Coggan) say anecdotally that it has good correlation. Even though some well-regarded people (e.g. But less easy to justify ~0.75 * MAP by waving at graphs. It's not hard to find validation of 0.95 * CP20 or 1.0 * CP60 as good FTP surrogates. Good question - I admit I can't answer that easily. Redlude97 wrote: Curious where the correlation between ramp test and "real" FTP has been published or data shown? Curious where the correlation between ramp test and "real" FTP has been published or data shown? For me it seems to vary quite a bit depending on my phase of training, ie my % of MAP that would correlate with FTP seems to vary between 70-80% I'm certainly not an expert on the subject either. I actually don't mind heated discussions either as long as to some extent people are arguing from perspective of hashing out the data. (like 40K TTs).įor sure its tame, and I like to read a lot of different forums to get a more balanced perspective of philosophies. And it correlates very, very well with other "real world" FTP surrogate measures. My personal jury is still very much out on Adaptive Training. And it's my stress prescription tool of choice (though I massively override the default plans with my own changes). I like TR for it's ease-of-use as an organizational and basic analysis tool. That TR thread is downright tame compared to some stuff that's happened here.
#Trainerroad race analysis how to#
To be fair, this forum has had a ton of heated questions about what FTP is, the best ways to measure it, how to use it to prescribe workouts, etc. Just seems like its hard to have an objective nuanced conversation on the topic without being labeled a hater. I'm also a fan of the product, although not a user any more.
0 kommentar(er)
