How much can I increase my FTP?

[MIHECH]

Tyson,

It isn't working out ONLY at a lower intensity - the plan that most top cyclists follow is one of building a huge engine through massive amounts of lower intensity endurance training in the off season - followed by a combination of quality intervals, hard racing and rest, to fine tune the engine and add the turbo, if you like. This engine gets run down completely, then rested, recharged and exhausted all over again over the years to create an efficient and powerful machine.

Ask any pro how they train and they'll tell you they ride hours every day, a few sprints once in a while to avoid losing explosive power, rest before races and use "B" races as training, then push themselves to the max in the "A" races. Racing at top level inflicts such a deep and powerful exertion on riders that through regular competition and appropriate resting they actually stress their bodies much harder than through interval training. This gives them those massive FTP numbers.

There are very few pros doing 2 x 20's, but these guys have the highest FTP.

I'm not knocking power training - If I worked full time or had family commitments it's what I'd do - But I am sure that riding fast needs a big engine - and you get a big engine from riding lots, and racing.

This is exactly what I wanted to write. Pros of course have a different regimen, because they have what most of us dont have-TIME (job, study, etc.). With racing the pros in my opinion do much much more of intense work than we can imagine, and as BullGod said the combination of the big aerobic engine+intense racing gives them the huge numbers. So maybe the "base" period is not just for rebuilding the aerobic engine, but also to get a bit more "rest" (no so stressful rides), before the whole "torture" starts all over again.

 

[acoggan]

I agree with you as well. I believe that the concepts you have developed are just brilliant!

Thank you! However, I don't think the idea of a 'sweet spot' is something that I can claim to have originated...heck, I'm not even the one who gave it that name (Frank Overton gets credit for that). All I can really claim to have done in this arena is to express a commonly-held belief* in an easy-to-understand graphic form. Sometimes, though, that's all it takes to turn the lightbulb on...

*Think Lydiard, East Germany's swimmers, etc.

 

[acoggan]

Sorry Andy, but this statement begs a lot of questions.

1) What does 'on average' mean? Does it mean that there are exceptions?

2) What does a large volume mean?

3) What does 'moderately intense training' mean'?

4) What does 'much smaller volume' mean?

5) What does 'very intense' mean?

To my way of thinking, the meanings are very wide and one is likely to apply their own interpretation to each phrase.

Let me try putting it this way: given unlimited time to train (and to recover from training), I think that most people would improve the greatest by training as hard as they can for 15 h/wk (on average) than by training as hard as they can for 7.5 h/wk (where the average intensity would obviously be higher) or by training as hard as they can for 22.5 h/wk (where the average intensity would obviously be lower).

 

[daveryanwyoming]

..I have been warning many cyclists about the "danger" of too much FTP and "power" training, ...

This statement reminds me that people tend to associate a training philosophy with the metrics used to gauge that training. The term "Power Training" doesn't imply any particular approach to training, you can ride with a PM, analyze the data, pace your efforts with the PM and still adhere to an LSD style approach, a HIT approach or an SST/Lydiard based approach. They're all "power training" but people tend to lump all athletes training with power into one camp or another.

IMHO the vast majority of the members of this site will receive the greatest benefit training with a SST/Lydiard approach but among other things that assumes they have work, school and or family obligations and that they don't make their living riding a bicycle. It also assumes they're not going to compete in several events weekly for five or six straight months or ride grand tours. IOW, Bullgod is an exception to the rule around here, a full time elite rider competing at the national level. I don't know or deal with many folks in his position, I'm sure it's just the opposite for you working with full time professional cyclists. I suspect that has as much as anything to do with our chosen training philosophies and what we think works.

Anyway, I'm sure you get the point but for others following this thread, "power training" doesn't necessarily imply anything. It's what you do with that PM data and what training philosophy you've adopted that makes the difference.

-Dave

 

[Ade Merckx]

What was concerning was the abnormal liver function I developed when doing L4/5/6 intervals every day on the trainer a couple of years ago ;-)

I'm happy to except what you say; but excessive amounts of any training are surely not a good idea especially if physiologically you're not up to it.

Someone like myself with only 8 hours on average training time can definitly get away with majority L4 workouts. However if I had 16-20 hours to train in I'd definitly do things differently (more sweetspotish stuff). I just think its too easy to make sweeping statements such as L4/L5 stuff made me overtrained/unwell/sore etc without giving context or background.

 

[Urkiola2]

Let me try putting it this way: given unlimited time to train (and to recover from training), I think that most people would improve the greatest by training as hard as they can for 15 h/wk (on average) than by training as hard as they can for 7.5 h/wk (where the average intensity would obviously be higher) or by training as hard as they can for 22.5 h/wk (where the average intensity would obviously be lower).

Good point. I would also add to train as hard as you can in a single session for 7h...which in a way would be a FTP for 7h....which will elicit an intensity much lower than 2x20min FTP.

 

[Urkiola2]

This statement reminds me that people tend to associate a training philosophy with the metrics used to gauge that training. The term "Power Training" doesn't imply any particular approach to training, you can ride with a PM, analyze the data, pace your efforts with the PM and still adhere to an LSD style approach, a HIT approach or an SST/Lydiard based approach. They're all "power training" but people tend to lump all athletes training with power into one camp or another.

IMHO the vast majority of the members of this site will receive the greatest benefit training with a SST/Lydiard approach but among other things that assumes they have work, school and or family obligations and that they don't make their living riding a bicycle. It also assumes they're not going to compete in several events weekly for five or six straight months or ride grand tours. IOW, Bullgod is an exception to the rule around here, a full time elite rider competing at the national level. I don't know or deal with many folks in his position, I'm sure it's just the opposite for you working with full time professional cyclists. I suspect that has as much as anything to do with our chosen training philosophies and what we think works.

Anyway, I'm sure you get the point but for others following this thread, "power training" doesn't necessarily imply anything. It's what you do with that PM data and what training philosophy you've adopted that makes the difference.

-Dave

What I mean by "power training" is to build your training around your power. That is to me, for example to set up training zones in watts. Analyzing watts, HR, average Speed..etc is fantastic for your training and feedback on top of fun, but it is getting data from your training and that does not represent you are building your training around W. I think you know what I mean.

On the other hand I have also worked with what we call here in Europe "cyclotourists" who work full time and train whenever they can. Regardless of the limited amoung of time, I see that cyclists who combine "endurance" rides and "intense"/"intervals" rides do better not only in Races or "Gran Fondos" but also in the lab in terms of physiological parameters compared to those who pretty much only do "intensity" training. On top of that the index of ovetraining is higher in the latter group.

Once I went to the US and worked with a group of recreational riders (17) who work full time and train and compete. Due to lack of time they trained lots of intensity and I was amazed of how overtrained they were. Their Hgb and Hct leves were on the floor...in 15 of the 17 cyclists. I gave them a few tips and changed a few things in their trainings and 3 months later when I returned only 5 still had with low Hct and Hgb levels. On top of that physiologically they were superior. They could do more watts and building significant less blood lactate.

What I mean by these empirical observations over the years is that whatever works with the pros, it also works with everyone else. To a lesser extent than the pros but it still works.

Cheers

 

[daveryanwyoming]

...What I mean by these empirical observations over the years is that whatever works with the pros, it also works with everyone else. To a lesser extent than the pros but it still works....

That's where our observations differ. I've known a lot of amateur racers over the years that have tried to emulate the pros in terms of big mileage - low intensity base training. Heck I was coached that way for years. It just didn't work around a full time work schedule. I got real good at going real slow for lots of hours. No problem completing 200km rides just big problems staying with the fast guys in races. Working Lydiard style SST as base has changed that dramatically, yep that's totally anectdotal but it'll take a lot ot convince me that what's best for full time pros is best for folks with full time jobs.

-Dave

 

[Sillyoldtwit]

Having read all the arguments and counter arguments, I think I shall just plug on with the way I've trained to-date. In short, it suits me but might not suit others and I'm happy with the results.
Geez, at my age what have I got to worry about? I guarantee on June 8 in the mountains of Fukui Prefecture, there will be at least 200 of the 300 riders behind me and 99% of them a lot younger. Tyson

 

[coneofsilence]

Having read all the arguments and counter arguments, I think I shall just plug on with the way I've trained to-date. In short, it suits me but might not suit others and I'm happy with the results.
Geez, at my age what have I got to worry about? I guarantee on June 8 in the mountains of Fukui Prefecture, there will be at least 200 of the 300 riders behind me and 99% of them a lot younger. Tyson

Why not make it 299 riders behind you???? That would show em.

 

[acslater]

IMO doing something simply because the pros do it is a formula for failure. The pros ride hours because their races are hours. My longest race is about 75 miles. Also most of my races rarely give me much of a workout. My intesity factor after most races is .7 to .8. Not much and I usually feel pretty fresh after. I have to push myself during the week or I won't make gains.

The pros race hard...really hard...and they have to rest in between. That is where there long endurance rides come in.

I tried the long endurance rides in the off season. You know what when it came time for early season races I got dropped. This is the first year I did LT and sub-LT (sweet spot) and I am off the front...well sometimes. The difference is huge and the guys around me are asking what I did different. I have even been asked if I am "on" something. I take it as a complement. I am a big believer in doing LT intervals on consecutive days then resting for a few. I think it works.

Tyson,

It isn't working out ONLY at a lower intensity - the plan that most top cyclists follow is one of building a huge engine through massive amounts of lower intensity endurance training in the off season - followed by a combination of quality intervals, hard racing and rest, to fine tune the engine and add the turbo, if you like. This engine gets run down completely, then rested, recharged and exhausted all over again over the years to create an efficient and powerful machine.

Ask any pro how they train and they'll tell you they ride hours every day, a few sprints once in a while to avoid losing explosive power, rest before races and use "B" races as training, then push themselves to the max in the "A" races. Racing at top level inflicts such a deep and powerful exertion on riders that through regular competition and appropriate resting they actually stress their bodies much harder than through interval training. This gives them those massive FTP numbers.

There are very few pros doing 2 x 20's, but these guys have the highest FTP.

I'm not knocking power training - If I worked full time or had family commitments it's what I'd do - But I am sure that riding fast needs a big engine - and you get a big engine from riding lots, and racing.

 

[Sillyoldtwit]

Why not make it 299 riders behind you???? That would show em.

Lol I guess I'm playing it safe by saying 200 - we'll see.

 

[BullGod]

Also most of my races rarely give me much of a workout. My intesity factor after most races is .7 to .8. Not much and I usually feel pretty fresh after. I have to push myself during the week or I won't make gains.
I am a big believer in doing LT intervals on consecutive days then resting for a few. I think it works.

My races destroy me. It hurts to breathe afterwards, and it's not uncommon for me to lie on the ground afterwards until someone brings me a coke ;-). Have you thought about upgrading?

I know a few pros who use power meters - you know what they use them for? - To make sure they don't ride too hard in training - and to analyze form in racing.

that's not to say elite riders never do intervals - just less often, and always with an eye on the next race.

 

[wiredued]

Are you saying training at your 7 hour pace will improve your cycling as well as training at higher intensities? When I trained at that pace I was around 211 watts FTP for two years, my sprint was about 640 watts and my average speed for a 7 hour ride stayed at about 13mph it was getting kind of boring.

Good point. I would also add to train as hard as you can in a single session for 7h...which in a way would be a FTP for 7h....which will elicit an intensity much lower than 2x20min FTP.

 

[rmur17]

What I mean by "power training" is to build your training around your power. That is to me, for example to set up training zones in watts. Analyzing watts, HR, average Speed..etc is fantastic for your training and feedback on top of fun, but it is getting data from your training and that does not represent you are building your training around W. I think you know what I mean.

On the other hand I have also worked with what we call here in Europe "cyclotourists" who work full time and train whenever they can. Regardless of the limited amoung of time, I see that cyclists who combine "endurance" rides and "intense"/"intervals" rides do better not only in Races or "Gran Fondos" but also in the lab in terms of physiological parameters compared to those who pretty much only do "intensity" training. On top of that the index of ovetraining is higher in the latter group.

Once I went to the US and worked with a group of recreational riders (17) who work full time and train and compete. Due to lack of time they trained lots of intensity and I was amazed of how overtrained they were. Their Hgb and Hct leves were on the floor...in 15 of the 17 cyclists. I gave them a few tips and changed a few things in their trainings and 3 months later when I returned only 5 still had with low Hct and Hgb levels. On top of that physiologically they were superior. They could do more watts and building significant less blood lactate.

What I mean by these empirical observations over the years is that whatever works with the pros, it also works with everyone else. To a lesser extent than the pros but it still works.

Cheers

thanks for the observations and comments. it is interesting to hear another informed point of view. Re the bolded part above, would you mind elaborating on that for us? I have a suspicion that some (or perhaps many) of us don't train much differently from what you espouse. But I'm not sure where you draw the intensity/endurance line. Could you clarify?

 

[strader]

thanks for the observations and comments. it is interesting to hear another informed point of view. Re the bolded part above, would you mind elaborating on that for us? I have a suspicion that some (or perhaps many) of us don't train much differently from what you espouse. But I'm not sure where you draw the intensity/endurance line. Could you clarify?

Urikola's aversion to setting training zones based on power makes it so we have no idea what he's talking about when referring to "endurance", or "intensity" training. With my FTP at ~285 I consider an "endurance" ride in the 200~250 watt range. I know other people that would call that an "intense" ride, and my endurance rides should be <150 watts. This January I was pulling on a group ride at 150-200 watts and had the rider drafting me tell me I was going too hard for that early in the year. Group rides which most recreational/competetive cyclists participate in are impossible to categorize one way or the other. Even on small chainring "endurance" rides I participated in over the winter there would be several places where the group would go over 300watts in headwinds and over slight grades (and I'm the only one in the group with an FTP close to 300 watts). Maybe he's encouraging us to ride strictly by RPE, but that alone can be pretty deceptive. After a good warm up 400 watts feels pretty easy for me - for about a minute. On rides below FTP I reference my power tap to limit my pace more often that I use it to remind me to keep my pace up.

 

[Urkiola2]

thanks for the observations and comments. it is interesting to hear another informed point of view. Re the bolded part above, would you mind elaborating on that for us? I have a suspicion that some (or perhaps many) of us don't train much differently from what you espouse. But I'm not sure where you draw the intensity/endurance line. Could you clarify?

"Endurance" is a typical and wide spread term used since the beginning of times of cycling (at least here in Europe) to describe "long training rides". That is at least more than I would say 3h. In terms of fuel utilization, "endurance" woud correspond to that exercise intensity where fat is used the most and for a long period of time. "intensity" term is used to describe "short, hard-training" and would correspond to the exercise intensity where the predominant energy fuel is CHO, or at least an intenisty where CHO utilization is higher than fat.

 

[Urkiola2]

Urikola's aversion to setting training zones based on power makes it so we have no idea what he's talking about when referring to "endurance", or "intensity" training. With my FTP at ~285 I consider an "endurance" ride in the 200~250 watt range. I know other people that would call that an "intense" ride, and my endurance rides should be <150 watts. This January I was pulling on a group ride at 150-200 watts and had the rider drafting me tell me I was going too hard for that early in the year. Group rides which most recreational/competetive cyclists participate in are impossible to categorize one way or the other. Even on small chainring "endurance" rides I participated in over the winter there would be several places where the group would go over 300watts in headwinds and over slight grades (and I'm the only one in the group with an FTP close to 300 watts). Maybe he's encouraging us to ride strictly by RPE, but that alone can be pretty deceptive. After a good warm up 400 watts feels pretty easy for me - for about a minute. On rides below FTP I reference my power tap to limit my pace more often that I use it to remind me to keep my pace up.

With all due my respect, I think you have your training zones concept a bit screwed up. I believe that you undermind the knowledge of people on this forum. I don´t think you can make assumptions based on what a cyclist drafting you was telling you about what others told him.....

You cannot assume that a given wattage output would represent a given training intensity. For some 230W would be high intensity for others would be very easy intensity. For you could be an easy intensity like for pros would be like watching tv on the couch but for others 230W could be a high intensity. Our ability to exercise depends on the conversion of Chemical energy to Mechanical energy in the muscle. That is, the power output during exercise determines the demand of ATP, which will ultimately depend on metabolic fuels, mainly Fat and CHO. The rate of ATP production and utilization depends on many different factors and "players" like cardiovascular and respiratory system, neural and endocrine systems and adaptations and especially, muscle respiratory capacity, mitochondrial density and oxidative enzimes as well as other muscle adaptations like isoformic changes in LDH, increase in MCT´s (MCT1 and MCT4 mainly) and other adaptations I may forget and others yet to be discovered. So, the challenge is to put all this together and explain it in easy-to-understand and apply terms so that we all can use them. The terms "endurance" and "intensity" are very vague, I know, as many other concepts described on this forums but for the most part are easy-to-undesrtand for most people. Althoug I don´t use those terms much I rather use the term "endurance" than "aerobic" and "intensity" than "anaerobic". Aerobic and anaerobic terms are still confusely used. Establishing power training zones could lead to confusions since a given PO does not elicit the same metabolic responses overtime, and therefore does not decribe a same "metabolic and physiological" state.



Cheers

 

[rmur17]

"Endurance" is a typical and wide spread term used since the beginning of times of cycling (at least here in Europe) to describe "long training rides". That is at least more than I would say 3h. In terms of fuel utilization, "endurance" woud correspond to that exercise intensity where fat is used the most and for a long period of time. "intensity" term is used to describe "short, hard-training" and would correspond to the exercise intensity where the predominant energy fuel is CHO, or at least an intenisty where CHO utilization is higher than fat.

okay I think I'd use the term "endurance" the same as you. But with all due respect to your training and experience, I believe there's a large gap between "endurance training" and "short, hard training". And that's pretty much Coggan levels 3 and 4: tempo and threshold

I honestly don't rate anything up to 1-hr power (FTP) as high intensity. Honestly, is an hour effort *that* intense? Borg 4 maybe 5 out of 10??

Once you get into L5: Vo2max power level and above, I'd call that "intense" and would agree that it's very hard to simply get in enough volume at those power levels.

 

[Urkiola2]

okay I think I'd use the term "endurance" the same as you. But with all due respect to your training and experience, I believe there's a large gap between "endurance training" and "short, hard training". And that's pretty much Coggan levels 3 and 4: tempo and threshold

I honestly don't rate anything up to 1-hr power (FTP) as high intensity. Honestly, is an hour effort *that* intense? Borg 4 maybe 5 out of 10??

Once you get into L5: Vo2max power level and above, I'd call that "intense" and would agree that it's very hard to simply get in enough volume at those power levels.

Of course!. I agree with you. I did not even mention L3-L4 since was just talking about differences between "Endurance" and "intensity" not defining levels.