An hour at zone 3, is it useful?

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
iheartbianchi
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

jasjas wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:38 am
FTP is pretty easy to understand surely? and so long as whatever test you use is consistant, then it can be tracked and used as a training metric.

As for the Polarised approach for the more time crunched rider, i'm not convinced, i believe in specificity and riding in the mountains on back to back 1hr cols, i just dont see that 8 to 10hrs of LSD and then a few 10 or 15mins at Tempo is going to cut it,
What i found is that on less challenging terrain, i was quick but not in the mountains, where i felt i was lacking compared to SST plans i've followed before, however, i was coming back from a serious injury, so its a difficult one to access, i did complete the event whre many didn't including one death :(

If i were to follow this plan again, i'd do more, much more tempo z3 work, because thats what you are working at on a 15km 7 to 10% climb, descend and repeat.....either that or go part time and do 20hr weeks of riding lol!
Even the forerunners of FTP (Coggan and Allen) differ on what FTP is. The definition of FTP has changed from its inception (lactate threshold) to now a vague statement on maximum average power over an hour. So no, it is not easy to understand. People have tried to get Coggan to clarify what FTP is, and he has been very evasive, blaming publishers for distorting his statements in published work with his name on it, without actually saying what exactly FTP is supposed to be.

Whether you are convinced about the polarized approach does not matter. It has been proven to work at the highest levels of cycling, across both track and road disciplines. I worked with US juniors and now I work with juniors in Korea and we also adopt a polarized approach. Mind you the big variable is hours of training, which we do our best to minimize since these kids also need time to study and socialize, and we don't want to overwork them.

10 hours is sufficient on a highly structured polarized model for these kids to blow away any amateur - nobody is saying you should only do 10-15 minutes of tempo on a 10 hour-week training program. If oyu are doing 10 hours, then 2 of those hours should be at tempo or interval pace. When they go hard, we hammer them. When they are on a slow 90 minute ride, they go as slow as local amateurs. This all makes sense when you realize you can't really do longer than a 45 minute tempo session, and you can maybe only two of these sessions a week. If you throw in an interval session (which is also less than 1 hour in zone), you still have 7.5 hours to play with each week despite having done 3 tough workouts in a single week. This is inline with the general 80-20 rule (roughly 20% of your time should be spent hammering yourself, 80% doing slow miles).

Of course 10 hours is not sufficient to compete internationally in stage races (not my area of expertise anyways), but is more than sufficient for track races and shorter criterium style races. If we need to increase mileage, we simply increase the number of two-a-days and gradually extend the weekly long slow ride.
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

by Weenie


iheartbianchi
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

AeroObsessive wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:54 am

Because you haven't researched (or refuse to acknowledge) all the ways the tool can be used. But keep spinning that narrative. :thumbup:
I don't get what you are saying here. I've mentioned several times we use ergometers for testing our athletes. These obviously have power meters, we are monitoring their heart rates, respiration rates, lactate and a host of other measures. We don't even consider FTP because we don't need to - we have real-time data available to us. When we see an athlete hitting close to 4.0 mmol/l of lactate, we know they are at or near their threshold. One thing we do is note what their power and HR is. We diagnose their current physical condition based on this data. Is their lactate threshold at an acceptably high level relative to heart rate? If not, we prescribe training to increase their lactate threshold. We devise pacing guidelines and goals for the following week's training based on the athlete's lactate threshold. Sometimes this means doing intervals at a set power on the ergometer (the power being determined by lactate if that is what we are targetting, other times based on Vo2Max). But if we send them out on the roads, they are doing tempo or slow rides only, and in these cases we will prescribe a target heart rate zone based again on their heart rates relative to their lactate threshold.

Again, FTP never enters the discussion. It is not a serious tool for serious cyclists. Now if you want to say it's good enough for the masses, again I tell you, HRM are good enough for the masses, and if you really want to use a power meter, you should tie the power values to either your heart rate or ideally, to your lactate threshold. Testing for lactate threshold is cheap and readily available. If you're going to use professional-level equipment, then at least use the same methods as the professionals.

And if someone is dishonest enough to even try defending the current definition of FTP (maximum average power for an hour, let's just call it "Max1Hr"), let me ask you, why should training zones be based on Max1Hr? Why is this significant enough to design entire training zones around this thing? Why not maximum average power for 30 minutes? 45 minutes? Why 1 hour? If you think about it, it makes no sense. There is no justification for it. It sort of made sense when FTP came out because 1 hour was the general rule of thumb for how long you could maintain a threshold effort (i.e., at your lactate threshold) - as an aside, this was determined as a general rule of thumb from extensive testing of half-marathon runners. So now we're back to lactate threshold, which has been debunked as a link to FTP. Comical mental gymnastics. Just get your lactate tested.
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

jasjas
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:15 am

by jasjas

iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:18 pm
Whether you are convinced about the polarized approach does not matter. It has been proven to work at the highest levels of cycling, across both track and road disciplines. I worked with US juniors and now I work with juniors in Korea and we also adopt a polarized approach. Mind you the big variable is hours of training, which we do our best to minimize since these kids also need time to study and socialize, and we don't want to overwork them.
Well, imho it does matter because if i've tried both approaches and one works and another doesn't....... or rather is questionable.

No National Junior is doing 10hrs per week and they are also the best of their generation or they'd not be on these programes, the BC junior riders are doing serious training hours.

My contention, backed up by your last comments, is that for a polarised plan to work, there needs to be a significant training input, again comparisions with a 10k run is ridiculous, its a 35 to 45min effort, few road cyclists compete for such short time periods and the very nature of road racing is nothing like the more consistent o/p's of a 10k run, which would be similar to a 10mile TT in terms of effort, internationally not a well known distance, popular here in the UK with mainly older riders.

Someone training 15 or 20hrs per week is spending a significant amount of time doing hard rides, a rider doing doing 6 or 8hours is not (under the 80/20 rule)

iheartbianchi
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

jasjas wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:38 pm

Well, imho it does matter because if i've tried both approaches and one works and another doesn't....... or rather is questionable.

No National Junior is doing 10hrs per week and they are also the best of their generation or they'd not be on these programes, the BC junior riders are doing serious training hours.

My contention, backed up by your last comments, is that for a polarised plan to work, there needs to be a significant training input, again comparisions with a 10k run is ridiculous, its a 35 to 45min effort, few road cyclists compete for such short time periods and the very nature of road racing is nothing like the more consistent o/p's of a 10k run, which would be similar to a 10mile TT in terms of effort, internationally not a well known distance, popular here in the UK with mainly older riders.

Someone training 15 or 20hrs per week is spending a significant amount of time doing hard rides, a rider doing doing 6 or 8hours is not (under the 80/20 rule)
First, I think we are in agreement. When the topic of 80/20 Rule first came up early early on in this thread (I was asked what I thought about it), I said it's a decent rule of thumb but that it's just a rule of thumb, so please don't paint me as some strict adherent to the 80/20 rule. I have also said on numerous occasions that if you are time crunched (i.e., 8 or fewer hours a week), you're probably better served by adding in "steady state" or "sweet spot" training, going so far as to saying that doing only a bunch of LSD miles for 5 hours a week would be a waste of time.

But if we are debating the merits of a 5 hour-a-week rider doing only 1 hour hard, versus 2 or 3 hours hard, I think that will be a wash and it's a bit like picking the least worst alternative. While the 2 or 3 hard hour cyclist may see a quick boost in their fitness, they will also peak and plateau that much faster. They may also get injured or overfatigued. I say this because, a 5 hour week rider is not going to be doing those 2 or 3 hard hours very hard at all. It's probably gonig to be some "painful" but moderate effort (physiologically speaking) given the fatigue and overuse arising from the simple fact that their bodies can't handle long really hard sessions if they only have 1 or 2 easy hours left to work with. On the other hand, that 1 hard hour guy can really hammer that 1 hour because he took the other 4 hours easy. Imagine 2 really high quality 30 minute tempo rides each week, compared to 3 hardish but not quite threshold 1 hour rides by the other cyclist. So I think net-net, the 1 hard hour rider will be better off in the long run. Your mileage will obviously vary, I'm sure some people can be successful really hammering a lot of hours, and this depends a lot on the individual rider, their fiber composition and what have you, but I like to err on the side of less pain, less fatigue, less injury risk.

On the matter of 10 hours, I readily admit US cycling has a long way to go, but if you look at Lance Haidet, current US U-23 national road race champion, he rides as few as 7 hours a week. In his off-season, he is around 10 hours. During the peak of his season, he is around 15 hours. This is a very common and consistent theme, at least in the US, and these are very very fast kids (admittedly not so fast when viewed internationally). 10 hours is plenty to make most people very very fast (but maybe not world class fast). Also, as I said, most juniors are college students and they need to graduate so they're not running around spending 20 hours a week on their bikes. And the races they are training for don't demand serious training hours. There is a lot of "off the bike" work though!

And of the 10 hours, depending on the stage of the training cycle, as little as 1 hour of that would be hard, or as many as 3 or 4 hours. During peak season, we are doing 3 or 4 days of intense intervals a week. We try to maintain the aerobic base by having long warmups and cooldowns, but it's a struggle not to lose fitness.
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

User avatar
otoman
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: Nashville

by otoman

This thread is gold. Iheartbianchi especially, I appreciate your extensive and thoughtful discussion.

I’m not going to be able to find the link any time soon but studies have demonstrated the benefit of polarization for masters cyclists on as few as 8 hours per week. Below that total time, the ratio of easy to hard rides breaks down a bit at 80/20%; it just creates too little training stimulus to see many gains beyond the very novice level. But big gains were demonstrated on 8 hours, better than alternative training approaches. I’ll see if I can dig it up.

Quick couple of questions: 1)do you find that the relationship between power at 4.0 mmol lactate tracks with 20 min (or some other duration) “field test”? In other words can you find an individualized percentage (that has classically been given as 95% of avg 20 min power = threshold power) that maintains despite increases or decreases in fitness? My question stated differently is, can you just do the finger prick lactate testing once, find your percentage and use that going forward?

2) I just did 3.5 hours today in the heat keeping my HR in my aerobic zone as much as possible. With heat of course HR is higher due to increased thermal regulation demands and the increased cardiac output required not to mention dehydration etc etc. Do you recommend cheating your max HR up on a hot zone 1 ride a bit or do you just ride slower keeping your HR down?

Many thanks.
Age and treachery shall overcome youth and skill

TheRich
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

AeroObsessive wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:26 am
TheRich wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:01 am
AeroObsessive wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:34 am
TheRich wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:53 am

Not really. An hour or 40k TT depends too much on fitness and willpower.
That's exactly why I use them for testing athletes. Why be an endurance athlete unless you want to endure?
That's not really an FTP test then, although I don't disagree with you using those measurements for evaluating riders.
Time was it was *the* FTP test...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/wattmatter ... format=amp
It probably is for pros who have managed to push their FTP up close to their VO2max, but most people aren't at that level. So for the purposes that most people use FTP, it's an effective approximation.

...and even if it isn't, the individual can over/underperform as much as they want/can.

TheRich
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

iheartbianchi wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:05 pm
AeroObsessive wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:24 pm
iheartbianchi wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:52 am
We can easily devise power based training metrics based on a power % of lactate threshold but the online coaching industry has gone all-in on FTP it seems.
Not close to being true.

And I guess FTP is used because maybe, just maybe, it's good enough in many cases.

And maybe because there are bad coaches, and cookie cutter programs deriving X from Y are easy to bring in the dollars. But bad coaches exist, regardless of metrics.
I was actually hoping somebody would ask how you can devise power-based training metrics based on a % of lactate threshold (hint: what every elite team and cyclist I have ever worked with does).

Step 1: Find an ergometer or a roller or turbo trainer.
Step 2: You and your buddies gather some cash together and buy a lactate threshold tester for roughly $400 (less than a power meter) - or buy one yourself. Make sure to practice sanitation if you're going to share.
Step 3: You get on the ergometer or roller or turbo trainer. Your warmup for 10-20 minutes of gentle pedalling. You increase effort gradually in 2-4 minute increments.
Step 4: You prick your ear/finger every 2-4 minute increments. Once your measurements hit roughly 4.0 mmol/L of lactate, then you know you've hit your lactate threshold.
Step 5: You look at your power output when you are at 4.0 mmol/L of lactate.
Step 6: Apply the %LTHR zones which are freely and widely available online.
Step 7: Re-test every week or two weeks, depending on how quickly you are ramping up your current training cycle.

This whole process is cheap, extremely easy and if you have friends, it can be something you do every week on a consistent basis. What, you're afraid of pricking your finger? Unfit diabetic children and grannies do this every single day. There are other ways of testing your lactate threshold, but I'm just talking abou the most commonly used method.

And why settle for "good enough" when you can have an exact measurement of your lactate simply by pressing a button?

p.s. Just to add, most people are suprised at how low their lactate thresholds are (relative to HR) when they are first tested, and how often they are doing threshold level workouts. They have just become accustomed to functioning with heavy, tired lactate filled legs and think it's normal (hence they stagnate since they don't ever really fully recover and adapt). Racers unfortunately have to deal with this for most of the season due to the scheduling demands (at least until they peak for their key event), but amateurs don't face this same neary impossible pressure to try to gain fitness while fitting in weekly races and fighting off unsustainable levels of fatigue and overuse (hence why they need "off-seasons" to recover).
Not everyone's lactate level is the same at threshold.

That's like using someone else's hr or power zones.

AJS914
Posts: 3587
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

80/20
Seiler refers to the 80/20 as sessions so for a cyclist riding 5 days per week that is one intensity session per week. It's not time in zone, so for 10 hours a week, it's not 2 hours per week at interval pace.

He does say that that is flexible and could be two sessions per week. And that it can be periodized based on the time of season, like zero sessions during base, two during build, one during race, or however one wants to slice it up.

I think the best thing I've learned from Seiler's work and those Velownews Fast Talk podcasts is the value of the long/slow ride. I honestly think that most amateurs don't understand what slow really is. 60% of max HR truly feels slow. They will refer to long/slow as junk miles. I've found them hugely beneficial. Even though I've been riding for decades this is the first time I actually did 12 weeks of proper base miles. (10 hours per week and a single ride with intensity). My stamina and endurance increased substantially and my FTP increased about 25 watts. I added an interval session about 5 weeks ago and have recently started seeing benefits with new PRs on my benchmark Strava segments. Lately I've been dropping people in my club that were dropping me handily last year. Last Saturday I felt like I could push an extra gear and I could go deeper than I usually can go.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:35 pm
AeroObsessive wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:54 am

Because you haven't researched (or refuse to acknowledge) all the ways the tool can be used. But keep spinning that narrative. :thumbup:
I don't get what you are saying here. I've mentioned several times we use ergometers for testing our athletes. These obviously have power meters, we are monitoring their heart rates, respiration rates, lactate and a host of other measures. We don't even consider FTP because we don't need to - we have real-time data available to us. When we see an athlete hitting close to 4.0 mmol/l of lactate, we know they are at or near their threshold. One thing we do is note what their power and HR is. We diagnose their current physical condition based on this data. Is their lactate threshold at an acceptably high level relative to heart rate? If not, we prescribe training to increase their lactate threshold. We devise pacing guidelines and goals for the following week's training based on the athlete's lactate threshold. Sometimes this means doing intervals at a set power on the ergometer (the power being determined by lactate if that is what we are targetting, other times based on Vo2Max). But if we send them out on the roads, they are doing tempo or slow rides only, and in these cases we will prescribe a target heart rate zone based again on their heart rates relative to their lactate threshold.

Again, FTP never enters the discussion. It is not a serious tool for serious cyclists. Now if you want to say it's good enough for the masses, again I tell you, HRM are good enough for the masses, and if you really want to use a power meter, you should tie the power values to either your heart rate or ideally, to your lactate threshold. Testing for lactate threshold is cheap and readily available. If you're going to use professional-level equipment, then at least use the same methods as the professionals.

And if someone is dishonest enough to even try defending the current definition of FTP (maximum average power for an hour, let's just call it "Max1Hr"), let me ask you, why should training zones be based on Max1Hr? Why is this significant enough to design entire training zones around this thing? Why not maximum average power for 30 minutes? 45 minutes? Why 1 hour? If you think about it, it makes no sense. There is no justification for it. It sort of made sense when FTP came out because 1 hour was the general rule of thumb for how long you could maintain a threshold effort (i.e., at your lactate threshold) - as an aside, this was determined as a general rule of thumb from extensive testing of half-marathon runners. So now we're back to lactate threshold, which has been debunked as a link to FTP. Comical mental gymnastics. Just get your lactate tested.
And once again, FTP is not the entirely of power based training, even though you keep trying to state it, and (thanks to some great software analysis out there) for amateurs - even if they want to use a polarised training model - the utilisation of power gives a far better overall tool for the monitoring of training and racing.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

TheRich wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:32 pm
iheartbianchi wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:05 pm
AeroObsessive wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:24 pm
iheartbianchi wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:52 am
We can easily devise power based training metrics based on a power % of lactate threshold but the online coaching industry has gone all-in on FTP it seems.
Not close to being true.

And I guess FTP is used because maybe, just maybe, it's good enough in many cases.

And maybe because there are bad coaches, and cookie cutter programs deriving X from Y are easy to bring in the dollars. But bad coaches exist, regardless of metrics.
I was actually hoping somebody would ask how you can devise power-based training metrics based on a % of lactate threshold (hint: what every elite team and cyclist I have ever worked with does).

Step 1: Find an ergometer or a roller or turbo trainer.
Step 2: You and your buddies gather some cash together and buy a lactate threshold tester for roughly $400 (less than a power meter) - or buy one yourself. Make sure to practice sanitation if you're going to share.
Step 3: You get on the ergometer or roller or turbo trainer. Your warmup for 10-20 minutes of gentle pedalling. You increase effort gradually in 2-4 minute increments.
Step 4: You prick your ear/finger every 2-4 minute increments. Once your measurements hit roughly 4.0 mmol/L of lactate, then you know you've hit your lactate threshold.
Step 5: You look at your power output when you are at 4.0 mmol/L of lactate.
Step 6: Apply the %LTHR zones which are freely and widely available online.
Step 7: Re-test every week or two weeks, depending on how quickly you are ramping up your current training cycle.

This whole process is cheap, extremely easy and if you have friends, it can be something you do every week on a consistent basis. What, you're afraid of pricking your finger? Unfit diabetic children and grannies do this every single day. There are other ways of testing your lactate threshold, but I'm just talking abou the most commonly used method.

And why settle for "good enough" when you can have an exact measurement of your lactate simply by pressing a button?

p.s. Just to add, most people are suprised at how low their lactate thresholds are (relative to HR) when they are first tested, and how often they are doing threshold level workouts. They have just become accustomed to functioning with heavy, tired lactate filled legs and think it's normal (hence they stagnate since they don't ever really fully recover and adapt). Racers unfortunately have to deal with this for most of the season due to the scheduling demands (at least until they peak for their key event), but amateurs don't face this same neary impossible pressure to try to gain fitness while fitting in weekly races and fighting off unsustainable levels of fatigue and overuse (hence why they need "off-seasons" to recover).
Not everyone's lactate level is the same at threshold.

That's like using someone else's hr or power zones.
Should also be mentioned that lactate testing is not infallible. Very easy to get false or incorrect readings. For lab techs and experienced coaches etc, piece of cake. But protocol needs to be done carefully. Not to mention care with body fluids etc.

acoggan
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:28 pm

by acoggan

iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:18 pm
jasjas wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:38 am
FTP is pretty easy to understand surely? and so long as whatever test you use is consistant, then it can be tracked and used as a training metric.

As for the Polarised approach for the more time crunched rider, i'm not convinced, i believe in specificity and riding in the mountains on back to back 1hr cols, i just dont see that 8 to 10hrs of LSD and then a few 10 or 15mins at Tempo is going to cut it,
What i found is that on less challenging terrain, i was quick but not in the mountains, where i felt i was lacking compared to SST plans i've followed before, however, i was coming back from a serious injury, so its a difficult one to access, i did complete the event whre many didn't including one death :(

If i were to follow this plan again, i'd do more, much more tempo z3 work, because thats what you are working at on a 15km 7 to 10% climb, descend and repeat.....either that or go part time and do 20hr weeks of riding lol!
Even the forerunners of FTP (Coggan and Allen) differ on what FTP is. The definition of FTP has changed from its inception (lactate threshold) to now a vague statement on maximum average power over an hour. So no, it is not easy to understand. People have tried to get Coggan to clarify what FTP is, and he has been very evasive, blaming publishers for distorting his statements in published work with his name on it, without actually saying what exactly FTP is supposed to be.
Sadly, like so many others, you are misinformed, and thus are only compounding the problem by making incorrect statements. FTP (which is strictly my doing, not Hunter's and mine) has *always* been a functional surrogate for the exercise intensity corresponding to a maximal metabolic steady-state. Neither the concept nor the best methods for estimating this intensity have ever changed.

acoggan
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:28 pm

by acoggan

iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:38 am
TheRich wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:01 am

That's not really an FTP test then, although I don't disagree with you using those measurements for evaluating riders.
The FTP test has been controversial from the start. Allen basically from the start was calling for a ramp test before the FTP test. Coggan disagreed with this. Now it seems the ramp test is being required, although now the duration of the ramp test differs from what Allen had called for.
More misinformation. Hunter has never recommended a ramp (incremental) exercise test. That would be Ric Stern.

Furthermore, I am on record as pointing to it as yet another valid alternative to the "seven deadly sins".
Last edited by acoggan on Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

acoggan
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:28 pm

by acoggan

iheartbianchi wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:52 am

We can easily devise power based training metrics based on a power % of lactate threshold but the online coaching industry has gone all-in on FTP it seems.
Obviously one can, but it is generally not only easier, but actually *more* accurate, to simply measure power output.

IOW, it is a myth that lactate testing (or, e.g., use of NIRS) represents any sort of "gold standard". That's why, e.g., groups such as the AIS largely gave up performing such tests once power meters became widely available.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

otoman wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:05 pm
Quick couple of questions: 1)do you find that the relationship between power at 4.0 mmol lactate tracks with 20 min (or some other duration) “field test”? In other words can you find an individualized percentage (that has classically been given as 95% of avg 20 min power = threshold power) that maintains despite increases or decreases in fitness? My question stated differently is, can you just do the finger prick lactate testing once, find your percentage and use that going forward?
First we have to assess whether or not 4.0 mmol/l really is your lactate threshold. It's a rough measure, we can revise this number up or down depending on the individual. Regarding lactate and 20 minutes, this varies largely depending on fitness, as the point at which you hit 4.0 mmol/l for any given level of effort actually fluctuates, hence we recommend re-testing your lactate. The frequency at which you re-test your lactate obviously varies, and you would not really need to do so during the middle of a rather long base period.
otoman wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:05 pm

2) I just did 3.5 hours today in the heat keeping my HR in my aerobic zone as much as possible. With heat of course HR is higher due to increased thermal regulation demands and the increased cardiac output required not to mention dehydration etc etc. Do you recommend cheating your max HR up on a hot zone 1 ride a bit or do you just ride slower keeping your HR down?
You kind of answered this question yourself in your reference to aerobic "zone." To be fair, Zones 1 through 4 are essentially aerobic zones, so maybe that's a bit too broad. Anyways, I generally tell people to just ride slower since the point is to be in zone, not to actually ride at any given speed, on the majority of their training.
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

by Weenie


iheartbianchi
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

TheRich wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:13 pm

It probably is for pros who have managed to push their FTP up close to their VO2max, but most people aren't at that level. So for the purposes that most people use FTP, it's an effective approximation.

...and even if it isn't, the individual can over/underperform as much as they want/can.
Just as background, FTP was concocted as some kind of "novel approach" for amateurs when power meters were first becoming commercially available for the masses at a time when you had differing notions of lactate thresholds (LT, OBLA, MLSS etc.).
Last edited by iheartbianchi on Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post