Riding far versus fast
#51
Senior Member
It is fun to see how the thread moves on. I guess it is OK as long as everyone is having fun, just don’t expect much interaction with the OP.
Likes For mr_pedro:
#52
Gravel Rocks
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.
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.
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mountain View, CA USA and Golden, CO USA
Posts: 6,341
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: 550 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times
in
226 Posts
Regardless, it's not enough to offset the increased food consumption from "runger."
#54
Gravel Rocks
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.
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
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: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 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
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
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
I’d 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.
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
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: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 Posts
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
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
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
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
#59
Senior Member
Likes For mr_pedro:
#60
Senior Member
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.
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.
Likes For mr_pedro:
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
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: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 Posts
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.
#62
Senior Member
This article explains how you could define FTP:https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/t...ing-protocols/
#63
Senior Member
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.
#64
Senior Member
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
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: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 Posts
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.
#66
Senior Member
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
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: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 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
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
#68
Senior Member
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.
As for me, I shy away from using any single point metric and prefer to look at the full power-duration curve.
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
[QUOTE=DaveLeeNC;21841595]
There are countless arguments about which is the best metric but at the end of the day you still have to go out and do the work and raise whatever it is your measuring. The precise definition is immaterial provided you use the same method consistently so you can track performance and the efficacy of a particular training regimen. FTP, MLSS, CP are all very close to one another.
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
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
#70
Kamen Rider
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: KL, MY
Posts: 1,071
Bikes: Fuji Transonic Elite, Marechal Soul Ultimate, Dahon Dash Altena
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 351 Post(s)
Liked 277 Times
in
164 Posts
Call me simple-minded... but if someone rode 105% FTP in one hour, I'd just say "congratulations, you just improved your FTP. It's now 105% of your old FTP."
But in the context of the graph... you can lump me in the "I'd like to see how you can ride 105% your FTP in one hour" group.
But in the context of the graph... you can lump me in the "I'd like to see how you can ride 105% your FTP in one hour" group.
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Functional Threshold Power was developed by Dr. Andrew Coggan and is specifically defined as “the highest power a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state without fatiguing."
Originally Posted by Andrew Coggan
That is because 1) the exercise intensity-duration relationship is quite flat in that region, and 2) FTP has never been defined as the power you can maintain for 60(.000000.....) min.
...
#72
Senior Member
The graph is not implying anyone to ride at 105% FTP for 1 hour. The unit of the vertical axis is kCal per hour, however that does not mean you need to ride for 1 hour, just like riding at 20 mph can also be done for 30 minutes.
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
One person's 100% FTP may burn 1300 kCal an hour, whereas someone else's may only burn 600.
#74
Senior Member
Likes For asgelle: