Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Training & Nutrition
Reload this Page >

Riding far versus fast

Notices
Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

Riding far versus fast

Old 12-03-20, 07:06 PM
  #51  
cubewheels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,509

Bikes: A really old BMX bike, Phantom 20 kid's MTB, Jackal Mio Gravel Bike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 229 Posts
Originally Posted by genejockey View Post
Your relatives didn't have much choice, because they were poor. If you're affluent, you have a choice, and it you choose boring food in an effort to curb your appetite, it's likely your appetite will revolt and you'll find yourself cheating more.

Better to learn how to make good food taste good, and eat enough of that, which will help you resist the donuts and onion rings and bacon cheeseburgers that are out there. I know that I'm far more likely to go out to get fast food if I don't have a healthy, tasty alternative. Every day you DON'T give in is a victory.
It's an acquired taste. They never get tasting as good as bacon cheeseburger, you may hate them at first but eventually, they taste just fine. You won't over-eat with those because they're not as artificially good tasting as junk food or food additives laced with chemical to get you addicted to eating.

Give it time for your body and taste buds to adapt, cut back on TV (television) with all that brainwashing that you need delicious foods to be happy. Eventually, you won't be craving for good-tasting foods anymore.

The food and healthcare industry only wants one thing to get you hooked on food. It's good for their business if you over-consume and get sick. That's all they care about and it usually contradicts goals to lose weight and to live long with zero healthcare expense.
cubewheels is offline  
Old 12-07-20, 10:59 AM
  #52  
Drew Eckhardt 
Senior Member
 
Drew Eckhardt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mountain View, CA USA and Golden, CO USA
Posts: 6,317

Bikes: 97 Litespeed, 50-39-30x13-26 10 cogs, Campagnolo Ultrashift, retroreflective rims on SON28/PowerTap hubs

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 537 Post(s)
Liked 294 Times in 208 Posts
Originally Posted by annacaptur View Post
Any advice on which is better? Like which one is more recommended for weight loss?
Low intensity which is forced by enough time riding. I lost over 60 pounds that way without being hungry.

That produces appetite suppressing peptide YY and doesn't deplete your glycogen stores as much leading to hunger.

Working out past your anaerobic threshold reduces hunger stimulating ghrelin production, but is too limited - you can't do that every day, and probably can't accumulate more than 30 minutes total. Instead you end up working somewhat hard which produces what runners call "runger" because you've depleted your glycogen stores without increasing peptide YY or decreasing ghrelin.

If you could ignore hunger you wouldn't be asking about weight loss.

Rob Gray's test results from the Wattage list, with FTP around 300W.


Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 12-07-20 at 11:04 AM.
Drew Eckhardt is offline  
Likes For Drew Eckhardt:
Old 12-08-20, 12:02 PM
  #53  
Iride01
Hits [ENTER] b4 thinking
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 5,577

Bikes: '20 Tarmac Disc Comp '91 Schwinn Paramount '78 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2153 Post(s)
Liked 892 Times in 673 Posts
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post
Low intensity which is forced by enough time riding. I lost over 60 pounds that way without being hungry.

That produces appetite suppressing peptide YY and doesn't deplete your glycogen stores as much leading to hunger.

Working out past your anaerobic threshold reduces hunger stimulating ghrelin production, but is too limited - you can't do that every day, and probably can't accumulate more than 30 minutes total. Instead you end up working somewhat hard which produces what runners call "runger" because you've depleted your glycogen stores without increasing peptide YY or decreasing ghrelin.

If you could ignore hunger you wouldn't be asking about weight loss.
I think you summed up what I couldn't. If the goal of riding is to lose weight, then just ride low intensity. I've always felt that high effort increased my hunger. I have a lot of trouble trying to ride low effort. Every climb, no matter the change of elevation or grade is a challenge for me. So I fail at trying to stay low intensity on short rides.

Longer rides wear me out of some of that energy. And I find that I can stay low effort for a longer percentage of my ride. And therefore I don't eat back the Calories I just rode off.
Iride01 is online now  
Old 12-08-20, 01:15 PM
  #54  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 17,212

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2831 Post(s)
Liked 740 Times in 554 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01 View Post
I think you summed up what I couldn't. If the goal of riding is to lose weight, then just ride low intensity. I've always felt that high effort increased my hunger. I have a lot of trouble trying to ride low effort. Every climb, no matter the change of elevation or grade is a challenge for me. So I fail at trying to stay low intensity on short rides.

Longer rides wear me out of some of that energy. And I find that I can stay low effort for a longer percentage of my ride. And therefore I don't eat back the Calories I just rode off.
Yes. I'm surprised by my weight loss from this low intensity regimen I've been doing. It's December, and I haven't been this weight since 2 summers ago. I consume maybe 75 calories (or less) in 2 hours and am not particularly hungry afterward or later. I have a apple.

Outdoors, I've been just staring at my stem and gearing down to keep my watts at least close to my supposed goal. Stupid low gears on shallow hills, no pride at all. I'll wind up with average watts below goal because descents. OTOH, that means I can stay out longer because of small partial rests.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 12-08-20, 02:43 PM
  #55  
BritishV8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 106

Bikes: 1979 Bridgestone SkyWay, 1990 Bridgestone RB-1, 2002 Specialized Hardrock Comp, 2018 Soma Smoothie

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Weight loss hasn't been top priority for me... instead I've been focused on getting stronger and faster in hilly terrain. My strategy has simply been to ride faster on hills, more often. For me, it's a happy coincidence that losing weight and climbing faster go hand-in-hand. Happily, I've lost 18 pounds since March (from ~196 to ~178) without any deliberate dietary change. If anything, I'm probably eating more than before - I enjoy eating well! - though my consumption of beer is probably down by several bottles/week.

My advice is this: whatever your goal is - and also whatever path you pursue for reaching that goal - you'll probably get best results by continuously measuring and recording inputs and outputs. What specifically should YOU measure? Choose what you like! Because (seemingly magically) whether you log your weight, count Calories, count Weight Watcher points, or count beers and snacks... logging any of these or any other related metrics will help you keep focused on your goal and committed to improvement.

In my case, I use Strava obsessively to track many aspects of performance. Leaderboards and personal records motivate me to push harder on segments... including specific hills. But yearly progression statistics are also very interesting to me. I get those from the excellent "Elevate" browser extension for Strava. So, it's convenient for me to tell you that so far this year I've averaged 4.35 rides/week, 22.55 miles/ride, 1386 feet of elevation gain per ride. I've only averaged 13.71mph, but I can tell from segment times that I'm certainly getting faster on hills.

Good luck!
BritishV8 is offline  
Old 12-12-20, 09:11 AM
  #56  
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Richard Cranium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Posts: 2,959

Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times in 16 Posts
Riding far versus fastAny advice on which is better? Like which one is more recommended for weight loss?
The post demonstrates a limited understanding of exercise as well as metabolism.

The best exercise strategy for annacaptur is the exercise he/she will continue to practice. Hopefully that could include many kinds of bike rides.

Last edited by Richard Cranium; 12-12-20 at 09:17 AM.
Richard Cranium is offline  
Old 12-12-20, 09:23 AM
  #57  
mr_pedro
Senior Member
 
mr_pedro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 32 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
The post demonstrates a limited understanding of exercise as well as metabolism.

The best exercise strategy for annacaptur is the exercise he/she will continue to practice. Hopefully that could include many kinds of bike rides.
The OP posted 10 questions in 10 different sub forums, just to reach the target of 10 posts before he could post a link to whatever he was advertising. He also never came back after his original question here.

It is fun to see how the thread moves on. I guess it is OK as long as everyone is having fun, just dont expect much interaction with the OP.
mr_pedro is offline  
Likes For mr_pedro:
Old 12-13-20, 03:01 AM
  #58  
cubewheels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,509

Bikes: A really old BMX bike, Phantom 20 kid's MTB, Jackal Mio Gravel Bike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 229 Posts
My riding lately has changed to alternating days of plenty steep hills and fast flat cruises with long steep climbs in the middle.

I'm now eating 5 meals a day. I don't track my calories but the amount of food I'm eating/day is now starting to hurt my wallet and I cook most of the food I eat!

Despite all that large intake of food, my weight held for 119 lbs for many weeks now.

I can say for myself that fast and hard (with 1.5 to 2 hr daily rides) so far has been incredible for weight loss despite increasing my food intake!
cubewheels is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 07:12 AM
  #59  
srode1
Gravel Rocks
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 298

Bikes: Trek Domane and Crockett, BH G7, Niner RLT9, RLT9 RDO

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked 37 Times in 28 Posts
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post
Low intensity which is forced by enough time riding. I lost over 60 pounds that way without being hungry.

That produces appetite suppressing peptide YY and doesn't deplete your glycogen stores as much leading to hunger.

Working out past your anaerobic threshold reduces hunger stimulating ghrelin production, but is too limited - you can't do that every day, and probably can't accumulate more than 30 minutes total. Instead you end up working somewhat hard which produces what runners call "runger" because you've depleted your glycogen stores without increasing peptide YY or decreasing ghrelin.

If you could ignore hunger you wouldn't be asking about weight loss.

Rob Gray's test results from the Wattage list, with FTP around 300W.

The problem with charts like this is the represent the calorie burn during the work and don't consider the afterburn, so they are misleading to some extent
srode1 is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 07:48 AM
  #60  
Drew Eckhardt 
Senior Member
 
Drew Eckhardt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mountain View, CA USA and Golden, CO USA
Posts: 6,317

Bikes: 97 Litespeed, 50-39-30x13-26 10 cogs, Campagnolo Ultrashift, retroreflective rims on SON28/PowerTap hubs

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 537 Post(s)
Liked 294 Times in 208 Posts
Originally Posted by srode1 View Post
The problem with charts like this is the represent the calorie burn during the work and don't consider the afterburn, so they are misleading to some extent
Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consumption and the accompanying glycolysis totals 6-15% of that during exercise.

Regardless, it's not enough to offset the increased food consumption from "runger."
Drew Eckhardt is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 09:12 AM
  #61  
srode1
Gravel Rocks
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 298

Bikes: Trek Domane and Crockett, BH G7, Niner RLT9, RLT9 RDO

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked 37 Times in 28 Posts
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post
Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consumption and the accompanying glycolysis totals 6-15% of that during exercise.

Regardless, it's not enough to offset the increased food consumption from "runger."
yep, can't out work a bad diet for sure. Looking at a single chart for a specific workout can still be misleading vs looking at a longer term impact of the choice between an endurance vs HIIT session approach to weight loss. What is the impact on a person's metabolism and muscle mass as an example as well as endurance to more easily perform at higher intensity and burn more calories within a person'ts time constraints for exercise (which is the real world for most people). Definitely need to look at the whole picture including exercise choices along with dietary choices.
srode1 is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 10:48 AM
  #62  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,529

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Liked 88 Times in 56 Posts
This is just me - not everybody is like this. But for most of my adult life I have been at (roughly) my right weight or I have been 30-50 pounds overweight. There have been 3 extended periods ( multiple years) where I did serious exercise. I am talking like running (7 minute miles) 50 miles per week, or riding a bike 150-200+ miles per week. And then there have been 3 extended periods where I did not do those things,.

Without exception when I was not exercising I was (or was getting) fat. When I was exercising I was losing weight or was not fat. That is my personal equation. It probably does not work for everyone as I find lots of exercise easy and diet control hard. But this is not 'go for a casual spin on the bike' type exercise.

Back to the topic - burn 800-1000 calories a day at whatever level of effort works for me. I cannot speak for others.

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 10:55 AM
  #63  
caloso
Senior Member
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 39,713

Bikes: Ridley Excalibur, Gazelle Champion Mondial, On-One Pompino, Specialized Rock Hopper

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2481 Post(s)
Liked 1,570 Times in 793 Posts
Originally Posted by srode1 View Post
The problem with charts like this is the represent the calorie burn during the work and don't consider the afterburn, so they are misleading to some extent
Id also like to see how someone can can ride at 105% of FTP for an hour. The far right bar may as well be infinite.
caloso is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 11:07 AM
  #64  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,529

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Liked 88 Times in 56 Posts
Originally Posted by caloso View Post
Id also like to see how someone can can ride at 105% of FTP for an hour. The far right bar may as well be infinite.
Per Training Peaks

Lactate Threshold (LT) is also referred to simply as threshold. Lactate Threshold Power is also referred to as functional threshold power (FTP). For most trained athletes this is similar to the maximum effort they can maintain for an hour.

So ftp is actually a lab measured metabolic thing and the 'one hour max steady effort' measure is an approximation. So some folks probably can do 105% of their actual ftp for an hour.

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 12:27 PM
  #65  
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,091
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1109 Post(s)
Liked 214 Times in 130 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
Per Training Peaks

Lactate Threshold (LT) is also referred to simply as threshold. Lactate Threshold Power is also referred to as functional threshold power (FTP). For most trained athletes this is similar to the maximum effort they can maintain for an hour.

So ftp is actually a lab measured metabolic thing and the 'one hour max steady effort' measure is an approximation. So some folks probably can do 105% of their actual ftp for an hour.

dave
The original point of FTP was that it was a relatively simple measurement to make in the field. It was never a lab based metabolic measurement. I don't think there has ever been a definition of FTP that would support riding at 105% for an hour. People that ride over 100% for an hour simply have their FTP set too low which is not uncommon as FTP is not constant over time.
gregf83 is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 12:46 PM
  #66  
mr_pedro
Senior Member
 
mr_pedro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 32 Posts
Originally Posted by caloso View Post
Id also like to see how someone can can ride at 105% of FTP for an hour. The far right bar may as well be infinite.
The fact that the vertical axis is labeled Cal per hour does not mean you have to ride for 1 hour. Just like you can ride at 20 mph during 30 minutes.
mr_pedro is offline  
Likes For mr_pedro:
Old 12-20-20, 01:01 PM
  #67  
mr_pedro
Senior Member
 
mr_pedro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 32 Posts
Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
The original point of FTP was that it was a relatively simple measurement to make in the field. It was never a lab based metabolic measurement. I don't think there has ever been a definition of FTP that would support riding at 105% for an hour. People that ride over 100% for an hour simply have their FTP set too low which is not uncommon as FTP is not constant over time.
I think the point that was being made is that the 1 hour point is not in the definition and some genetic freak might be able to do it. But I agree it is very unlikely because if FTP>1hr, then the part between 1hr and FTP TTE is not that steep.

This article explains how you could define FTP:https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/t...ing-protocols/

It is the point on the power curve when power suddenly starts to drop much faster, after it drops slowly from say 20min onwards.
mr_pedro is offline  
Likes For mr_pedro:
Old 12-20-20, 01:17 PM
  #68  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,529

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Liked 88 Times in 56 Posts
Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
The original point of FTP was that it was a relatively simple measurement to make in the field. It was never a lab based metabolic measurement. I don't think there has ever been a definition of FTP that would support riding at 105% for an hour. People that ride over 100% for an hour simply have their FTP set too low which is not uncommon as FTP is not constant over time.
I believe that it was originally a lab based thing (the point at which you start to accumulate significant bloodstream lactate). The field measurements are a way to do this determination in the field without a lab. I have no idea how different they might be in some cases. And I agree that 5% more power (as opposed to 5% longer) is a big step. dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 02:35 PM
  #69  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,139
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 736 Post(s)
Liked 228 Times in 141 Posts
Originally Posted by mr_pedro View Post
This article explains how you could define FTP:https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/t...ing-protocols/
The article explains how you can measure FTP, not define it. There's a big difference.
asgelle is online now  
Old 12-20-20, 02:39 PM
  #70  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,139
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 736 Post(s)
Liked 228 Times in 141 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
I believe that it was originally a lab based thing (the point at which you start to accumulate significant bloodstream lactate).
You are incorrect. There are many lab-based metrics for when someone exceeds a quasi-steady state (lactate threshold, anaerobic threshold MLSS, OBLA, etc.). FTP was introduced as a simple field-based metric to replace the need for lab testing. I was there when it happened.
asgelle is online now  
Old 12-20-20, 02:50 PM
  #71  
mr_pedro
Senior Member
 
mr_pedro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 32 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
The article explains how you can measure FTP, not define it. There's a big difference.
In the article it is mentioned that FTP is defined as the power at MLSS. It is also the highest intensity for which no anaerobic power is used.
mr_pedro is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 03:39 PM
  #72  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,529

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Liked 88 Times in 56 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
You are incorrect. There are many lab-based metrics for when someone exceeds a quasi-steady state (lactate threshold, anaerobic threshold MLSS, OBLA, etc.). FTP was introduced as a simple field-based metric to replace the need for lab testing. I was there when it happened.
I do believe that we just said the same thing. dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 03:41 PM
  #73  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,139
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 736 Post(s)
Liked 228 Times in 141 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
I do believe that we just said the same thing. dave
Really?
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
I believe that it was originally a lab based thing ...
FTP was never lab-based.
asgelle is online now  
Old 12-20-20, 05:40 PM
  #74  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,529

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Liked 88 Times in 56 Posts
[QUOTE=asgelle;21841418]Really?

FTP was never lab-based.[/QUOTE

I did not say that. It referred to whatever threshold (lab based or field based) you were using as a fundamental parameter of your training at that time.

Here is an interesting question. Assume the impossible where someone came up with a thermometer that would measure in 20 seconds either your ftp or your LT (precise definition of your choice). Which would be the better metric on which to base your training in the manner that we do today with power meters and ftp? I truly do not have an opinion - at least for well trained athletes.

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 12-20-20, 06:13 PM
  #75  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,139
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 736 Post(s)
Liked 228 Times in 141 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
Here is an interesting question. Assume the impossible where someone came up with a thermometer that would measure in 20 seconds either your ftp or your LT (precise definition of your choice). Which would be the better metric on which to base your training in the manner that we do today with power meters and ftp? I truly do not have an opinion - at least for well trained athletes.
Others with a stronger background in physiology or coaching can correct me, but my view is since FTP is a field-based surrogate for MLSS, if you had a way to quickly and accurately measure MLSS, it wouldn't make sense to use FTP. I'd add that whether MLSS is the best marker to use or not depends on what you plan to do with the information.

As for me, I shy away from using any single point metric and prefer to look at the full power-duration curve.
asgelle is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.