CTL vs. FTP - Aerobic capacity vs. Power ...

frenchyge

Wow, a lot's been said, so I'll be brief. With just that information available, I'd say they have equal odds of doing well in the race.

The one with the higher CTL probably doesn't have any advantage in *today's* race, but they are probably set up much better to do well in *next month's* race as well. "How long you can go fast" should be thought of in terms of weeks, not hours.

Apologies if I've just restated what someone else already said above.

Andy SG

First, thanks for putting so much time and effort in your response. What you describe above is exatly the same situtation I am in regards to private life, climate etc, and I've also used a LSD inspired training approach. I would like to add one more factor, which still influence me when seeking information: I want to understand my weak areas and address them in training. There power and FTP are great tools, while endurance, aerobic capacity or muscular endurance doesn't give me any instant 'yes that explain things' feeling.

Questionning ... well I would like to put it this way:
I have come to the same understanding of things as you describe below -maybe because you are one of the main sources -but I thought that FTP was a reference point in the energy system/methabolic system, in which endurance is a key factor for performance. I mean FTP is something you can measure, even if there are concerns described by you below, but overall it maybe doesn't matter if you have 10-20 W in uncertainty.

You touch a key area, in this, later in the post, and I will continue there.

Another view here is adoption to training, as you also touch later on. Say that there are aspects of training and adoption that whouldn't at all be challanged with 1 hour time frame. What would that aspect be? Alex did a great overview of targeted adoption vs. power zones/levels, on his blog, and if I look there there is no aspect of performance and endurance that I've haven't heard off, and neither that is trained only via hours or miles. On the contarary, I've seen studies that at least say that HIT is equally, or maybe better, than traditional endurance training in areas such as mithocodria growth etc.

I'm with you. There are more things you can add here, first who can live with 2 sets of 4 on 4 off x 4 for their whole training season, so maybe even if this should be the magic soluion there are areas that would give simillar outcome of training. From my side there seem to be a simmilar adoption to training disregarding if I use 4 minutes intervalls, or 20, at least now.

The nice thing with VO2 is that it target power improvements using very little time, so it is efficient. Your SST isn't bad there either, BTW.

Well, I'm with you, and this make sense. That's why I ask, either I extent my limits, by targeting VO2max power, or % I can use of VO2max power at LT. Easy trade-off, but where is CTL in this equation?

Understood, and well in line with my approach to training.

Well, but power is power. If more training doesn't mean higher numbers on the power meeter, why should I bother? Because power move bikes ...

My comment is of course useless if the benifit of more time in training isn't possible to read on a power meeter within the time frame I measure, say 1 hour. That I can buy but benifits must be transfered into power somewhere, othervise I would say that the benifits are of less use to me.


Exactly! And one more thing, if I need to chose, due to limited amount of time for instance, what is I can loose, or benifit. Say for instance that I take a chance that 10 W more on my FTP would have a higher value than this ... (what it's called that you get from high CTL)

This is 'new' to me. I'm learning stuff here!

Ok, so then my question is: If we take FTP as an anchor point, and two riders have the same FTP, then a longer TT race would benifit the person with a higher curve beyond 1 hour, and on. But are there examples of people that have very rapid change in this curve? It feels as if it should be something that change rather slowly. If that is the case, FTP is still a good reference, and CTL is still not in the equation.

Another thought here: If MMP curve drops after one hour, what whould be the physical aspects causing this, that wasn't in play before? Is it so hard to raise MMP after one hour that I should spend 3 months - often taken as reference for CTL measurments, or - of training time for it, or will a couple of 2 hours hard race simulation do the trick?

OK, not chrystal clear, but by far the best statement I've seen so far.

I think it translate into the following for me:

I have problems with speed during races. If I compare my FTP, say 260-270 W, with other guys values, it's clear that I'm low on power. This is seen pretty quick and I don't need to make any longer analysis of what could be the limiting factor. If I see that I, while I increase my FTP, start to have problems later in the race, I will start to put more focus on CTL.


That I can understand. Measuring CTL, I was more questioning if has any value on it's own to have high CTL.

Thanks Dave. I really learned a lot!

/Andy

Andy SG

Nope, this I don't buy straight off. - "How long you can go fast" should be thought of in terms fo weeks, not hours. -

What does it mean? Does it mean that it take weeks to recover, and that the guy with higher CTL would be gaining so much power during that time. That doesn't make much sense does it?

Or do you mean that the high CTL will pay off in higher power output later on, but then we just use CTL as a tool to increase FTP. No-one have stated that that is a particular efficient method for doing that, or?

walser

If "the more you train - the more you can train" is true, I see no reason why "the more you train - the more you can race" shouldn't be true as well.

I am pretty sure many people have experienced illness or overtraining symptoms after periods where their CTL has increased at a high rate (whether they were measuring CTL or not). I believe you're kind of 'balancing on a knife's edge' when you train\race a lot more than you're used to over a certain period of time. The higher CTL you have coming into this period, the more "blunt" that edge becomes.
We know far to well what happens to your FTP when trying to recover from illness or overtraining..

On a single ride basis I'm not so sure about the differences between high vs low CTL (given equal FTP, TSB etc.). Maybe it comes down to the product of your CTL times the "degree of well-suitedness" of your training regimen..

frenchyge

It means that the rider with high CTL has solidly established his training base and is ready to shift towards higher intensity workouts to raise his FTP (along with shorter duration powers) even further, while the other rider is/has not.

Also, the rider with high CTL can taper into his key events because he has something to taper *from*, whereas the other rider doesn't.

dkrenik

Per Rick's response, "CTL=How long you can go fast" I understand to be more like "how long you can hold a peak" - weeks, months, etc.

Dave

rmur17

i don't have Dave's considerable patience and skill in answering these questions. It's great to ask them but can I ask: how long have you been training and racing, have you keep good logs over time etc?

There are some broad strokes to be applied but I suspect if you're like me, you won't really believe anything you read here until you have some personal experience with it.

1st thing I did when I became a member of the beta eweTSS group (precursor to PMC) was that I went back and slogged thru several years of training for which I had good time/pace/PE records but zero power. I compared the years w/o power to those with and developed some reasonable benchmarks in terms of avg. weekly IF and TSS compared mostly to training hours and PE. I then compared the non-power to the power years and made sure the overall IF and totals made sense, then i went back and revised the weekly #'s somewhat and (perhaps less importantly) I portioned the weekly load amongst the training days.

Then blah blah blah -- I won't bore folks with the details -- except to say they were many and indeed boring.

After that I had I believe four seasons of data - 2.5 with power and 1.5 without but those had undergone a 'sense check'.

I started plotting CTL/ATL/TSB along with some custom pet metrics of my own and started evaluating whether this 'thing' made any sense or waste just a waste of time.

Immediately I have to say the CTL line vs. overall performance, sensation, short-term performance, long-term performance stood out. It was very clear where I started to make mistakes in training mostly by getting what I now term the CTL/FTP balance wrong.

I think most folks can see that too much of one type (intensity/duration) of training will swing the balance one way and too much of another will swing it the other.

Totally fwiw, I suggest making the effort to apply the tools to your own data. Estimate it if you have to and make sure the estimates are reasonable in the broader picture. See what CTL tells you about where you perform mediocre, well, very well and for what periods. I wouldn't worry too much about pinpointing optimum TSB ranges for now. Stick to CTL ...

After that, you really should not have to ask .... again nothing wrong with asking at all or asking people to defend the metrics. But it's your own data that will 'prove' it for you.

Aside: Long can be hours or days

all the best

__________________
rmur

daveryanwyoming

On it's own and for a racer, no CTL doesn't mean much. Again the extreme example of cycling tourists riding big miles at slow paces is a great example. The high CTL just shows they've spent a lot of hours on the bike but doesn't do much in terms of predicting their potential for race success. It does imply an adaptation to those long slow hours on the bike so in that sense it implies they've adapted well....to a type of training that may not carry them far in fast races.

TSS in the short term and CTL as the long term average are just measures of training load. But they're more sophisticated metrics than say just tracking miles or hours on the bike since they take into account intensity and provide a method for normalizing the stress created by workouts of differing intensities and durations. Miles or hours alone won't do that.

I think rmur and frenchyge have answered your questions on how CTL relates to "going fast long" but it does apply to long races(in terms of a flatter MMP for long durations), how you'll feel and whether you'll be able to train or race effectively on subsequent days(pretty useful for stage races of during a busy period of racing), and by extension how much faster you'll be able to get over time(if you recover from a hard session or race more quickly you can train or race again sooner or harder and over time that leads to greater fitness). And as frenchyge pointed out a bit of CTL margin relative to the bare minimum needs of your racing allow you to spend away some of that hard earned training base during tapers, which allows you to race from a more fully recovered state.

I can't really tell from the rest of your post what your questions are vs comments and feelings but I think rmur was on target. You sound sceptical and none of us are probably going to be able to convince you. Look back through your training logs or start collecting data and you'll be able to come to your own conclusions as to how much training volume you need and at what intensities. These tools are pretty new but a lot of folks have already had success using them, YMMV.

Good luck,
-Dave

Alex Simmons

That was my interpretation.

For example, think about those two athletes going into a multi-day tour.

Oh - and I think I coined the term "retro-spect-a-scope" wrt the PMC (on eweTSS list) when I plugged in my previous season's data and it was all there staring back at me like an epiphany.

I made some overall comments on that in this post:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2006...s-training.html

__________________
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/
http://www.cyclecoach.com/

frenchyge

Ok, I can see that now. A 250 TSS race puts a whompin'-big negative TSB dip on someone with a CTL of 50, but for someone with a CTL of 100 -- not so much.

I still think having a high CTL means you can trade CTL for intensity or tapers and still have enough fitness for longer races over a longer period of weeks, too.

Piotr

Apparently, I missed that despite it making more sense.

__________________
blog

Steve_B

Well, maybe not as much, but 250 is still a pretty big hit regardless of who you are. It depends some upon what your ATL is, and thus where the TSB comes out to be. For the acronym-challeneged, if you've rested and tapered well prior to a big epic event and you've accumulated a large training load in the preceeding months, you should recover better than if you are coming into it with less long-term training load and with more current fatigue from recent training/racing.

dkrenik

Good post Dave and I believe that it's important to understand the context of how one built up their CTL (which you're alluding to anyway). As you've stated, a high CTL predicated upon lots of L2 work won't carry one too far in a race. I'm thinking that this type of training would also show it's effects in one's FTP. Whereas a more balanced approach to building one's CTL will show both a build up in CTL and (hopefully) an increase in FTP.

So (as mentioned earlier) it appears that, yes, FTP and CTL are inter-related in that one should strive to build both to help enjoy some sort of success in racing. Again, I don't believe that one can just look at CTL/ATL/TSB/etc and say "damn - I'm fast" One has to understand how they got to where they are as well.

My 0.02,
Dave

Andy SG

Thanks rmur, I think your answer is good an address some areas of importance.

First, say I've been riding MTB for 6-7 years, only for fun. I have participated in races that are 3 to 5 hours and normally been doing my own race. Training has been a mix of staying in shape running during winter and more targeted training for events during summer.

Two years ago I bought a road bike, and in road races is has been much easier to compare my performance with others since I strive to go with groups in a totally different way.

Last year I joined a group that set the goal to run a 300 km race in 9.5 hours. The goal was to go with our small 7 men group the whole distance, and share the workload equal. Training for this, I followed Friel's book from winter 2007 and on. This increased the training hours up to 14 hours (scheduled-in reality 12-18 hours) per week at peak.

The outcome of this investment in time was:

1) I for sure extended my capability of going long distances without getting worn out.
2) The previous hard 'bonking' now become a much more slow process, in which I could feel what was going on and by eating and riding smart I could balance between effort and fatigue.
3) I feelt as if I was able to go faster on shorter distances, say 5-20 minutes, but riding MTB I feelt really flat, and had very hard time to handle high loads for short time, 1-2 minutes.
4) Times didn't improve as much as I would have expected, in MTB races I've been doing for years with the same course and with the basically the same winning time for years.
5) I was really balancing on the edge to overtraining, with 10+ hours per week, which gives 6 days of training with Friels tables.

Going with group of riders on the road told me that I in most cases were running closer to my limits than others were. So even if I were better at pushing my self I was pretty close to the red area of the power output, when the others were in green or yellow, so to say.

So what I did was to go back to Friel - Using the work on your weaknesses approach - and realized that I couldn't understand Friel's tringles which combines abilities. There was no clear 'lack of power' exercise combination. I realized I didn't fully understood Friel's triangle with 'muscular endurance' etc. at all.
So ...

I find this forum and start to investigate further. Here, and in the litterature refered to here, you speak power, and I understand this so ... I read about FTP which seem to be exactly what is my weak area.

I get a tip of checking Morris, and the work that his done, and that match my constraints in time etc. well.

I buy a trainer that can measure watts, and start to test power based training, and in particular a Morris inspired approach.

The result has been great. Both from what I can measure on the trainer, with approximately 40-50 W increase in both FTP and 4 minutes power. The long club rides on Sunday also tells me that I have improved and have no problem of going 100 km already in January, even if we go pretty hard.

For some strange reason Morris HIT approach does not wear me out as Friels hours. Even doing 3 day blocks have a tendency to build form rather than wear me out.

So with this background I don't have much to relate to, but I have the following findings.

Block training work fine for me (doing 4 minutes or less - or doing 15-20 minutes intervalls). Days with 4, 3, 2 minute VO2max intervalls seem to give most bang for the bucks, but I have done quite a lot of 20 minutes intervalls to.

Doing 4 minute intervalls I can do approximately 25-30 minutes at high power levels per training session. I don't believe that this will result in appropriate training levels for going 4+ hours races, and therefore try to learn what the signs could be of too low CTL, and how I could measure benifits from higher CTL. But since I feel that HIT training works, I don't want to waste HIT time on junk training.

If I sound sceptic it is based on a feeling that some guys promote CTL more on the 'if you want to go long you need to train long', and an understanding that FTP is chosen as a reference to measure endurance capability. From the discussion here, I have a better understanding.


Could you please elaborate on this a bit. What did you see? What are the indicators of going in one direction or the other? What is short-term performance for you, as well as long-term?


Well, yes. The thing is that weaknesses must reduce the result in racing to be worth working with. It has been clear for me that I lack power, and I try to do something about it, but yet I haven't seen any drawbacks in not doing enough training hours or miles.

Good idea. Need this eary to gather data, however.


Thanks rmur!