An hour at zone 3, is it useful?

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
Jugi
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:10 am

by Jugi


iheartbianchi wrote: The whole point of the initial discussion (accuracy or superiority of power-based training) was based on the above notion that "LT" refers to a lactate-inflection point, and thus FTP cannot possibly be a surrogate for "lactate threshold," and by connection, we cannot conclude the accuracy or superiority of FTP-based power zones over zones designed around % of Vo2Max/HRMax or 4.0 mmol/l of lactate (there was a sidebar on cardiac lag, but the time frames in which cardiac lag really matters is so short to negate the efficiacy of % or power values anyway). Compounding the disagreement is the simple fact that there are various protocols for testing for FTP (and I just opened the door for more "strawmen" claims i.e., that there is nobody out there claiming that FTP-based zones are superior to other forms of training :roll:).
I find your approach to this really tedious.

Once a person has a powermeter installed, it is producing constant information about one's output. For example my average heart rate varies 10-15bpm between my morning/afternoon 70-80min commute while averaging same power, which equates to more than 50% of a HR zone. That's just what typical eight hours at the office and the time of day does to me, not even considering all other variables affecting HR. Without a powermeter, it would be really hard to base efforts on HR zones alone.

Thinking a prick test is as easily done as following data from a powermeter is basicly bonkers. How could I prick test myself while alone on the road? Powermeter data is there and it is readily available.

A Functional Threshold Test is just a Test. It's not an absolute result of anything - it is only one of many variables, which can be used to scale training intensity and effort level. Everybody with any understanding of structured training should perceive a test event (whatever the protocol) as a way of determining one's physical abilities and more importantly, any changes in that ability. Therefore testing protocol, conditions etc. should always be the same, and the result is only that test's result. Much more useful information can be gained by training and racing close to one's limits.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

Jugi wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:57 pm
I find your approach to this really tedious.

Once a person has a powermeter installed, it is producing constant information about one's output. For example my average heart rate varies 10-15bpm between my morning/afternoon 70-80min commute while averaging same power, which equates to more than 50% of a HR zone. That's just what typical eight hours at the office and the time of day does to me, not even considering all other variables affecting HR. Without a powermeter, it would be really hard to base efforts on HR zones alone.

Thinking a prick test is as easily done as following data from a powermeter is basicly bonkers. How could I prick test myself while alone on the road? Powermeter data is there and it is readily available.

A Functional Threshold Test is just a Test. It's not an absolute result of anything - it is only one of many variables, which can be used to scale training intensity and effort level. Everybody with any understanding of structured training should perceive a test event (whatever the protocol) as a way of determining one's physical abilities and more importantly, any changes in that ability. Therefore testing protocol, conditions etc. should always be the same, and the result is only that test's result. Much more useful information can be gained by training and racing close to one's limits.
A great take on it. Well said.

Some pithy one liners that relates to the above:-
"Stress is non-specific."
"The test is not the training."
"It depends."
:beerchug:

by Weenie


iheartbianchi
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

Jugi wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:57 pm
I find your approach to this really tedious.
Then simply ignore.
Jugi wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:57 pm
Once a person has a powermeter installed, it is producing constant information about one's output. For example my average heart rate varies 10-15bpm between my morning/afternoon 70-80min commute while averaging same power, which equates to more than 50% of a HR zone.
And this would be precisely why I would say you need a heart rate monitor, because your effort levels are fluctuating during your 70-80min commute, something your power meter alone is not telling you. I would also suspect that your lactate levels are fluctuating during your commute as well, something else your power meter is not telling you. But in any event, a 10-15bpm HR change, and the likely corresponding change in lactate levels, aren't significant enough to be concerned about so I see now issue in maintaining a consistent power during the commute.
Jugi wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:57 pm
Thinking a prick test is as easily done as following data from a powermeter is basicly bonkers. How could I prick test myself while alone on the road? Powermeter data is there and it is readily available.
You're being overly dramatic. Children with diabetes prick themselves alone while at school every single day - surely you had friends in school with diabetes who carried around glucose monitors? Powermeter data is only useful if it is tied to some baseline biological marker. You can choose among a host of markers as mentioned several times. You may be inclined to think FTP is simpler or easier - well I will certainly admit FTP it is more familiar for the masses given the numerous resouces available online on FTP testing and zones, and everything else may seem strange, foreign and complicated. But if the same infrastructure were available for lactate testing for the masses, I assure you would feel differently.

Just to give you a sense of how mundane lactate testing is while training:

1. A video of what appears to be a HIGH SCHOOL track team doing lactate testing - the table is really a bit dramatic lol I'm guessing they just started testing, typically it's just some guy with a backpack or athletic bag standing by the road.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJNtFKRWVJQ

2. Katusha-Alpecin - "This video is about Our Team doing a series of tests on San Salvador to determine nutritional and training zones for the upcoming season." (farewell team Katusha!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYEF2E48doI

Once you practice a few times (or have a coach show you how to do it a few times), you can easily do it on your own outdoors, it's really not difficult, although I would still recommend doing it indoors on rollers or a turbo or ergometer so you're not distracted. I understand it is unfamiliar and uncommon outside of a team setting, but that does not mean it is difficult to do and is extremely common in the professional world.

And keep in mind, training to lactate, or MLSS, or heart rate zones, or power zones based on MLSS (FTP) or some other lactate-related threshold/point, all began as something "only the pros" used to do. It all trickled down. FTP is a way of bringing MLSS based training to the masses. It's not the only approach and who knows what will be the next "trend" in the future.
Jugi wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:57 pm
A Functional Threshold Test is just a Test. It's not an absolute result of anything - it is only one of many variables, which can be used to scale training intensity and effort level. Everybody with any understanding of structured training should perceive a test event (whatever the protocol) as a way of determining one's physical abilities and more importantly, any changes in that ability. Therefore testing protocol, conditions etc. should always be the same, and the result is only that test's result. Much more useful information can be gained by training and racing close to one's limits.
The issue herein lies on the sole reliance on FTP as the scale for all training intensities. I just want people to be aware that (1) there are viable and very successful alternatives to using a power meter and (2) even if you use a power meter, there are viable and very successful alternatives to using FTP as the primary basline.

If this discussion is tiring you, again you can simply choose to ignore or not reply.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy SR / Chorus 11spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

TheRich
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

iheartbianchi wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:51 am
The issue herein lies on the sole reliance on FTP as the scale for all training intensities. I just want people to be aware that (1) there are viable and very successful alternatives to using a power meter and (2) even if you use a power meter, there are viable and very successful alternatives to using FTP as the primary basline.

If this discussion is tiring you, again you can simply choose to ignore or not reply.
Something that nobody ever said.

bikeboy1tr
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:19 am
Location: Southern Ontario Canada

by bikeboy1tr

I did a 20min test yesterday and instead of watching the pm data and trying to keep my effort at or above 100% I switched the screen over to time and cadence. So I relied on RPE and cadence as normally when doing these tests I am frustrated that my RPMs are barely above 80 when I normally hold around 90 as an average and that is because I am trying for 100%. So nothing to scientific for this test but my theory is if I can keep the RPMs close to 90 and ride at a pace that I thought I could keep for an hour it should be an FTP that is closer to the mark that it should be. Normally I do this test and divide it into 5 minute sectors as it is normally pretty ugly after the ten minute mark. The average pwr I had at the end of the test is the number that I use for my FTP. In the end I came up 20 watts short of my last test and feeling like I still had gas in the tank. I know my last test did give me the feeling that it was not a realistic number to reference when doing my intervals. I rode today with the updated FTP and it seems to be a better reference number for me. Also with the cadence at a higher average makes me believe that I would be more likely to hold this for a longer period of time compared to the lower cadence that I was grinding out and barely managing to hold for 20min.
Perhaps I should try an hour test to see if this FTP is anywhere close to being realistic.
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"-Albert Einstein
2018 Colnago V2R Rim Brake
2014 Norco Threshold Disc Brake
2012 Time RXRS Ulteam Rim Brake
2008 Time VXR Rim Brake
2006 Ridley Crosswind Rim Brake

iheartbianchi
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

TheRich wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:14 am

Something that nobody ever said.
Except that the vast majority of online resources and videos relating to power meter training refer exclusively to FTP zones, to the extent that FTP has become synonymous with power meter training for the masses - I even posted much earlier in this thread a link to a few sources that tell you to ditch the heart rate monitor because training by power (based on FTP) is superior and more accurate - what a flawed premise, you can't compare the two! Interestingly, shortly after this thread took off, I noticed that GCN published a video on training with a heart rate monitor! Maybe they're reading this...
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy SR / Chorus 11spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

Jugi
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:10 am

by Jugi

iheartbianchi wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:51 am
Jugi wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:57 pm
Once a person has a powermeter installed, it is producing constant information about one's output. For example my average heart rate varies 10-15bpm between my morning/afternoon 70-80min commute while averaging same power, which equates to more than 50% of a HR zone.
And this would be precisely why I would say you need a heart rate monitor, because your effort levels are fluctuating during your 70-80min commute, something your power meter alone is not telling you. I would also suspect that your lactate levels are fluctuating during your commute as well, something else your power meter is not telling you. But in any event, a 10-15bpm HR change, and the likely corresponding change in lactate levels, aren't significant enough to be concerned about so I see now issue in maintaining a consistent power during the commute.
Yes, there are definetly some ”functional” changes happening in my body throughout the day. But that’s where combining power and heart rate show it’s worth. Without powermeter data (or without trying to pace my effort on power level) I would most likely just chalk the change in heart rate and RPE as ”being tired after work”. With power and heart rate data, I can see that fluctuation happening. For me, currently just a hobbyist in cycling, that has been one of the big revelations in using a
iheartbianchi wrote: The issue herein lies on the sole reliance on FTP as the scale for all training intensities. I just want people to be aware that (1) there are viable and very successful alternatives to using a power meter and (2) even if you use a power meter, there are viable and very successful alternatives to using FTP as the primary basline.
I concur! I’ll be out the door in half an hour for 5 hours of base work, which I’ll be pacing mainly on HR. ”Mainly” because I’ll have to keep an eye on power during the first 90 minutes, as I’ll most likely try to ride short ascents too hard if I go by RPE or HR alone. Hopefully my HR zones are still valid, as they were set 3-4 years ago in my latest straight VO2Max -test, which measured exhaling gasses and lactate levels. My FTP is based on a 20 minute all-out climb effort done three months ago, which didn’t resemble ”a test” at all and was very unique, but I did ride my heart out. So, I’ll just have to keep in mind my current ”functional threshold” was set on a good day when I took advantage of the situation and the environment, therefore it’s most likely not tied to day-to-day performance very well.

I hope as well people are aware there are other approaches to scaling one’s training than just powermeter data and FTP. But as the metrics provided by a powermeter are just so easily quantifiable, I can see the attraction of it.

TheRich
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

iheartbianchi wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:02 am
TheRich wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:14 am

Something that nobody ever said.
Except that the vast majority of online resources and videos relating to power meter training refer exclusively to FTP zones, to the extent that FTP has become synonymous with power meter training for the masses - I even posted much earlier in this thread a link to a few sources that tell you to ditch the heart rate monitor because training by power (based on FTP) is superior and more accurate - what a flawed premise, you can't compare the two! Interestingly, shortly after this thread took off, I noticed that GCN published a video on training with a heart rate monitor! Maybe they're reading this...
That's because they're generally talking about short intervals where using hr isn't much different than using RPE.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post