FTP W/kg - which weight are we talking about?

[SwissVan]

http://www.pmslweb.com/the-blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/31-funny-you-miss-the-point-cartoon.jpg

Well I hope that's a mother of all rockets I'm riding with more power than all your rockets put together

[Jewbacca]

I'll send them your way

Hahahaha I am currently trying to lose a few loose looking kg's thank you very much!

[Patchelicious]

Well I hope that's a mother of all rockets I'm riding with more power than all your rockets put together

That's only because you quote your 20min power numbers not your FTP ????

[wintersab]

Couple of comments: 

1) W/kg refers to body weight in normally hydrated state (i.e., don't weigh yourself after Stage 1 of this year's Epic and use that number for calculations), but if you are trying to improve uphill speed then everything benefits from decreasing weight. 

2) A lot of folks do 2x20 or 2x8 (see Chris Carmichael for the math and underlying trials to support these) primarily because if you do a 1x60 properly your body will be jello for days afterwards, which is an unnecessary waste of potential training time. 

3) Outdoor vs indoor: I can suffer more outdoors than indoors. I don't know why. So I use my outdoor figures to set training loads for both outdoor and indoors. Keeps me honest. 

4) Racing vs controlled environment: nothing wrong with racing in principle but you need to avoid sudden accelerations or decelerations that will skew the results. Racing isn't always conducive to this. 

5) Hills vs flats: as long as you can maintain a steady aerobic cadence and pace (see point 4 above), either is fine. I haven't seen any science that precludes hills, unless the hills are so steep that you dip into your anaerobic systems just trying to stay vertical. I've tested on hills up to 8% gradient and the numbers work. 

 

Last comment: I suck at testing. I can consistently do 2x8 or 2x20 efforts randomly during rides that are higher than my 'testing' numbers. I don't know why. I get all anxious and just end up blowing it. The point is: you can't fake your aerobic capacity. If you are tracking your data in Golden Cheetah or whatever, it will be pretty obvious over time where exactly your power thresholds are for each Critical Power point. So a lot of coaches (including mine, since I suck so bad at testing) end up forgoing 'tests' and just monitor the entire CP graph over time. When capacity increases, they push the training loads. 

[pe3nguin]

For what its worth, I obviously use my hypothetical dream weight in conjunction with my my 20min power x 95% plus a little bonus because I 'could have' gone harder.

Gotta keep the numbers high /s

Eish and here I thought power numbers were for training purposes

[Vetplant]

Beautiful contribution to the discussion here!

You guys have been talking past each other for the past two pages. Each one trying to be the one to give the most correct answer.

 

This can be a very simple discussion, which would be the best course of action for the majority of us. At the same time this can also be a very detailed discussion, but that would best be left to people who have actually studied and/or researched the subject.

 

Forgive me for being exasperated by a topic that has become stuck at the same point, thus my reference to the winds of the CTCT.

 

The answer to the original question was verified many pages ago.

[Patchelicious]

Couple of comments:

1) W/kg refers to body weight in normally hydrated state (i.e., don't weigh yourself after Stage 1 of this year's Epic and use that number for calculations), but if you are trying to improve uphill speed then everything benefits from decreasing weight.

2) A lot of folks do 2x20 or 2x8 (see Chris Carmichael for the math and underlying trials to support these) primarily because if you do a 1x60 properly your body will be jello for days afterwards, which is an unnecessary waste of potential training time.

3) Outdoor vs indoor: I can suffer more outdoors than indoors. I don't know why. So I use my outdoor figures to set training loads for both outdoor and indoors. Keeps me honest.

4) Racing vs controlled environment: nothing wrong with racing in principle but you need to avoid sudden accelerations or decelerations that will skew the results. Racing isn't always conducive to this.

5) Hills vs flats: as long as you can maintain a steady aerobic cadence and pace (see point 4 above), either is fine. I haven't seen any science that precludes hills, unless the hills are so steep that you dip into your anaerobic systems just trying to stay vertical. I've tested on hills up to 8% gradient and the numbers work.

 

Last comment: I suck at testing. I can consistently do 2x8 or 2x20 efforts randomly during rides that are higher than my 'testing' numbers. I don't know why. I get all anxious and just end up blowing it. The point is: you can't fake your aerobic capacity. If you are tracking your data in Golden Cheetah or whatever, it will be pretty obvious over time where exactly your power thresholds are for each Critical Power point. So a lot of coaches (including mine, since I suck so bad at testing) end up forgoing 'tests' and just monitor the entire CP graph over time. When capacity increases, they push the training loads.

You have summarized everything extremely well.

Your post deserves a steak and a blowie!

['Dale]

Awesome post, wintersab ????????

[RocknRolla]

I don't like power training, cycling is about having fun, power training isn't fun.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frosty]

I don't like power training, cycling is about having fun, power training isn't fun.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Patchelicious]

I don't like power training, cycling is about having fun, power training isn't fun.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cycling is about fun.

 

What some find fun other don't. Few things are as fun/satisfying, to me, as going out solo, doing some power specific intervals and hitting your numbers well.

 

It is very different but equally fun, to me, as a coffee ride with friends along a scenic route.

[Frosty]

Got this link sent to me by a friend, as some inspiration...

 

Type I Fun – true fun, enjoyable while it’s happening. Good food, good sex, 5.8 hand cracks, sport climbing, powder skiing. Margaritas.

 

Type II Fun – fun only in retrospect, hateful while it’s happening. Things like working out ‘till you puke, and usually ice and alpine climbing. After climbing the West Face Couloir on Huntington, Scotty and I both swore that we hated alpine climbing. The final 1,000′ was horrific – swimming up sugar snow that collapsed beneath us, roped together without protection – and took nearly as long as the initial 3,000′ from camp. On the summit, Scotty turned to me and said, in complete seriousness, “I want my mom so bad right now.” By the time we reached Talkeetna our talk of Huntington turned to, “Ya know, that wasn’t so bad. What should we try next time?”

 

Type III Fun – not fun at all, not even in retrospect. As in, “What the hell was I thinking? If I ever even consider doing that again, somebody slap some sense into me.” The final 1,000′ of Huntington, when I stop and think about it…but, then again, a friend climbed it the next year and had perfect conditions.

 

I guess you never really know what sort of fun you’re getting yourself into once you leave the couch, which is fine, because it doesn’t always have to be “fun” to be fun.

 

Maybe the whole goal, the path of the enlightened, is to turn Type III situations into Type I fun. Right. Anybody had any luck with that?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RocknRolla]

'Tis a path to better enjoyment, I know.

I will end up having more fun on the bike.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SwissVan]

You guys have been talking past each other for the past two pages. Each one trying to be the one to give the most correct answer.

 

This can be a very simple discussion, which would be the best course of action for the majority of us. At the same time this can also be a very detailed discussion, but that would best be left to people who have actually studied and/or researched the subject.

 

Forgive me for being exasperated by a topic that has become stuck at the same point, thus my reference to the winds of the CTCT.

 

The answer to the original question was verified many pages ago.

I get what you mean

BUT how on earth have you lasted 5+ years on the hubsa?

[J Wakefield]

Also, not everybody has 5kg to lose. I'm 183cm and weigh 69kg. At 64kg, I'd have to lose some muscle mass, not that I have tons to begin with.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not completely true unless you are carrying a lot of lean muscle mass and your overall body fat is really low. Otherwise you can lose body fat and drop the 5kg. at 183 / 69 it does not sound like you are exceptionally lean. However, I have no idea just going off statistics. 

[lechatnoir]

'Tis a path to better enjoyment, I know.

I will end up having more fun on the bike.

 

 

ostly, any time I spend on a bike is the best part of that day. This includes FTP tests (to get back on topic)