unctional Threshold Power' is a term coined by a smart guy named Andy Coggan, Ph.D. Commonly abbreviated as "FTP," it is basically
while pedaling a bike. Yes, it hurts.
It appears that many coaches like to estimate an athlete's FTP with various protocols and/or calculations (e.g., 2 x 20-minute time trials x .95 or some such nonsense, etc). They claim that an estimate is good enough in finding out what they need to find out---that good enough is good enough. But I say if you're going to half-ass it (no matter what "it" is), you might as well expect half-ass results.
Full ass it! I've always figured that if you've got the fortitude to enter an Ironman, you best have the fortitude to do the full FTP and not just an abbreviated estimate.
Anyway, the primary reason these half-ass types claim an estimate is good enough is due to one inalienable truth: because doing an all-out effort for an hour hurts like a mofo. I liken it to sticking a six-inch replica of the Empire State Building up your…left nostril. OK, not really, but hurt it does (fortunately it elicits far more benefit than my pitiable pain example). This hurt must be real and not an approximation of pain; the whole meaning behind a "functional" "threshold" power test is to see what power you can sustain for an hour---an hour of power, regardless of your pain tolerance or lack thereof, you wimpy coaches and athletes.
(Incidentally, the reason I've encircled "functional" by quotation marks is simply because there's only as much
function in one hour as you put into it. Is it a "functional" test for someone who hopes to time-trial for five hours, then run a marathon afterward? It can be. But just the same, methinks too many triathletes place too much stock in it. For example, what exactly is the significance behind an hour? Why not an hour ten? Or fifty-one minutes? The test's function---and functionality---is whatever we choose it to be.)
Moreover, since the human body knows no spot-on thresholds, the term "threshold" is also somewhat moot. There's considerable day-to-day variability in threshold power. (Yes, I've tested it...talk about hurt!) But the truth of the matter is that even a fluctuating threshold like your hour of power remains better than knowing no threshold at all. But don't worry: I'm not sitting here on the porcelain waste management system to sell you on power meters or the "need" for them, no. I'm here to wipe. Hold on.
Okay, excursus aside, all this talk came to be because about a week back I had
Angela test her FTP. She rode one hour on the nose (
it seemed a reasonable enough duration, arbitrary as though it may be) and on the nose of her saddle at 245 watts throughout. This is her current UHOP---Utmost Hour of Power (a better name, I think, than 'FTP', which really ought to be called UHOP or "maximal steady-state power")---and a very impressive one at that, particularly for someone weighing in at a buck fifteen.
Interestingly (at least to she and I), she only averaged a heart rate of 161, which is about 16-17 beats-per-minute lower than what it could have been (given the duration) and what we've witnessed in past UHOP tests. But of course heart rate is often quite variable from one occasion to another, even at constant pace or power outputs. (This does NOT make it a meaningless metric, however, since
everything that affects heart rate affects YOU and ergo your performance, as you are what generates power or pace or weird thoughts, amongst many other "things.")
Her average cadence was 86, which I felt was too low given the power output and in light of the fact that we've recently moved her down to crank-arms 5mm shorter than what she had been riding. (More about this, possibly, in a future blog. Basically, we've seen some noteworthy power
increases with shorter cranks, let alone the more obvious aerodynamic advantages of preserving the same hip angles with a lowered front end; I strongly urge you to read
Dan Empfield's stuff on this.) So…
1) As workload increases, so too should cadence (remember: power is cadence x force upon the pedals). So, when Chrissie Wellington speaks of making the 2012 Olympics for the cycling time-trial, she'd best understand this, or ask for a special rear cassette to be made so she can grind at 70RPM in her 56 x 9.
2) As cranks get shorter, cadence is
generally faster (though this depends entirely upon the athlete's brain and the speed at which the force applied).
Now, as coach, it's my role to set up subsequent training that allows her to increase this UHOP or "functional threshold" and everything around it ("everything around it" being the operative phrase).
By and large, FTP proponents believe that a high FTP equates to a high level of fitness at all intensities around it, and I do too.
To an extent.
You see, if daily training volume on the bike rarely exceeds one hour it is still possible that the athlete can possess a high FTP, even though said athlete probably lacks enough endurance to ride well for four or five hours. (Presently, I'm living proof of this.) We call this the Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand(s), or "SAID," he said.
So it's important to understand that an hour of power is just that: a measurement of what you can do over that semi-arbitrary period of time. This is why estimates of FTP can only be considered approximations, and why FTP cannot accurately calculate power over, say, four or five hours. There are differences that occur over five-hour efforts than there are during one-hour efforts, and the length of time, besides being the obvious one, is not the only one. Think energy systems; think concentration (which is an important part of output the longer you go); think pacing (which is an important part of output no matter how long you go); think fueling (which is obviously an important part of pacing long durations).
Therefore, to aim for a specific percentage of FTP while doing an Ironman ride is to miss the point entirely. Why not just test your intended ride time power? (Here's why: because it's frickin' hard; at least that's what so many triathletes and coaches claim.
But so what? So too is an Ironman, last time I checked. Toughen up, girlymen! Find some fortitude, dude.)
The end point is that an increased FTP proves fitness gains (though it could possible prove lots of weight gain), but those fitness gains do not entirely relate to much other than riding all-out for an hour or so. Still, it's worth testing and worth seeing. Especially when the triathlete has put in some serious volume (i.e., miles) to secure those gains. Then, not only will his or her UHOP be hopping along nicely, but so too will their longer, more "functional" efforts.
The triathlon season kicked off yesterday in fine fashion, at the Ironman California 70.32754. Moreover, Sonja finished her 100-mile run "race" in Moab, Utah. (The "race" is to see who can survive the 100-miles on foot, over some of the most rugged terrain imaginable). In fact, not only did she survive but thrive. She did it in 21-hours and change. But today she's hurtin' for certain. Her e-mail this morning sums it all up...
