Hi all,
Somehow my 20 minute HR and 20 minute power got incorrectly modified by Athletica, after my Power Profile Test yesterday. That test should not have modified my 20 minute values, since the longest interval in the Power Profile test is only 10 minutes. But somehow it still did.
The app now thinks my 20’ power is 198 watts instead of the 208 watts measured from my actual 20 minute power test last week. And it thinks my 20 minute HR is 137 BPM when it should be 163 BPM. I don’t know what happened, but I want to set them back to the actual values I measured during my 20 minute power test last week. However, it doesn’t look like I can do this without generating a whole new plan, which I don’t want to do (please see attached screenshot). The settings page only has “Save and Update Training Plan” along with a date to restart the plan. I tried clicking on “Revert Changes”, and now there’s no HR or Power settings at all - those fields are just blank. That’s not going to work well for my training plan values.
I would sure appreciate your ideas on how I can change my 20 minute values in Athletica, without generating a whole new training plan. Thanks for your ideas!
@NorthK - If you click on “Plan overview” in the left side of the navigation menu and scroll down you can see the values of your different zones. You can modify this by changing the top row
Sorry for the sub-standard UX around threshold and profile settings. We’re right in the middle of switching over protocols to leverage critical power (and critical heart rate) over FTP and your experience here is a product of that. @js.lopez116 has nicely chimed in to tell you where those settings can be adjusted but let me know if you can’t find them. The goal of the conversion (FTP=>CP) is to enable invisible and seamless monitoring, so that we can track your performance potential and associated physiology across all durations and intensities. Likely to be merging over completely to this in the coming week or two, where I am sure there will be minor growing pains as there always is…
Best,
Paul
@Prof and @js.lopez116 thanks a lot. After re-setting them per your instructions it looks like the power and HR zones are correct again. I looked at upcoming workouts and everything looks good again (intervals are in the correct power zones).
It does seem like more software and coaches are going towards using critical power instead of 20 minute FTP testing, and also towards seamless monitoring rather than dedicated all-out power tests. One question I have about that is, when I do a dedicated 20 minute FTP test I usually rest for a day or two before and then I really go all-out on the test. It typically takes me a couple of full rest days to recover. But, if Athletica looks at hard training rides (but not all-out dedicated tests) to calculate my CP, the resulting power and HR won’t be as high as an all-out test. So, my power and HR zones will be different.
I can see this two ways:
CP values calculated on normal but hard training days will yield more accurate power and HR zones because it is what I can actually do without taking multiple rest days afterwards while I hobble up and down the stairs So, these are the zones I should be aiming for.
CP values are less accurate because I can do quite a bit better on an all-out FTP test and these are the zones I should be aiming for.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this and thanks again!
Thanks @NorthK, this is a truly interesting discussion. @Prof kindly asked me to join.
After reading your message couple of times I realised that it already has everything needed to explain what we are looking for here. The points 1+2 you mention, are the main reason we use CP instead of FTP. However, I take the chance to expand and add some additional colour to the discussion
As you know, the “invisible” monitoring is carried out by computing rolling averages on your data, so you do not need to complete all-out (time-trials, or time-to-exhaustion) tests at constant power and fixed durations. You can ride your bike and when you feel confident you can complete maximal efforts of different durations, from short bursts to long intervals, etc. It turns out that you might be able to establish a new record in the power you can sustain for 20’ by doing long intervals instead of keeping the max power for 20’.
As you can imagine, this approach suits very well the outdoor conditions, where the geography of the course might have an impact on your ability to push high wattages. We know that this depends on your gear ratios, cadence, and your biomechanics. We know that uphill vs flat is different when it comes to deliver power. Also, corners might prompt you to push a lot to regain speed, so that’s taken into account seamlessly in this approach.
After all, what are we looking for? This is debatable, my point of view is the following. We are looking for the CP because we know that it is highly associated with your maximal metabolic steady state (the max intensity you can keep without developing irreversible acidosis). HOWEVER, it is associated, this does not mean that is the same. We know that CP is slightly overestimating that max metabolic steady state power, and we also know that CP is decreasing during a prolonged effort (raising concept of durability).
Therefore, all things considered, with this “invisible” monitoring (let’s say CP instead of FTP, or let’s say maximal mean power instead than time-to-exhaustion/time-trial tests, etc…) you have a good compromise between your points 1 and 2: it is more likely that you are estimating what you are truly capable of, or what you are really willing to do. So, if you have a lab and an ergometer, and you want to make an objective comparison between individuals with the goal of documenting norms and stats, then CP protocols are probably the way to go. If you need to track your progresses and prescribe training intensities, my vote would be for maximal efforts distributed throughout a decently long period of time.
For my vanity, I would also add here a little note on CP model, which is also used to estimate W’, the work that can be done above CP. We stay away from it (the variability in the data makes its estimation unreliable and useless IMO). We know that “invisible” monitoring makes you underestimate W’, but we wouldn’t use it anyway. We use the Workout Reserve instead, that can consistently tell you how far you are form your personal best at every point of the training/race. Another advantage of having the “invisible” monitoring approach.
Thank you for your stimulating questions. Please keep us posted and let us know your thoughts.
FTP tests are so demanding and although very useful in calibrating our zones, I find that they can be too demanding and it’s difficult to get back on training the day after - as you also point out that it takes you two days to recover from - and to make sure you hit it hard enough, you do a “mini taper” prior. IMO you lose way too many good training days for 20 min ALL-OUT effort. That’s my critical view of FTP tests.
For most athletes, I would argue, it is enough to do their best at their current situation without tapering, as we train with somewhat fatigued legs all the time, so test results are always more realistic, than if we taper for a test. Why lose days of training for one test? I also chime in for WR - It’s really useful tool - in fact, I’ll be checking in with WR during my interval run session in a bit.
We always have more in the tank for racing, if we can get our heads in right on race day
@Andrea and @Marjaana thanks very much for your additional thoughts. I’m very interested in learning about Workout Reserve, but I have a Wahoo head unit. Is there any way to view my Workout Reserve on a Wahoo unit, or do I need to have a Garmin head unit? I just bought my Wahoo Roam V2 so I won’t be able to afford another new head unit. Or, is this a metric that I would view later on the Athletica.ai?
Also, I think there are great points made here that:
Between a “mini taper” and recovery days, too many training days are lost with an all-out power test. I never really thought about it that way but now that @Marjaana said it, it seems obvious
We do train with somewhat fatigued legs just about all the time unless we taper. And in my case, fatigued legs really don’t do as well – it’s at least a ten watt difference which represents a 5% difference in my FTP. And likely more than that much of the time. That’s pretty substantial!
So then, using seamless CP instead of all-out power tests, how do we know if we’re getting stronger/faster/more efficient – if our current plan is working or not? Is there a graph or chart of CP changes at different durations over time, or some other way to see this in Athletica? This is also important for motivation!
Yes, Workout Reserve is something you can check in post process on Athletica. Visual real-time feedback only available with Garmin at the moment, but who know in the future!
You touch a very important point, and we are pushing to display CP evolution throughout the season. This is something we’d really love to do. I would personally love this feature, so I will try to make it happen, but I can’t think of a deadline yet.
So, these are the zones I should be aiming for.
I would personally love this feature, so I will try to make it happen, but I can’t think of a deadline yet.