How much can I increase my FTP?

[strader]

"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, so then generally speaking:
Urikiola "Endurance" = Coggan L1/L2
Urikiola "Intensity" = Coggan L3-L7+
When you use ambiguous terms such as endurance and intensity it can mean a lot of different things to different people. Maybe there's some standardization amongst Euro pros and the physiologists who work with them, but there is not among web forums, club racers (at least in America), and the training literature available to the general public (Cyclist Training bible, Morris, etc). Many on this forum, for instance, train race endurance primarily at Coggan L3/L4. At the other end of the spectrum, Josh Horowitz from PezCycling would probably suggest all endurance training be done at zone 1/zone 2. http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=5392
I've seen people post their winter training plans on web forums which include 15+ hours per week of Friel zone 1.. 15 hours of active recovery. Compare and contrast with say, DaveRyanWyoming.

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.

Um... well, that was kind of my point. The pace I was riding at was squarely in Coggan L2 - the rider drafting me believed that a winter base ride should be at a level of zero perceived effort. I think the point of contention was that my speed had exceeded 30kph. So yeah, I know you can not apply one rider's training zones to another rider. The other rider was slower than me, but not *that* much slower. I was trying to give an example of how people have different ideas of endurance rides. (BTW, he would have though I was crazy if I rode at my normal SST/L3 pace).

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.

As a relative newcomer to cycling myself I would have to disagree (2nd year racing). Figuring out training zones was the easiest part of the whole thing. It's the nebulous concepts such as peaking, tapering, base building, speed skills, strength-endurance training, and my personal favorite, overtraining, that make racing a bike really hard to figure out. I banged my head against the wall for my first year of racing reading other web forums, and the training "Bible". This is the first forum I found where people started making sense... not only that but I found out some guy (Coggan) figured out a way to model the whole base building/tapering/peaking thing. As an engineer the CTL/ATL/TSB concept really spells it all out for me.

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.

Never been a problem for me. The nice thing about a power meter is I get constant feedback from every training ride and every race. If this months L4 interval feels like last month's L3, then great! I'll retest and revise my training zones if necessary. At least then I know my training is working.
Anyhow, thanks for the physiology lesson.

 

[acslater]

I have upgraded to cat 2, but most races aren't that hard for me. Cat 1,2 and pro all usually race together. Crits aren't bad road races are tough.

I think the difference is that your races often push you beyond your limits which stimulates your body to improve. I have to do it on my own. I wish there were races where I had to lie down after it was over...well maybe "wish" is the wrong word. I try to put in attacks as much as I can, but at some point I am just wasting energy and not getting results. I really try to use early season races as training and try to push the pace as much as possible so I can get some good training in.

Thanks for your insight it is really helpful.

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.

 

[acoggan]

some guy (Coggan) figured out a way to model the whole base building/tapering/peaking thing.

I wish I could claim credit for that idea, but all I've done is propose a 'watered down' (and hence significantly more practical) version of Banister's original impulse-response model. Be that as it may, I'm glad that you've found the Performance Manager approach useful.

 

[strader]

I wish I could claim credit for that idea, but all I've done is propose a 'watered down' (and hence significantly more practical) version of Banister's original impulse-response model. Be that as it may, I'm glad that you've found the Performance Manager approach useful.

For what it's worth, I've found the "watered down" version much easier to apply.

 

[swampy1970]

For what it's worth, I've found the "watered down" version much easier to apply.

I found Peter Keen's 4 levels a little easier to live with. These days, and with all due respect to those who have spent many an hour toiling over numbers from endless lab tests, that models with so many levels so close together often means that if you fart whilst sitting up and taking a drink and fate intervenes and sends you crashing into a pothole, then your power goes down whilst your heart rate goes up and you suddenly endup with a FTP and a VO2 reading that divides itself by zero......

 

[kmavm]

I found Peter Keen's 4 levels a little easier to live with. These days, and with all due respect to those who have spent many an hour toiling over numbers from endless lab tests, that models with so many levels so close together often means that if you fart ......

Yes, yes, yes. You've made your little point, ok? If you find people talking in a quantitative and analytical way about cycling so very frustrating, might I suggest you take it to some other venue, where your amazing old-timey insights about the importance of smoking cigarettes to open up the lungs before climbs won't be lost on your audience?

 

[acoggan]

I found Peter Keen's 4 levels a little easier to live with.

Non-sequitor: the only connection between the training levels and the Performance Manager is that both are influenced by the value of functional threshold power.

 

[Steve_B]

if you fart whilst sitting up and taking a drink and fate intervenes and sends you crashing into a pothole, then your power goes down whilst your heart rate goes up and you suddenly endup with a FTP and a VO2 reading that divides itself by zero......

For those that are just starting out training, it is perhaps somewhat understandable for some to be a bit compulsive over details because they want to do things right. After a few years as a "bikegamer", you tend to learn what is important and what is not important and what details need attention and what don't.

I've been at this stuff for over 15 years and I have found that using a power meter and paying attention to training at a proper intensity is one of those details that is important and I feel that it is hard to replicate the same results going by PE/HR/whatever alone. You can improve without it but the results with it are objectively better, especially when you are not new to the sport (thus considered "well trained") and are trying to squeeze the last little bit out of your legs.

You seem to like to **** off things that you don't understand. To mock attention to these sorts of details, such as you repeatedly do, shows quite a bit of ignorance, IMO.

 

[Steve_B]

Okay, so then generally speaking:
Urikiola "Endurance" = Coggan L1/L2
Urikiola "Intensity" = Coggan L3-L7

Question for Urkiola2: Having extablished a basis of understanding (above), what proportion of time were the overtrained riders spending in either area versus the properly trained. Do you have any idea?

 

[Urkiola2]

Question for Urkiola2: Having extablished a basis of understanding (above), what proportion of time were the overtrained riders spending in either area versus the properly trained. Do you have any idea?

1st of all, I would like to make clear that I don´t believe that there are just 2 training zones. I just made a comment about intense and endurance training and maybe some think that I just believe in 2 zones. No, I won´t just get into that obvious argument about what is endurance training or endurance sport and what is an intense sport or intense training.

Concerning the question above, and with 6 zones model (L1-L6) those riders were doing more training at L4-L5 than what they did at L2. That is maybe one day a week L2 and about 3-4 L4-L5, even with 2-3 recovery days. 3-4L4-L5 days/week is hard already for top pros...and it could be even harder to cyclists who work full time.

Cheers

 

[Alex Simmons]

... with all due respect to those who have spent many an hour toiling over numbers from endless lab tests, that models with so many levels so close together often means that if you fart whilst sitting up and taking a drink and fate intervenes and sends you crashing into a pothole, then your power goes down whilst your heart rate goes up and you suddenly endup with a FTP and a VO2 reading that divides itself by zero......

I'm sure we could detect that change with the Chung method

 

[swampy1970]

I'm sure we could detect that change with the Chung method

LOL

.... I'm glad that someone spotted the twisted attempt at humor. Maybe it was an attempt at twisted humor or just humor that's not as twisted as it might be.

If you run analysis software on a PII processor (the first batch that has the math co-processor with the floating point error) does that change the FTP to something higher than it should be. Ficticiously Tailored to Pain?

 

[BtonRider]

If you run analysis software on a PII processor (the first batch that has the math co-processor with the floating point error) does that change the FTP to something higher than it should be. Ficticiously Tailored to Pain?

More to the point, if you can aford a power meter and you're still running a Pentium II, somthing's wrong. Can a Pentium II processor even run the analysis software?