Yesterday I listened to this Empirical Cycling podcast:
and it was a breath of fresh air.
7 Likes
Yes, just listened to that as well and enjoyed it. I really appreciated the discussion at the end about how problematic scientific publishing/journals have become, even in such non-controversial areas as sports physiology.
Trying to have a discussion with someone as to why the âpublished scientific paperâ that is from the author and journal that also published âpaperâ connecting the timing of Jeffrey Epsteinâs arrest to global health events is not worth discussing is disheartening.
1 Like
I seem to recall his preference is LT1 for aerobic endurance, and Critical Power for (15-20 minute) threshold, is that right?
1 Like
Work rate at which above the athlete fatigues much faster, and below where they fatigue much slower.
~28:30
Thatâs KM definition of threshold. Itâs a good one. Itâs also the textbook definition of critical power. the concept that he âdoesnât likeâ. The method he uses to find it is nice and he knows what heâs doing with it (TTE, interval prescription, tracking changes, being a WKO guru, etc.) And thatâs why if I were that guest I would have just said âcool thatâs fineâ (sort of like Skiba does in his book). It works so use it.
They both know what they are talking about, and I see nothing glaringly wrong with anything either one said (except for the comment above, which is half in jest since itâs threshold and no two ppl can agree on it anyway).
2 Likes
Yes, pick your system and stick with it. Back when I got a power meter 5+ years ago, my conclusion was âsince I have good roads to do it on, forget the 8-min vs 20-min debate and why not push for 40-70 minutes and really see where I end up, after all thatâs whatâs holding me back on the Wed night drop rides.â Naturally that aligned with KM definition and protocols. Training is testing, and testing is training. Or something like that.
1 Like
yes, because power @ FTP you are somewhere just below CP. CP curve has TTE built in (at all durations), no need to shoehorn it in later.
It has become a fashionable way to explain it to athletes in this way the last few years. Itâs happened on this very forum. Iâve watched it go from âblah at 60minsâ to âno he didnât mean that, it was Hunterâ to âwell itâs quasi-steady stateâ to âyou need TTE because it is actually MLSSâ to âyouâll feel it, RPE for the winâ to âjust above you fatigue and below you can go a lot longerâ.
Critical power (going back a decade) has always been explained the last way. It has TTE built in to each part of the curve. FTP is close enough, so use it. I do.
Sounds like a good way to do it. I have historically had great alignment with all the protocols. What I think both fall short on (PD curve, CP curve) is prediction and modeling at longer durations (> 4-5hrs). Andy Jones acknowledged this on the Science of Ultra podcast.
1 Like
Yeah, I thought some of the comments on FTP were sort of stawman-ish.
So much of the discussion around FTP gets caught up in one specific test methodology for testing.
FTP is NOT 95% of 20min max power
FTP is NOT power for 40k tt
FTP is NOT 75% of MAP
These are just ways of measuring/estimating it. These discussions remind me of: Haddocks' Eyes - Wikipedia
I would agree with Kolieâs statement that âFTP is power at MLSSâ, and that this is what Cogganâs view is, and that this matches his âWork rate at which above the athlete fatigues much faster, and below where they fatigue much slowerâ definition.
Even if everyone agrees that power at MLSS is physiologically significant state, there isnât even consensus on how to directly measure this, and even less about FTP.
3 Likes
Right or even that knowing it should be used to inform training (zones, workout prescriptions, etc). Lots of thresholds that we spend a fair amount of time going: âok, that happened, so what?â The paper that KM referenced in the middle of that discussion is
I think (Iâll correct link if itâs in his show notes and I just donât see it).
Good comment/idea from KM about his desire to work for all athletes. Big thing as a coach, makes sense.
2 Likes
March 2017 is when I did 8-min overpaced effort, 20-min overpaced effort, and 50-70 minute effort. They all aligned well enough. Right now the WKO model has 20-min at 95% aerobic / 5% glycolytic. And 8-min at 89% aerobic and 11% glycolytic. When the WKO is well fed, over 5 years I see some movement in the 8-min aerobic/gylcolytic % split but the 20-min is pretty stable at 95% aerobic which for me, makes 95% of a 20-min test a good estimate of what I can do on a long TT effort.
Yeah I just go out and do some longer efforts. In my world, pushing freestyle sweet spot out to 2 hours has a big impact on what I can do in the 5+ hour range. Iâve never tried predicting those long efforts.
It is impossible-for now anyways- to monitor what exactly is going on in the body at any state. MLSS is just based on measuring lactate in the blood. A very downstream measurement. Like trying to guess what an engine is doing by measuring the produced co2.
ftp is looking at the power engine is producing.
I think we are learning that averages are correct for all of us but wrong for each one of us.
1 Like
Right and if you donât need to do ultra stuff, no reason to. A big reason WKO/TP or CP-based modeling is so widely used is that most folks race or participate in events in those time ranges (or close). They do an excellent job if you follow the process as directed (feed model, know limitations, etc). As a thought experiment (definitely rhetorical), how would WKO be different if Tim coached Lael Wilcox (for example), not Amber Neben.
2 Likes
Well I didnât compete on my double century, just wanted to finish before sunset. Came close and ended up at .67 IF. Having done a bunch of long all-day rides in the past, I rode it by HR.
1 Like
These efforts are too demanding. Maybe if you are not racing. Thatâs what I like about the CP model. Just feed the data at your convenience. I get a perfect fit from 3, 7, 12 minutes.
Thatâs what I like about it too.
Having said that, you also get good fit in WKO with 3, 7, and 12 mins on a PD curve. Although it would probably have a zillion other normalized residuals it would yell at you about. Thatâs ok, most ppl learn when good enough is good enough, I think.
What effort durations? Like @tshortt stated at those durations just use any power duration curve (Strava, TP, TR, GC, WKO, etc) provided you are doing some hard workouts and weekly drop and/or group rides. The local people I see practice racing on Strava are feeding longer efforts, more in the 40+ minute range. It seems straightforward to fill up the power curve with good data below 50-90 minutes by just doing weekly drop rides.
You might be interested in this, if you havenât seen it already. Some really good info about CP testing, contributions of energy systems, and general VO2Max and VLaMax interaction (if you buy into that theory). This thesis is pretty derivative, but itâs a good summary of the state of the art.
2 Likes
Hereâs another really cool paper on modeling CP and Wâ. Clarke, from Skiba and Clarke, is an author. Modeling isnât perfect, but we humans really are organic machines. You just have to find which model best fits your physiology.
2 Likes
I am going to do the aerotune power test this week. Not sure yet indoor or outdoor and in one or two daysâŠI think I go for the outdoor one day test. Problem is that outdoor my 4min best results are 30-40W higher then indoors and also 20W for the 12min.
But problem is that when I do it outdoors, I can not use those results for when I train indoors. 
Or should I plan to do the test both indoor and outdoor? And compare? Maybe this is also interestingâŠ
Since we started with this in this thread (not sure though) Iâll post it here. However, we may as well start a âGot blocked by Alan Couzensâ live ticker. This time Kolie Moore got expelled from the echo chamber
7 Likes
Kolie getting blocked isnât much of a surprise though since his online persona is quite abrasive.
5 Likes