even more insight into how you presently stand.
They seem to contradict each other a bit. The PD curve shows a dip around 1 minute; ie. it starts at ‘fair’ for neuromuscular power, then falls off the bottom of the ranges around 1 minute, then bumps up to ‘good’ for 5-60 minutes before falling off again (from lack of longer hard efforts to sample from in the past 90 days). Meanwhile, the WAC is flat at 53 and starts rising (gradually) to a peak at 63 around 20’. The expected dip around 50-60" doesn’t show up at all.
Have you tried these charts/chart packs?
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/…-duration-curve-pack
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...y/my-wac-score-chart
(BTW, note that the 1st sentence describing my WAC score is incorrect.)
If not, they might give you even more insight into how you presently stand.
They seem to contradict each other a bit. The PD curve shows a dip around 1 minute; ie. it starts at ‘fair’ for neuromuscular power, then falls off the bottom of the ranges around 1 minute, then bumps up to ‘good’ for 5-60 minutes before falling off again (from lack of longer hard efforts to sample from in the past 90 days). Meanwhile, the WAC is flat at 53 and starts rising (gradually) to a peak at 63 around 20’. The expected dip around 50-60" doesn’t show up at all.
Can you post pics? I think I know why you’re seeing what you seem to be seeing, but want to make sure.
Here you go.
Thanks! The answer is as I suspected: the standards chart lets you compare yourself against any/all of the standard curves, whereas the ‘WAC’ score compares you only against the World Class standard. Compared to the lower curves, you cross back and forth in the first 1-2 min, whereas compared to the World Class curve, you tend to move more in parallel. The result is the dip around 1 min in comparison to the lower standards isn’t evident in the WAC score chart.
So, which is closer to the truth? Although I like the simplicity of the WAC score (and the parallels it has with the Mercier score), I think that comparing yourself to the standards (along with looking at your FRC) would be a bit more indicative of your general strengths/weaknesses.
So, which is closer to the truth? Although I like the simplicity of the WAC score (and the parallels it has with the Mercier score), I think that comparing yourself to the standards (along with looking at your FRC) would be a bit more indicative of your general strengths/weaknesses.
Now that I know what I’m looking for my plot on the PD curve does seem stay consistently at half the WC level for the first 90 seconds or so. That makes the WAC plot make more sense.
I agree that the PD curve is more useful. It makes the hole around the minute ish mark much more obvious.
Thanks for the help.
Andrew, if FRC is all work above FTP, is it correct equation for time range above FTP. CP= CP60+FRC/t?
No, in part because the WKO4 model is more complex than that and in part because FTP =/= max power for 60 min (despite what others have frequently mistakenly stated).
In an article below you refer to FTP as average power during a 1 hour TT and ‘true’ threshold (60min power).
Is this still your definition of FTP?
http://freewebs.com/velodynamics2/traininglevels.pdf
DISCUSSION
"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, integrating VO2max, the percentage of it that can be sustained, and cycling efficiency (although, if you define LT as a 1 mmol/L increase in blood lactate over the baseline observed during low-intensity exercise, the corresponding wattage will be some 10-20% lower than FTP). Indeed, beyond the first few seconds of exercise, the entire power-duration performance curve can be described quite closely using just two mathematical parameters, representing anaerobic capacity and power at lactate threshold, respectively. While shorter efforts might be more convenient, 60 minutes was chosen because it corresponds roughly to the former standard TT distance of 40 km, and because it is only slightly less than that generated during shorter TTs. In theory, one could derive specific correction factors to be used with data during shorter TTs (e.g., power during a ~20 minute TT will be ~1.05 times that of 60 minutes) in order to fit such data into the system, but given individual variation in the exact shape of the power-duration curve, day-to-day variability in performance, and the breadth of the specified power levels, this may only convey a false sense of precision. Along somewhat the same lines, one could base a system on laboratory-derived measures, such as lactate threshold itself, but relatively few people have access to such measurements, as opposed to simply going out and measuring their own power during a TT. Conversely, one could dispense with using one single ‘anchor’ measurement, and simply reference all workouts back to the maximum power that an individual can generate for that duration (i.e., Friel’s ‘critical power paradigm’), however, such an approach requires much more testing than simply using average TT power, while providing little if any practical advantage, in my opinion.
There is about a 3-5% tolerance to each training level, e.g., if your Level 1 recovery rides are up to 58-60% instead of <55% of your “true” threshold (60 minute) power, because you have estimated the latter from a shorter test, it Average power during a 1 hour time trial, or functional threshold power (FTP), ny more than 3-5%, though, and things do begin to change significantly, meaning that the percentages used to set the training levels would have to be adjusted, from which arises the question, “what is the shortest TT during which your power will be no more than 3-5% greater than what you could sustain for a 60 minutes?” The answer will vary somewhat between individuals. For instance, my own power for a ~20 minute TT is only about 4% higher than over 60 minutes, so it would work pretty well for me personally, however, my power-duration curve is “flatter” than the vast majority of people out there; one study, for example, found that average power during a 20 km (not 20 minute) TT was 107% of that during a 60 minute TT. Consequently, I am leery of basing training levels (using my system, without any adjustments) on the results from anything shorter than a 30 minute effort. "
Note:
"Average power during a 1 hour time trial, or functional threshold power (FTP), "
" of your “true” threshold (60 minute) power, "
Andrew, if FRC is all work above FTP, is it correct equation for time range above FTP. CP= CP60+FRC/t?
No, in part because the WKO4 model is more complex than that and in part because FTP =/= max power for 60 min (despite what others have frequently mistakenly stated).
In an article below you refer to FTP as average power during a 1 hour TT and ‘true’ threshold (60min power).
Is this still your definition of FTP?
http://freewebs.com/velodynamics2/traininglevels.pdf
I didn’t write that - Charles Howe did, based (in part) on my original post here:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/wattage/read/message.html?mid=901936066
Compare them word-by-word, and you’ll see the key differences.
P.S. Thanks for proving me correct: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/?post=5892347#p5892347