I usually find a 10 as a good guideline for fitness & FTP, or a 25.
Some good training weeks there, rest week coming up for me as well, just to coincide with a few warm days that would be much nicer for cycling.
Another useful week for me;
3 swims but only about 5K ish, doing a double swim day helps bump up a longer swim day.
3* bike - 180K
3* run - 34K
Biggest week of running for a while, still creaking a bit though and a tight glute\hammy didnāt help, but has eased a lot.
Was in the lakes at the weekend so the long bike of 107K and run 14K were a bit undulating, would have been further on the flat. Did a few 20 minute blocks of ~260W according to Garmin.
Also managed a 5 mile PB on Wednesday on a slow course and minging night, not getting too carried away though as it was still slower than my half PB! But, fairly pleased though given my lack of recent running. Also got a Ā£15 voucher for an age group prize
Got a 47M lumpy TT on Sunday and was thinking of doing a 10 on Thursday if Iām back from Manchester on time. The TT bike has been sighted and Iām about to install the Etap on it
People donāt follow the ramp test accurately, as they want a massive number to post to Strava.
You can put power down, then take a micro-recovery break, then go again for the next ramp.
And, like Zwift weight, people are going to stand up to get that FTP number higher for their Strava kudos.
The Ramp Test is garbage, in my opinion. Iāve tried it and it sucks.
The British Cycling FTP test, thatās the be all and end all of proper tests.
I can never get close to my FTP on the road, mainly because I would rather not get hit by a car whilst weaving all over the road.
I did a sprint tri, with 20km bike - Both Garmin and TP reported a new FTPā¦ strangely it wasnt the same, with Garmin reporting 5W lower, even though it was all recorded through the same Garmin unit and power meter
Nothing tests FTP except for a 1hr all out effort. How many of them have you done?! Every ātestā is just a mechanism to approximate FTP without having to do the full thing.
It annoys me when people make such grandiose statements that they then caveat with āin my opinionā. Itās not garbage. As Iāve said, tens of thousands of trainerroad users have reported it is a good approximation. As good as the 20min test, and less destroying for the rest of your training. Any minor inaccuracy that might come from it is worth the upside of not being as ruined afterwards.
I tried it, it told me my FTP was massively different to what it previously was.
It was a wasted session, as I knew the result was squiffy.
I completely understand the qualitative analysis that has gone into them producing it, however, itās still an approximation (as is the CP20 test, only an hour at threshold will tell you your FTP, and that bloody hurts, but it doesnāt ruin your training, as much, if you plan it into a recovery week)
Weāve been talking about the difference between 78% and 80% of FTP elsewhere, if the difference in the tests is āa few wattsā, then that could be the difference between managing to shuffle run off the bike, or facing a very long walk.
We are all training our endurance systems, not our 2-10 minute maximum power.
Thatās where RPE comes in. Ultimately, any āFTP testā is only as good as the conditions during which you took it. Were you optimally rested, etc. Race day can also add an extra edge in terms of the bodies responses and ability to suffer. If you did your FTP test 4 weeks out from a race, whatās happened to the number in those final 4 weeks?
Yes, weāre talking about a few percent here and there, but given power meters are generally only +/- 1-2%, then even that can be off by more than a āfew wattsā.
Thatās why RPE still has to factor. And why, having done a 100TT at 73% of FTP, and that being my target for Copenhagen last year, based on how it was feeling on the day I ditched that goal, did 67%, and still went sub10 because I ran well
Please use the correct TriTalk Grammar here
If you can eat and drink, youāre not going hard enough! (Or, at least thatās what got me banned from IMJ)
Great ride in to work today, now in my taper, so keeping it all lower intensity. Despite being a reasonably hilly ride, with 330m elevation, I focused on keeping my AP and NP close together (within 5%), with IF of 74%, ride was 96% in HR zone 1 and 2
In theory 74% IF should be around my IM pace, the ride felt really easy, almost soft pedaling, but overall pace was very respectable. And I think that this is the point / value of using a PM. If you know what a 74%, 78% and 82% ride feels like, then it should really help set the pace on your race and ensures you have the legs for a great run.
Each of us is different, Stenard had a great IM on 67% IF, I know that if I get the taper right, then I am good with 74-76% on an IM and 78-80% on a HIM. I have a feeling that my FTP is higher than set on my Garmin, while Stenardās may be correct, so my IF is not necessarily comparable, however, I am not going to play with the numbers as I know what works for me
Peak; Bad luck, gutted. When some shit goes down that is bad on your behalf, peakfor you. When something bad happens to a mate , peak for them. Effectively meaning bad luck / gutted to fuck. English street slang.
effectively a replacement for any negative adjective ever. could mean bad, ugly, smelly, disgusting, any of these words could be replaced by āpeakā
that would be much nicer for cycling.
