RPE -> %FTP Equivalent?

Take a look at the power level to RPE guidelines in the table on this page: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-training-levels,-by-andrew-coggan.aspx

FWIW, it seems like you're working this backwards. FIrst I'd take training advice from Bicycling Magazine with a very large grain of salt, they've been rehashing the same editorial content for decades and have dispensed some notoriously bad nutrition and training advice over the years. For the 30+ years I've been cycling I've seen them respin the same dated advice year after year after year till it's become a bit of a running joke. Not to say they don't get some new writers and new viewpoints occasionally but they wouldn't be my go to source for training advice as they're primarily in the business of selling advertising and will spin whatever content they need to get that first job done.

But they've clearly written an RPE centric piece to speak to the vast number of cyclists that don't have better ways to measure intensity. Nothing wrong with RPE, but you already have a power meter. Think in terms of what energy systems you're trying to target with specific workouts and what fitness adaptations each workout is intended to bring. Then use power training intensities and typical durations to craft workouts that target those adaptatons. The same chart I linked helps provide the link between intensities, durations, and targeted adaptations. I'd go straight to the goals and skip the step of back mapping power to RPE.

Either that or I'd follow the article as written, collect the power data for analysis but not use it to govern your riding intensity. IOW, use the data descriptively post ride to understand what you did and what systems were targeted by doing the workouts as described instead of mapping the article into power terms and riding prescriptively to the remapped RPE power levels.

Lot's of ways to skin this cat,

-Dave

Thanks Dave. The article was written by coach Chris Carmichael (Lance's coach), so I assumed he knew his stuff. His midweek block looks reasonable:

Tuesday: Power Intervals boost VO2 max, the rate at which your muscles convert oxygen into energy.
INTERVAL: Three sets of four one-minute bursts, at an intensity of 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.
RECOVERY: One minute between efforts; four minutes between sets
ADVANCED OPTION: Two sets of seven

Wednesday: Threshold Ladders will help you ride easier at higher intensities. INTERVAL: Three nine-minute efforts, consisting of: one minute Power Interval (see above); three minutes at an intensity of 9; five minutes at an intensity of 8.
RECOVERY: Five minutes
ADVANCED OPTION: Three 12-minute efforts (spend an extra minute at each intensity)

Thursday: Steady State Intervals are performed at or slightly below your lactate threshold pace (the highest speed you can hold during a 30-minute time trial).
INTERVAL: Three 10-minute efforts (intensity 8 to 10)
RECOVERY: 5 minutes
ADVANCED OPTION: Three 12-minute intervals

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Richard L [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Thanks Dave. The article was written by coach Chris Carmichael (Lance's coach), so I assumed he knew his stuff. His midweek block looks reasonable:
....

Well he certainly knows how to market his wares and he knows his way around trademark and copyright laws...

Not saying the advice is necessarily bad but you've got to consider the target audience of a Bicycling article. Think riders in their first couple of years on the bike, most without power meters, this is repeatedly demonstrated by the annual articles on training for your first century or basic nutrition for cycling. Read the rag for more than a season or two and it's all reruns and latest equipment reviews. I actually think they do a good job of getting folks started but it's easy to outgrow that magazine and that's fine considering their business model.

So start by considering who he wrote that article for, then consider his other published work some of which makes extensive use of measured power data.

No doubt just doing the workouts is the key, not the numbers they produce. After all the real 'data' is stored in your legs, heart and lungs not the meter. But backing out power data from RPE guidelines seems a bit backwards.

-Dave

Not to ignore your question but a very good roadie oriented cycling rag that has good monthly power training advice is ROAD. A little pricey but you get what you pay for. It's also got some spectacular race photography.

[IMG]cyclingforums.com400Open ↗[/IMG]

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Richard L [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I have always trained with power and have never trained using RPE alone, so I don't have a good grasp on intensity levels. I'm looking at the "Going Back to Back" training blocks from Bicycling Magazine: bicycling.comgo back backOpen ↗

In this article, the author refers to intensity 8 to 10, three minutes at an intensity of 9, five minutes at an intensity of 8, etc...

What %FTP does an intensity of 8 correspond to, 110%? Intensity of 9 = 120% FTP, and Intensity of 10 = 140% FTP?

It depends....

... and therein lies the 'problem' with RPE. If you're fresh and well trained then you can probably get the respective zones fairly well but include tiredness, heat, cold, mild sickness etc etc and RPE can swing wildly.