Haven’t done a fitness test for ages, so have been working off an estimated FTP which has made my training tough but doable. Completed the Full Monty earlier this week and really pushed it: my AC and MAP increased slightly as did my (adjusted) NM but my FTP is down quite a lot.
I did Mountain Fondo today and it felt way to easy and although I was hitting the cadence and power targets, my heart rate was still below the target range. I ended up increasing my FTP by 10% half way through and my heart rate was in range.
So my question is, should I stick with the FTP from Full Monty for the rest of my training plan, or adjust it upwards slightly to stay within the suggested heart rate zones?
What do you mean by adjusted NM.
Pacing the 20minute FTP effort in Full frontal is an art, what was your average HR during that compared to what you feel you threshold HR is? I always find it’s worth doing the Half Monty test on the week beforehand to set a target.
What workout did you do today there isn’t one in the library called Mountain fondo” ?
Hey @BlueGirl ,
Welcome to the forum! You could increase your FTP somewhere in-between say ~7-14W Looking at your test, it’s clear you started the 20 min a bit too hard and had to hold a lower wattage to complete it. No worries though. It may well be you just haven’t been putting in much aerobic endurance riding over the past few months, but I’m just speculating. Happy to entertain more questions. What are your goals?
Next time you test, I recommend the half monty-full frontal test plan. That way you can use the Half Monty MAP and FTP as your launching points for the 5min and 20min tests.
My 1 min power was less than 110% of my 5 min power so it was adjusted in my results.
That’s a good tip about doing the Half Monty first - I think I went out a little hard at the start of the 20 minute effort so maybe that skewed the results. My heart rate was close to threshold for most of the effort.
Sorry, it was Big Gear Varying Cadence 3 x 10.
I was working off 170W before so I’ll try increasing it a bit again and I’ll definitely do the test plan on the lead up next time. Thanks.
Big gear/ low cadence work is less cardio intensive it’s normal to see a lower HR than if you were doing the same power at higher cadences. I don’t think the HR zone targets are adjusted to take this into account and are just based on the power target zone? @Coach.Spencer.R could perhaps clarify on this?
@JGreengrass is spot on, low cadence high torque will focus on muscle recruitment and less on the cardiovascular system. When doing these types of workouts, you can disregard or at least de-emphasize the HR zones. Keep up the good work!
I like to suggest doing the 7 day test prep plan which has a Half Monty ramp test on day 3 and a Full Frontal on day 7. The HM sets targets for the FF that makes it much easier to pace (though no easier to accomplish!). I try to just beat the suggested targets and it’s killer. This plan gives a consistent lead into the FF, so results should also be more consistent. It’s a good week of workouts too.
Another thing is, FTP and tempo workouts aren’t really that hard until you get into them (as long as you’re rested and fueled); short ftp intervals, like, you should feel like you’re working, but not feel really uncomfortable until you get to the last couple.
If FTP is the parameter you’re concerned with, consider to do a test that focuses on it: hop on the trainer and ride at what you think your FTP is for 30 minutes, then increase the wattage by 5 watts every ten mins until you can’t anymore. Average is gonna be pretty close to your ftp. Is it where you think? Then great, the issue might have been pacing with the 4DP. If it’s below what you think, could be that you’re mentally accustomed to certain workouts actually being too hard.
As bonus, you get a pretty good threshold workout out of the deal
Woah, this was odd. BlueGirl didn’t mention any specifics about her training or numbers and you reply publicly with information from her account details? She doesn’t seem to mind, but that’s not the point. The point is others might, and might not be expecting that, in a forum like this, anyone in Wahoo would even be looking into their account for specifics, but rather just answering based on what was asked, let alone though actually revealing those details publicly. Is this really appropriate, and do you think it should be obvious to most of us that it would be?
Maybe there’s another thread I’m missing where she already opened some of this up? It’s very possible I’m missing something, so don’t take it wrong. It just surprised me.
Hey @Still_D ,
You’re right, I shouldn’t have give a specific wattage number. My intent was to analyze the Full Frontal, not give out any account details. I’m sorry @BlueGirl . I also just edited my post. Again my apologies.
I wouldn’t have actually anticipated anyone at wahoo even looking into account details without request. I can’t even recall if the accounts are directly linked. I would have thought the forum is just talking.
I wouldnt have anticipated it either.
But it should be taken as a good thing not a bad thing.
I think @Coach.Spencer.R understands now to be careful not to share account information, but there’s also a huge positive side that I wouldnt want to lose.
The OP came to the forum and asked a question about their training. To get an answer from a qualified coach that has taken the time and effort to investigate and give a personalised answer is amazing. To me that’s excellent service and I wouldn’t want it changed.
Hey @Coach.Spencer.R no need to apologise. I have no problem with you showing my (rather pathetic) Watts I can understand other people maybe not being to happy about it, but I found all the info really useful and was amazed at the fast response.
Thanks again to everyone who’s given me advice, I”ll take it on board and hopefully get those Watts up!
I can’t agree at all. Even if “details” are left out, no response on a public forum should be based at all on any review of private information without getting approval first. This isn’t about BlueGirl, and it’s irrelevant if BlueGirl did or didn’t appreciate it.
In general even coaches looking through data of specific individual without request seems unexpected to me, particularly given this:
For example, we restrict access to personal information to Wahoo Fitness employees, contractors, business partners and agents who need to know that information in order to operate, develop or improve our services. These individuals are bound by confidentiality obligations and may be subject to…
I don’t see how someone answering a public question needs to know this information, especially since their response should not reflect anything in it as having it do so risks confidentiality. Of course someone debugging power numbers of 6000 watts may need to know, and that’s expected, but even then, there’s a difference between a general message board question about how these power numbers are expected to work, and a private tech support request. I would never expect anyone to dig through private information in the first case without explicitly asking. It could make some discussions where someone comments on a training program and coaches say “well, you didn’t even ride on Tuesdays like you were supposed to…” Now what if you’ve looked through their data, and you want to say that, but know you can’t? Is that situation better? Maybe better is just avoid the issue by approaching conversations just based on what is said alone, along with the realization by all, if needed, that it might not be the whole story.
Bottom line, the only information that can be released publicly is what the user themselves released publicly, so what is the “need to know” point/purpose in looking at anything else before forming a public response? At best I see no upside for Wahoo. For my example above Wahoo can still say “Sorry the program isn’t working for you. It could be many things, like skipping days, but generally…” The real goal is to provide useful information to a public forum right? Yes detailed examples could help that, but not using details that are off limits anyway.
Data privacy is important, but I don’t feel based upon reading this thread that @Coach.Spencer.R did anything wrong, even though he did apologize.
I would love to get free and specific advice from one of Wahoo’s coaches or sports scientists. I would be thankful that they took the time to review my data first, so they can steer me in the right direction.
An example would be if I posted that I’ve been training consistently but my numbers are down. I could be training poorly, not training with enough volume or overtraining. Only way to provide an accurate answer is to look at my workouts for the past month or so. And I would expect to get the right answer from Wahoo.
As far as sharing FTP numbers, mine is 209 at the moment. And that’s not saying much of anything. What are my NM, AC, MAP numbers? How old am I? What was my LTHR? Lastly how much do I weigh?
It also doesn’t tell anybody where I live, where I store my bike(s) or provide access to my bank accounts, family or anything that could be used to harm me. So I for one, am publicly giving Wahoo staff the right to review and comment on my 209 watt FTP anytime that they want to.
I’ll just say this:
I think this is a healthy discussion and very pertinent. I’m glad Still_D raised the question here, AND on a specific thread pertaining to this same discussion. I think he is spot on about confidentiality and expectations of how personal data should be handled and discussed.
Kudos to BlueGirl for responding so graciously, and to Coach.Spencer.R for apologizing and editing comments. “We ALL stumble in many ways…”
I totally agree that Coaches having access to certain data can be a positive thing and enable best counsel, but there IS a very real potential for misuse of data. When it slips out publicly, too late is too late! Edits can reduce the ongoing damage to some degree. But even if it doesn’t come out publicly, misuse of data should be restricted as much as possible. We’ve all seen shows or movies that portray this and yeah, we know it happens even in the highest echelons of government and other social structures. And we’ve all been turned off when we see it… I HOPE.
It is NOT acceptable behavior, nor does it meet the test of confidentiality, no matter who does it, when access is utilized to satisfy personal curiosity or with even less honorable motivations.
I’m not at all suggesting either of these things occurred in this instance. I believe all intentions were good and the end result was at very least, accepted by BlueGirl.
But I think improvement in practice here is worthy of the exploration and discussion, and it is very clear that some would NOT have accepted the end result. That is what warrants some changes about how to best help people while still being sure to protect personal data.
I totally agree with Still_D that unless a member reveals specific data HERE on this forum, it should not be revealed publicly by any Wahoo employee that may have legitimate access to it.
And I also agree that unless that person also asks for his/her data to be accessed (for reasons of providing better counsel or whatever), that Wahoo employees shouldn’t be looking at that data unless it is necessary for doing their job.
Aggregate data is legitimately a totally different matter, if it is compiled in a way that does not needlessly reveal personal details to anyone in that process. No system is perfect in this regard, and as data gathering increases continually, changes to policy are needed from time to time.
Personally, I would probably hesitate to even ASK a coach to look at my ACTIVITY data just for reasons of providing counsel, but not because I’m concerned about my privacy… I’d just think I was imposing on their time to do this, unless I was specifically paying for the service. The fact that some do this willingly shows me they ARE willing to help and that’s wonderful. But I still wouldn’t want to presume upon them.
It IS a great community here, and I’ve learned a LOT from so many of you! I appreciate this about Wahoo and my SYSTM app is that much better because this forum is so helpful!
I hope this discussion leads to even greater awareness of how our information is accessed and used, and also how it is possible for someone to go deeper into that when desired.
I’ve found a great way to validate FTP is on a long climb in RGT, Rouvy or FulGAZ. Although your cadence might be pretty low depending on your gearing. You’ll want to warm up a bit and knock out some anaerobic efforts first. Maybe start with Primers.