Discussion
Sufferfest saying that training by FTP is no more, and they're doing something called "4DP" or "Four Does More".....no, I'm not sure why it's 4DP and not 4DM, either.
Anyone have any ideas/thoughts as to what this might be? Be interesting to see what it is, and how it will change training, in reality probably not much, but who knows.
Anyone have any ideas/thoughts as to what this might be? Be interesting to see what it is, and how it will change training, in reality probably not much, but who knows.
okgo said:
Got a link?
No, just got an email with a short video clip with Neal Henderson (from Apex coaching) in and it just says FTP is dead and this "four does more" thing....more details on the 16th apparently. If you want I can forward you the email if you send me a PM (so I can reply/forward it).Could be interesting to see what it's all about
It’s all centred around a new fitness test that replaces Rubber Glove (the traditional 20min test) called ‘FF’ in my training plan. Unfortunately much more than that I don’t know including what FF stands for. However I get the impression that it’s more of a panel test (I can’t think of a better word) that takes into account that you may, for example, be disproportionately strong in a 10 second sprint. Therefore where you’re being asked to do say 150% of FTP at the moment that may be undercooking things for you but too much for me. Mac Cassin from Apex is my coach so I’m going to see what I can find out when I have a mid-plan catch up this week, but it’s a couple of days before the official launch of it all.
m444ttb said:
It’s all centred around a new fitness test that replaces Rubber Glove (the traditional 20min test) called ‘FF’ in my training plan. Unfortunately much more than that I don’t know including what FF stands for. However I get the impression that it’s more of a panel test (I can’t think of a better word) that takes into account that you may, for example, be disproportionately strong in a 10 second sprint. Therefore where you’re being asked to do say 150% of FTP at the moment that may be undercooking things for you but too much for me. Mac Cassin from Apex is my coach so I’m going to see what I can find out when I have a mid-plan catch up this week, but it’s a couple of days before the official launch of it all.
This would be very good....I know my anaerobic capacity is pretty weak compared to my aerobic!I’ll be interested to see if that means there are alternate versions of existing workouts or whether it’ll only work with new releases. Also how I use it out on the road for some of the sessions I’m set to do there. Whatever it is it’ll be pretty interesting I reckon. Neil Henderson is a smart guy that works with some big names and Mac Cassin is from a very academic background. Of course there’s some marketing promotion going on here to raise interest i. the Sufferfest too so naturally some will be disappointed.
m444ttb said:
It’s all centred around a new fitness test that replaces Rubber Glove (the traditional 20min test) called ‘FF’ in my training plan. Unfortunately much more than that I don’t know including what FF stands for. However I get the impression that it’s more of a panel test (I can’t think of a better word) that takes into account that you may, for example, be disproportionately strong in a 10 second sprint. Therefore where you’re being asked to do say 150% of FTP at the moment that may be undercooking things for you but too much for me. Mac Cassin from Apex is my coach so I’m going to see what I can find out when I have a mid-plan catch up this week, but it’s a couple of days before the official launch of it all.
That sort of stuff is in the Training and Racing with a Power Meter book, 5 sec, 1 min, 5 min and FTP power and how to identify and target specific weaknesses.Kind of, although not in the same depth. If a workout currently says "5x2mins at 120% FTP off 3mins recovery"..... Someone with an accurate 20mins test may find that relatively easy, yet someone else may struggle. That person who may struggle may be able to cope very well with something like 45mins at 100-105% yet the person coping well with the 130% workout may struggle..... Despite both having accurate 20min test results..... Purely down to muscle fibre type makeup etc.
Either way, it should be interesting. Any more thoughts, okgo?
Either way, it should be interesting. Any more thoughts, okgo?
Well despite many people knocking FTP/CTL/TSS etc, I have found it all works quite well. I fit well within the standard percentages for what I can do for certain periods of FTP, my performance is very easy to forecast and I can I feel ride almost on the edge of blowing just by number. Which are all based on the FTP model.
Where I think things become muddy is where people take it all a bit too literally, all zones have a bit of flex etc. What you can do for 45 minutes you can probably do for an hour etc. The curve for most people is amazingly flat beyond 30 minutes or so.
Where I think things become muddy is where people take it all a bit too literally, all zones have a bit of flex etc. What you can do for 45 minutes you can probably do for an hour etc. The curve for most people is amazingly flat beyond 30 minutes or so.
okgo said:
Well despite many people knocking FTP/CTL/TSS etc, I have found it all works quite well. I fit well within the standard percentages for what I can do for certain periods of FTP, my performance is very easy to forecast and I can I feel ride almost on the edge of blowing just by number. Which are all based on the FTP model.
Where I think things become muddy is where people take it all a bit too literally, all zones have a bit of flex etc. What you can do for 45 minutes you can probably do for an hour etc. The curve for most people is amazingly flat beyond 30 minutes or so.
I actually agree with this; and this fits well with rides/sessions with a high IF. Workouts which are designed to really hurt do, but are JUST about doable when I'm feeling fresh. If I'm not feeling too fresh then they aren't, which suggests my FTP setting is reasonably accurate. There have been a few sessions where, despite trying a couple of times, I just cannot complete though....whether that's due to physical limitations or mental, I'm not so sure.Where I think things become muddy is where people take it all a bit too literally, all zones have a bit of flex etc. What you can do for 45 minutes you can probably do for an hour etc. The curve for most people is amazingly flat beyond 30 minutes or so.
I think the FTP based system works very well and has seen good improvements for me since I've been training with power. I have, however, definitely hit a flat spot though.
I may do an FTP test soon, not done one since April. I'm taking it easy this week, may do next week as well, spend a few weeks doing some hard stuff to get back into the swing of it, and then rest up for a few days before trying one out.
I doubt it will become the new standard to be honest. Possibly among the types of people who have just got into it, but powermeters have been around a long time. And WKO/Trainingpeaks are well used and respected and run off the FTP model. But maybe for those who've joined power in the recent glut.
okgo said:
I doubt it will become the new standard to be honest. Possibly among the types of people who have just got into it, but powermeters have been around a long time. And WKO/Trainingpeaks are well used and respected and run off the FTP model. But maybe for those who've joined power in the recent glut.
Only time will tell. Reading the Facebook thread on it they're dropping a few hints. Here are some snippets, with the names removedxxxxx:Wishful thinking maybe but here is my guess at 4DP - it is based on Philip Skiba's work: 4 parameters: 1) Model based Critical Power (CP), 2) TSS based on CP; 3) Training Stress Balance (TSB) based on TSS; 4) Energy Store W' with a replenishment rate.
In my fantasy world you could then create 4 scaling levels for each workout: 1) Recovery, in which your TSB is increased, 2) Tempo, in which your TSB is maintained, 3) Intense, in which your TSB is decreased and 4) Race in which you TSB is decreased and the W' balance is brought to uncomfortably low levels.
Note that if the above is true we need to have the option to edit the data, otherwise any data outliers would adversely affect the leveling of future workouts.
The Sufferfest: Complete Training for Cyclists and Triathletes While not exactly that model, I think you will like what we have in store for you!
"xxxxx: I'm intrigued. Hopefully this is a decent improvement. I'm hoping for a more 'intelligent' system that can learn from your previous sessions and tailor future ones.
The Sufferfest: Complete Training for Cyclists and Triathletes We made 4DP for you!"
And (for those who don't know, Rubber Glove is their 20 minute FTP test):
xxxxx: FTP is pretty much the international standard in our sport at this time. Are we going to be given a choice in using 4DP or FTP in you workouts going forward? And by the way, I have a dreaded Rubber Glove workout scheduled for this Saturday. Should I postpone it???
The Sufferfest: Complete Training for Cyclists and Triathletes: FTP is a default standard that we are looking to challenge as the only reference for structuring workouts. Short answer, yes 100%, you will be given the option to continue training with FTP. Once we explain 4DP in more detail and once you get to explore it yourself, we think you will come around to using it.
The Sufferfest: Complete Training for Cyclists and Triathletes: As for the dreaded Rubber Glove this Sunday. I would 100% postpone it for a few days (keep riding, but focus on staying fresh) because we have a new test coming out with 4DP that you will want to expose yourself to.
I love their videos and workouts but I think their app is just not up to the standard of TrainerRoad (yet). It has no power match feature, you can't edit individual workouts either like you can with the workout creator in TR. There are some sessions which they've designed in the app which are literally impossible. The Wretched is a 35min effort, largely at threshold with no actual recoveries and the IF is 1.05......for 35mins....with TR you could dial back just some of the sections which are meant for recovery, whilst keeping the intense sections intense, rather than just lowering the entire workout.
It just doesn't seem as seamless...but they are relatively new to the market, mind and I hope they do well.
Edited by E65Ross on Wednesday 11th October 11:36
I can see many reasons why Sufferfest would want a different "measure" than the generic FTP
If they hang a bit of science around it and promote it on their platform, there will be some uptake
If there is a surge of credible people pointing to it as the thing that made them faster / better, then it will get some traction
A simple measure, such as FTP, is easy to use. It can be made more complicated by considering it with TSS, CTL, heart rate zones and any other measure you want to throw in with it. The more complex it is, the smaller the number of people that will use it gets.
There is a balance for sufferfest to strike between how complex / effective / many users want it / many users will pay for it
That they are leaving FTP only as an option shows that they recognise it as THE standard at the moment
Still interested to see it and won't rush to judge until it is at least published
If they hang a bit of science around it and promote it on their platform, there will be some uptake
If there is a surge of credible people pointing to it as the thing that made them faster / better, then it will get some traction
A simple measure, such as FTP, is easy to use. It can be made more complicated by considering it with TSS, CTL, heart rate zones and any other measure you want to throw in with it. The more complex it is, the smaller the number of people that will use it gets.
There is a balance for sufferfest to strike between how complex / effective / many users want it / many users will pay for it
That they are leaving FTP only as an option shows that they recognise it as THE standard at the moment
Still interested to see it and won't rush to judge until it is at least published
At a guess the '4 does more' is a term given to the 4 metrics used to gain a better overall picture of a riders power profile.
A lot of Coaches use Training Peaks to deliver their training and analyse the data through WK04 software. In WK04 you have what's called the Power Duration Curve, this is created using the metrics of 5sec, 1min, 5min and, either 20/30/50min (depending on rider phenotype) power tests. Once these metrics are input the curve updates and gives a mFTP figure and a calculated TTE (Time To Exhaustion). So that's the time a rider can maintain constant threshold power before it starts to drop away. The reason for this is, unless you're a 10TT specialist, the ability to ride for 20mins at threshold is irrelevant for a lot of riders, they would struggle to get within 15% of their 20min Power if riding for an hour let alone 5%!
Example:-
One of our Dubai based riders last week performed his full power duration curve power profile. His results were,
CP5 - 265 watts
CP20 - 225 watts
CP1 - 415 watts
NP sprint test 890 watts
All the data was inputted in to the curve and the results were mFTP 233 watts - TTE 34 minutes 57 seconds. So the model is saying the rider can produce 233 watts for just under 35 minutes. Now our role as the coaching team is to focus on the TTE metric. The aim is to stretch the 233 out extensively until the TTE Time To Exhaustion reaches the 60 minute point. Once at this point we will re test the lowest hanging points over a short, medium and long range to establish the adaptations.
The beauty of using the power duration model is we can use the new I levels to set the zones which are highly individual to the riders. This is much more accurate than 20 minutes - 5%
Hoping this makes some sense
Mark
A lot of Coaches use Training Peaks to deliver their training and analyse the data through WK04 software. In WK04 you have what's called the Power Duration Curve, this is created using the metrics of 5sec, 1min, 5min and, either 20/30/50min (depending on rider phenotype) power tests. Once these metrics are input the curve updates and gives a mFTP figure and a calculated TTE (Time To Exhaustion). So that's the time a rider can maintain constant threshold power before it starts to drop away. The reason for this is, unless you're a 10TT specialist, the ability to ride for 20mins at threshold is irrelevant for a lot of riders, they would struggle to get within 15% of their 20min Power if riding for an hour let alone 5%!
Example:-
One of our Dubai based riders last week performed his full power duration curve power profile. His results were,
CP5 - 265 watts
CP20 - 225 watts
CP1 - 415 watts
NP sprint test 890 watts
All the data was inputted in to the curve and the results were mFTP 233 watts - TTE 34 minutes 57 seconds. So the model is saying the rider can produce 233 watts for just under 35 minutes. Now our role as the coaching team is to focus on the TTE metric. The aim is to stretch the 233 out extensively until the TTE Time To Exhaustion reaches the 60 minute point. Once at this point we will re test the lowest hanging points over a short, medium and long range to establish the adaptations.
The beauty of using the power duration model is we can use the new I levels to set the zones which are highly individual to the riders. This is much more accurate than 20 minutes - 5%
Hoping this makes some sense
Mark
Edited by Flyingfishy on Wednesday 11th October 14:00
I can see the value of extending TTE of course, just as much as I can see the value in increasing the CP20, or any of many other measures
If you take that particular rider as the example, then
1. What is the difference (in watts) between the zones calculated against power duration than if zones were calculated against FTP-5%?
2. How much more quickly would the rider achieve, say, a 10% improvement in TTE based on training against the power duration derived zones than if training against the FTP-5% zones?
My guess is that the differences might not be massive.
If you take that particular rider as the example, then
1. What is the difference (in watts) between the zones calculated against power duration than if zones were calculated against FTP-5%?
2. How much more quickly would the rider achieve, say, a 10% improvement in TTE based on training against the power duration derived zones than if training against the FTP-5% zones?
My guess is that the differences might not be massive.
There are many more areas to work on with riders depending on the type of riding they do so FTP only tells part of the story.
In the case of the previously mentioned rider:-
1. What is the difference (in watts) between the zones calculated against power duration than if zones were calculated against FTP-5%? - So if the rider was to go on CP20 - 5% then zones would be set using 221w, the power duration curve is suggesting an mFTP of 233w, this is because other test results have dragged that figure up. Having previously testing this particular rider over 60mins we know that they could only sustain 203w. The power duration curve lets us set 'training zones' that may straddle traditional zones depending on where a particular rider needs to focus.
2. How much more quickly would the rider achieve, say, a 10% improvement in TTE based on training against the power duration derived zones than if training against the FTP-5% zones? - Depends on the rider and can't give a fact based answer to this as it would require two identical riders training to the two different theories. It would be interesting to know though.
In the case of the previously mentioned rider:-
1. What is the difference (in watts) between the zones calculated against power duration than if zones were calculated against FTP-5%? - So if the rider was to go on CP20 - 5% then zones would be set using 221w, the power duration curve is suggesting an mFTP of 233w, this is because other test results have dragged that figure up. Having previously testing this particular rider over 60mins we know that they could only sustain 203w. The power duration curve lets us set 'training zones' that may straddle traditional zones depending on where a particular rider needs to focus.
2. How much more quickly would the rider achieve, say, a 10% improvement in TTE based on training against the power duration derived zones than if training against the FTP-5% zones? - Depends on the rider and can't give a fact based answer to this as it would require two identical riders training to the two different theories. It would be interesting to know though.
JPJPJP said:
I can see the value of extending TTE of course, just as much as I can see the value in increasing the CP20, or any of many other measures
If you take that particular rider as the example, then
1. What is the difference (in watts) between the zones calculated against power duration than if zones were calculated against FTP-5%?
2. How much more quickly would the rider achieve, say, a 10% improvement in TTE based on training against the power duration derived zones than if training against the FTP-5% zones?
My guess is that the differences might not be massive.
I think this is the key. It may well be beneficial, but how to structure sessions accordingly might be very hard. If you take that particular rider as the example, then
1. What is the difference (in watts) between the zones calculated against power duration than if zones were calculated against FTP-5%?
2. How much more quickly would the rider achieve, say, a 10% improvement in TTE based on training against the power duration derived zones than if training against the FTP-5% zones?
My guess is that the differences might not be massive.
Let's say we have 2 riders, both with an FTP of 300W based on the 20 minute test. But let's say that one is more anaerobically gifted, the other more aerobically gifted. So let's say rider 1 can sustain 150% FTP for 2 minutes (TTE 2mins at 450W) yet rider 2 can only sustain 450W for 90 secs, and his TTE for 2mins is 425W
Let's also say rider 1 can sustain 330W (110% FTP) for 5mins, yet rider 2 can sustain that for 10mins.
Clearly doing a hard speed session where it was something like 150% FTP for 30secs/rest for 60secs and repeat, rider 1 will fare much better at this. So instead of doing a session based on 150% FTP would you do a session based on 2min TTE efforts instead?
Or have I got the totally wrong idea? If that's roughly correct, I can see that being very good, although I doubt it'd make massive differences in those training with FTP. I also struggle to see how they would implement that in with their app and videos....but we shall see!
edit - I'm quite interested in all the science etc behind it....has anyone got any links for any reading I can do on this subject, and how to use WKO+? I have already read the cyclists training bible, training and racing with a power meter etc.
Edited by E65Ross on Wednesday 11th October 14:51
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff