W/kg ranges corresponding to PPA road seeding

[J Wakefield]

I have to agree, there are a lot of pedalers but they are certainly not all cyclists you see this a lot on the mtb side as well.

 

As a  matter of interest, I have not done a FTP test ever, I do spend a lot of time on the wattbike if at a maximal sustainable effort for 1 hour with constant resistance and cadence could I equate that to an ftp score, or will it go up doing a 20 min ftp test?

 

You could use the best 10 or 20min power in that 60min and use that as a guide. The problem with FTP is that today it is 300W after the test but that is for today, at that time etc. in 4 days it can change due to variables. People always use the highest number when inserting the value after the test. i.e.: 300W but don't take a lot of other things into consideration why that would change over a period or season. I would rather tell people then to use 285 or 290W as that will be more accurate. 

[J Wakefield]

And here was me thinking this thread was going to try to return to some scientific basis, with talk of repeatability...and maybe even replication? Alas not - next time perhaps.

 

Haha, Penguin is right though. If you doing 5 x 10 for example you want to be able to produce the highest consistent value throughout. No point going 400W / 380W / 340W / 300W / 300W this gives you an average of 344W and not consistent at all. Hitting 355W or 360W for each would be the perfect set.

[lechatnoir]

Hey numpties. Your FTP isn't a magic number that solves all of your problems on the bike. Sure, wave it around if you must, but rather focus on it as something to guide your training.

^^^ THIS

[Pure Savage]

Haha, Penguin is right though. If you doing 5 x 10 for example you want to be able to produce the highest consistent value throughout. No point going 400W / 380W / 340W / 300W / 300W this gives you an average of 344W and not consistent at all. Hitting 355W or 360W for each would be the perfect set.

Do you find people get better at doing tests as well?

 

I found over a few tests that my results got a lot better as I knew what to expect, pace etc and my numbers improved a lot, but in the real world I reckon the gains were marginal.

 

(Obviously after 6-7 you get into a groove and the massive gains disappear, but for those doing a test once a year etc this may happen.)

[fanievb]

Do you find people get better at doing tests as well?

 

I found over a few tests that my results got a lot better as I knew what to expect, pace etc and my numbers improved a lot, but in the real world I reckon the gains were marginal.

 

(Obviously after 6-7 you get into a groove and the massive gains disappear, but for those doing a test once a year etc this may happen.)

 

getting better at FTP tests?

 

moer, the last test I attempted had me getting off the bike halfway through and sitting in a corner crying like a little girl. 

[J Wakefield]

Do you find people get better at doing tests as well?

 

I found over a few tests that my results got a lot better as I knew what to expect, pace etc and my numbers improved a lot, but in the real world I reckon the gains were marginal.

 

(Obviously after 6-7 you get into a groove and the massive gains disappear, but for those doing a test once a year etc this may happen.)

 

Yes often it does cause you know what to expect providing that you do the same test protocol. Also however, it doesn't work the other way where the person knows whats coming and doesn't want to go that deep or experience that again. This is hardly ever though overall.

 

When we test athletes in the lab we use a Peak Power test and V02. The protocol starts at 100W for men and 50W for women and increases 20W every minute to failure which is when their cadence drops below 70rpm. This is a lot more accurate and provides more data than a stand alone 20min effort. 

 

Performance gains often are large when an untrained athlete starts to train then yes it will taper off and the improvements wont be as significant. That then is where the coaching or training really shows. You want progression season after season and the trick comes in to find the small % needed, even 2-5% improvement is big in cycling terms. 5% is either 400 or 415W for 10min. That is often a world of pain. 

 

Sometimes we then look for other performance variables such as peak power and power output at threshold or consistency in sessions.

 

I like to test athletes every 6 months or so or twice a year which is typically in and around their off season and then mid season again.

[Pure Savage]

Yes often it does cause you know what to expect providing that you do the same test protocol. Also however, it doesn't work the other way where the person knows whats coming and doesn't want to go that deep or experience that again. This is hardly ever though overall.

 

When we test athletes in the lab we use a Peak Power test and V02. The protocol starts at 100W for men and 50W for women and increases 20W every minute to failure which is when their cadence drops below 70rpm. This is a lot more accurate and provides more data than a stand alone 20min effort. 

 

Performance gains often are large when an untrained athlete starts to train then yes it will taper off and the improvements wont be as significant. That then is where the coaching or training really shows. You want progression season after season and the trick comes in to find the small % needed, even 2-5% improvement is big in cycling terms. 5% is either 400 or 415W for 10min. That is often a world of pain. 

 

Sometimes we then look for other performance variables such as peak power and power output at threshold at threshold.

 

I like to test athletes every 6 months or so or twice a year which is typically in and around their off season and then mid season again.

Yeah, I find a 20 min test pacing helps a lot and can get better at. The test I have done in the lab which I have highlighted in bold there is no hiding. I am not sure if you can translate that number into FTP. (Or if its worth while to do so) Hence why I have not posted an FTP number vs seeding, as I take the FTP as a very rough guide.

[Fat Boab]

I'll just leave this from the OP here......."This is not meant to be a discussion on the determination of FTP....."

[Pure Savage]

I'll just leave this from the OP here......."This is not meant to be a discussion on the determination of FTP....."

His fault for posting an FTP thread so close to a Friday. No sympathy.

[Fat Boab]

His fault for posting an FTP thread so close to a Friday. No sympathy.

 

If FTP is the topic, it seems every day is Friday!

[J Wakefield]

Yeah, I find a 20 min test pacing helps a lot and can get better at. The test I have done in the lab which I have highlighted in bold there is no hiding. I am not sure if you can translate that number into FTP. (Or if its worth while to do so) Hence why I have not posted an FTP number vs seeding, as I take the FTP as a very rough guide.

 

Def worthwhile and more accurate. This in the data (VT2) will be 20W i.e. 300-320 so FTP I will use 310W. 

[pe3nguin]

Do you find people get better at doing tests as well?

 

 

I think so. Pacing yourself and your effort is an important part of it. Exam technique is vital, otherwise you burst out the gate at 6w/kg and then before you know it, you are a limp noodle hanging over the bars.

[pe3nguin]

Maybe a question for John specifically but open to all who ride with younger people who use powermeters. I am talking about the 18 - 23 range.

Do you see a trend whereby this age group has become overly reliant on powermeters? The kids out here on the continent are C for seriously strong, but on several occasions this year, I have heard youngsters writing off their race at the start line.

"No powermeter today"/"Powermeter acting funny"/"Powermeter not working" and its like they have already resigned themselves to a mediocre ride. Without the numbers, they seem almost lost?

[Pure Savage]

Def worthwhile and more accurate. This in the data (VT2) will be 20W i.e. 300-320 so FTP I will use 310W. 

 

Cool, thanks, so the test like that I did was around 395w, less 25w is around 370w, which is around about where my other watt bike 20 min tests have it. Now, just to weigh 74kg and not 78kg

[Pure Savage]

Maybe a question for John specifically but open to all who ride with younger people who use powermeters. I am talking about the 18 - 23 range.

 

Do you see a trend whereby this age group has become overly reliant on powermeters? The kids out here on the continent are C for seriously strong, but on several occasions this year, I have heard youngsters writing off their race at the start line.

 

"No powermeter today"/"Powermeter acting funny"/"Powermeter not working" and its like they have already resigned themselves to a mediocre ride. Without the numbers, they seem almost lost?

Now I think we need a new thread

 

I think it comes down to personality as well. I know 30-40 year olds that flick and flack about form and fitness and how how hard can push today.

[pe3nguin]

Now I think we need a new thread

 

I think it comes down to personality as well. I know 30-40 year olds that flick and flack about form and fitness and how how hard can push today.

Yeah. That was off topic. Sorry lads.   Friday