discrepancy between Allen and Coggan?

ccrnnr9 said:

I have been reading/studying the articles on cyclingpeaks.com regarding training with power and have come across something that I have determined to be a discrepancy between an article by Allen and one by Coggan. I was reading over the article "Training Explained" by Allen and he mentions the 5min and 20min tests as those that can be used to determine useful power numbers for an individual. At the end of the description he says: "Based on your 20-minute test, you should have a good idea of your Lactate threshold wattage, and from there you can calculate your power zones using this simple calculator on the web." That calculator then brings up an excel file with 5 fields to fill in: TT wattage, TT HR, Threshold HR, MHR, and RHR.

In a seperate article by Coggan, "Threshold power: what is it, why is it important, and how do I measure it?", Coggan mentions a few different ways of determining threshold power in increasing order of complexity. His fourth method is "by definition the best measure of performance is performance itself, the most direct estimate of your sustainable (threshold) power will be obtained by simply doing a ~1 hour TT."

My question is two-fold: As far as the linked online calculator goes, which power number do I insert into TT wattage, and which HR's do I use for TT HR and Threshold HR? I have always assumed Coggan called for a 1hr test to be done but Allen advocates a 20min test. Secondly, is there a difference in what Allen calls LT wattage/HR and what Coggan refers to as Threshold HR/wattage?

Any answers are appreciated. I searched around but I could not find a topic addressing this issue.
~Nick

P.S. Dr. Coggan I did not mean for this to come off as criticism, but rather just something I need for clarification's sake. I purchased your book but have yet to receive it in the mail...maybe that will clear up a lot of my confusion.

Allen traditionally uses a 20 minute test X .95 to adjust for an estimate of FTP. It may be a misprint or you may missed a word or two.

whoawhoa said:

Allen traditionally uses a 20 minute test X .95 to adjust for an estimate of FTP. It may be a misprint or you may missed a word or two.

Ya maybe its a misprint. I copied and pasted the quotes directly from the website.
~Nick

ccrnnr9 said:

Ya maybe its a misprint. I copied and pasted the quotes directly from the website.
~Nick

I think Andy/Dr Coggan has made it pretty clear before he thinks the 1 hour test is the best predictor of performance because 20 minutes can be weighted a lot by individual's anaerobic capacity, or lack thereof.

ccrnnr9 said:

I have been reading/studying the articles on cyclingpeaks.com regarding training with power and have come across something that I have determined to be a discrepancy between an article by Allen and one by Coggan. I was reading over the article "Training Explained" by Allen and he mentions the 5min and 20min tests as those that can be used to determine useful power numbers for an individual. At the end of the description he says: "Based on your 20-minute test, you should have a good idea of your Lactate threshold wattage, and from there you can calculate your power zones using this simple calculator on the web." That calculator then brings up an excel file with 5 fields to fill in: TT wattage, TT HR, Threshold HR, MHR, and RHR.

Hunter's statement is a true statement. Based on a 20min max power test, one will have a "good idea" of his [functional] threshold wattage (FTP). And it's true that from the FTP estimate can be used to estimate all of the training zones (with the exception of L7). But, as you'll see below, it is an estimate of FTP and not necessarily the best estimate of FTP.

ccrnnr9 said:

In a seperate article by Coggan, "Threshold power: what is it, why is it important, and how do I measure it?", Coggan mentions a few different ways of determining threshold power in increasing order of complexity. His fourth method is "by definition the best measure of performance is performance itself, the most direct estimate of your sustainable (threshold) power will be obtained by simply doing a ~1 hour TT."

Andy's statements are also true, but taken in its entirety it is a much more powerful and useful statement about [functional] threshold power than Hunter's statement. As Andy makes clear, the best and most direct estimate of FTP is a 1 hour max power ride (e.g., TT). But, Andy recognizes that FTP can be estimated and can be estimated with a wide variety of methods. He is simply giving you a menu of choices for estimating FTP. Each estimate has its strengths and its weaknesses. The greatest problem with using one universal benchmark multiplier for extrapolating 60min max power from some other duration max power is that we are not all alike in our power/duration profiles. For example, if I use 0.95 * 20MP to estimate my FTP, I will overestimate my FTP. That's because I have a relatively higher AWC than the hypothetical rider for whom the formula works. For others, the formula might underestimate FTP.

But, you'll see below that none of this matters for your immediate need.

ccrnnr9 said:

My final question is regarding the interpretation of the results for a unique case. In my case, I do not own a power meter but use my 1up and KK trainers and ride according to speed which I then translate into approximate wattage numbers. I cannot see any reason why this would cause complications in training with power except that I do not have the benefit of readouts (for power...I do have an edge 305 so I do have the other info) and it requires me referring back to the speed to power tables for each trainer. For example if my avg speed over 1hour was 18mph, that would translate to ~140watts average. I would then use that calculate my levels...or at least that is how I have been approaching it...is that a sound method?

If I were you, I would forget about attempting to estimate FTP to derive your target power for given intensities/durations. Here's why. I don't think the power/speed curve of either trainer is sufficiently predictable through a wide speed range to do it this way. But, here's what you can do. For a given duration (e.g., 20min L4 efforts), find by trial and error your max sustainable speed. Then, for your routine high-intensity efforts at this duration, ride at your max speed * 0.95. It's not a big deal if you're a little too high or low because the method is self-correcting. Let's say you do the standard 2x20 @ 100%FTP with 5min recovery durations using this method. If you find that you can't complete the set, then back off your speed a couple of tenths. Likewise, if you find that you have a lot left at the end of the set, then increase speed a couple of tenths. You will quickly find the speed that you can sustain throughout the set but only with a lot of focus.

RapDaddyo said:

If I were you, I would forget about attempting to estimate FTP to derive your target power for given intensities/durations. Here's why. I don't think the power/speed curve of either trainer is sufficiently predictable through a wide speed range to do it this way. But, here's what you can do. For a given duration (e.g., 20min L4 efforts), find by trial and error your max sustainable speed. Then, for your routine high-intensity efforts at this duration, ride at your max speed * 0.95. It's not a big deal if you're a little too high or low because the method is self-correcting. Let's say you do the standard 2x20 @ 100%FTP with 5min recovery durations using this method. If you find that you can't complete the set, then back off your speed a couple of tenths. Likewise, if you find that you have a lot left at the end of the set, then increase speed a couple of tenths. You will quickly find the speed that you can sustain throughout the set but only with a lot of focus.

Thanks RDO! I can always depend on you to set me straight 😄 . I guess I will just have to find out what that level is for me right now for each interval. I guess that sense this method does such a good job at self-correcting (assuming I concentrate) that I should be able to apply a lot of the popular power workouts to my trainer workouts by simply equating them to speed (and not even referencing the speed-watts conversion table). If this is so, I just need to figure out what levels I should be working at this time of year given my fitness.
~Nick

ccrnnr9 said:

I guess I will just have to find out what that level is for me right now for each interval. ... I should be able to apply a lot of the popular power workouts to my trainer workouts by simply equating them to speed (and not even referencing the speed-watts conversion table). If this is so, I just need to figure out what levels I should be working at this time of year given my fitness.

Bingo!😄

My understanding of Allen's method is that there is a 5 minute all out interval before the 20 min interval from which you estimate your FTP - the 5 min interval should eliminate some of the AWC before the 20 minute session.

Bruce Diesel said:

My understanding of Allen's method is that there is a 5 minute all out interval before the 20 min interval from which you estimate your FTP - the 5 min interval should eliminate some of the AWC before the 20 minute session.

There are a number of intervals before the 20 minute session.

1x5 minute
2x1 minute
3x20 second
Finally, 1x20

All of these max efforts, with recovery time. I did this test once back in November, and I know I was pretty spent by the time the 20 minute session came with max efforts for the others.

Regardless, I'd go with RDO's suggestion and skip trying to do crazy math while on the bike. Provided you keep your tire inflation pretty much the same every time you are on a given trainer, you can pretty much adjust power workouts over to speed workouts provided your trainer isn't getting a lot harder or a lot easier as the workout progresses.

ccrnnr9 said:

is there a difference in what Allen calls LT wattage/HR and what Coggan refers to as Threshold HR/wattage?

As others have indicated, the answer is 'no', only in how we prefer to estimate it. Specifically, Hunter likes to have people do a 20 min TT (after a 5 min "blow out" effort) and then multiply the value by 0.95, whereas my argument is that if you are going to bother with formal testing, there are more precise approaches.

Roadie_scum said:

I think Andy/Dr Coggan has made it pretty clear before he thinks the 1 hour test is the best

40 km, actually, the reasoning being that 1) this is a standard distance for TTs, and 2) the power-duration relationship is sufficiently flat out around 1 h that even 10 min either way has little impact on the power that you can sustain.

Ah, the 55 minute test then. ;-)

😕 On the KK 18mph = 209.18 watts kurtkinetic.comcalibration chart.phpOpen ↗

ccrnnr9 said:

For example if my avg speed over 1hour was 18mph, that would translate to ~140watts average.

wiredued said:

😕 On the KK 18mph = 209.18 watts kurtkinetic.comcalibration chart.phpOpen ↗

My number came from the chart on 1up's website regarding the 1up trainer, not the KK trainer.
~Nick

It also may be noted that I am skeptical as to the accuracy of those charts and graphs as I have seen 3 different charts and each of them give substantially different wattage numbers for the speed on the KK. I hope the one you link to is correct because that would give me the highest readout 🙂 .

acoggan said:

40 km, actually, the reasoning being that 1) this is a standard distance for TTs, and 2) the power-duration relationship is sufficiently flat out around 1 h that even 10 min either way has little impact on the power that you can sustain.

Well can I say then that 40km and 1 hour form an equivalence class for this purpose and be right too? :p