Making FTP Progress by Taking it Easy

Last year I was able to maintain FTP growth through January 8th - then my results flattened out. It's probably not a coincidence that I started doing much more VO2max and anaerobic work in January last year. Either then intensity somehow stunted my FTP progress or, more likely, the reduced time available for SST and L4 work stopped my FTP improvement.

This year I've pretty much stayed away from high intensity work except for what I got in the Peach Peloton attack zones. I did my first set of hill repeats for 2009 on Monday.

Yesterday I did another FTP test. It appears that my FTP is still creeping upward. That's good news, but it makes me wonder if I should continue to hold off on intensity training even longer into the year. Oddly enough, I don't feel that my anaerobic system is suffering much from the lack of training. One thing's for sure, the absence of intensity in January and February has me feeling much fresher and I've not been sick since last spring.

I guess if the training program ain't broke, don't try to fix it. So for now I'll let my intensity mostly come from races and see what happens. I'll probably know in my first crit if the lack of anaerobic work has set me back in that area. My current FTP chart is below. I probably should do at least FTP test in my recently modified TT position to see how that stands. But I've been putting it off because, well, hurts a lot to be in that position for 45 minutes - I really didn't develop the new position for longer races.

Clean that Chamois!

The cyclist never should have been in that lane, but once he was there, he did a pretty good job of not becoming a hood ornament. I think the award for evasive maneuvers goes to the 2nd motorcyclist, though.

The Plagiarist

I always try to resist the temptation to play copycat, but I could not resist plagiarizing this little section from "Coppi and Me, Part II" by Padrig over at Belgium Kneewarmers.

In the series Gino Bartali reminisces about racing against Fausto Coppi in the 1940s and 1950s. They were both good friends and bitter rivals. The segment below is what Bartali had to say about Coppi's Achilles heel. It reminded me of the almost imperceptable signals I get from some of my companions where they are in difficulty (hollow eyes or barely perceptable changes in hand position on the bars).

It is a perfect metaphor for the intricacies of cycling and the sometimes frivolous and comic nature of our great sport.

Bartali recalls:

"So I studied him, I looked at him, I scrutinized him, passing all I observed through a sort of sieve set to catch the least eccentricity that would imply fallibility. And then, one day, my tenacity was repaid. I perceived something. Finally, I had it!

Behind the right knee a vein inflated along 5 or 6 centimeters, apparently under the pressure of ridding his leg of toxic waste. This apparition made itself obvious between 160 and 180 kms into a race. At this moment Fausto became vulnerable and he lost a bit of that fluid plastic motion he normally displayed.

One day, in the 1948 Tour of Italy, the stage to Naples, I decided to see if I could profit from my research. I told my lieutenant, Corrieri, to survey the hollow behind Coppi’s right knee and let me know if he saw any change. Sure enough, right about the time I expected, Corrieri came rolling through the peloton crying at the top of his voice, ‘The vein! The vein!’ Of course no one knew what he was yelling about, least of all Fausto, but I knew and I slid through the group to verify the good Giovannino’s spy operation. One look and I could see the vein was indeed inflated!

’Go! Go!’ I yelled to Van Steenbergen, to Koblet, to Kubler, and anyone else around me. ‘Coppi is in difficulty!’

‘Are you nuts?’ queried Van Steenbergen.

'Follow me!’ I yelled.

Everyone attacked, and at the finish Fausto had lost four minutes!"

What a great story. This past weekend I think I discovered a 'vein' in one of my more genetically gifted associates. It'll be fun to test my theory on the roads this summer!

The Vein!, The Vein! also reminded me of Tatoo:

The Plane!, The Plane!

2009 Coast-Down Aero Testing

Every winter I try to improve my time trial position, and every winter so far I've been able to do it. This year I lowered the bike's front end, narrowed my elbows, and moved my hands closer together. Also, in the middle of last season - since my last aero test - I replaced my front American Classic 50mm deep section wheel with a HED tri-spoke wheel and Veloflex Record 19mm tubular. I'm still using a non-dimpled Zipp 900 disc rear wheel and riding a 2001 Cervelo P2K. I test in a short-sleeved skinsuit with a Louis Garneu Rocket TT helmet and shoe covers - no gloves, no glasses. I perform the test at 25 mph entry speed and ghost pedal during the test (In case y'all are wondering why I give so much detail: this is where I'll come next winter to review my last test and prepare to do it again).

Here are my aero testing results for the past three years along with my FTP in TT position, my theoretical speed on a flat road at FTP, and my theoretical 40k TT time on a flat course at FTP. All of this assumes a Crr=0.005, a weight of 172.5 pounds for bike and rider, 80 degrees Fahrenheit, 1022 kPa air pressure, and relative humidity 50% on a calm day.

___________________________________________________

2007: CdA = 0.269 m^2 ------257 watts ------ 24.27 mph ----- 1:01:26

2008: CdA = 0.233 m^2 ------271 watts ------ 25.91 mph ----- 0:57:33

2009: CdA = 0.219 m^2 ------278 watts ------ 26.64 mph ----- 0:55:59

These drag coefficient (CdA) numbers were all developed on the same test course with the exact same testing protocol, so even if the absolute numbers are a little off -- maybe because I estimated the hill slope wrong or assumed a bad rolling resistance coefficient, Crr -- at least I know that I'm more aero than I've ever been.

The coast-down test results were amazingly repeatable. I performed 5 test runs. On the first run 4 cars passed, so I threw that one out. The times on the last four runs were 79.6 sec, 79.4 sec, 79.8 sec, and 79.6 sec.

Testing results don't guarantee race results, but the added confidence sure doesn't hurt.

If you haven't played around with aerodynamics and tested your CdA, you should - it's free speed. My improvement from 2008 to 2009, which is only 0.233-0.219=0.014 m^2, will save me 57 seconds on a 40k TT (the equivalent of 15 more average watts on a flat course). Or more realistically, about 30 seconds on the shorter TTs that I'll do. If you want to play around with the calculation spreadsheet, get it from Badger3 and input your numbers.

Or if you're not the number crunching type, just take a piece of chalk and your TT setup to any hill that bottoms out and starts back up. Start at the top at a consistent speed. Coast down the hill and keep rolling until you stop. Mark a spot with the chalk where your front wheel stops. Do it a few times to get a good average. Then change something - your helmet, skinsuit, wheels, position, etc. and do the test again under the exact same conditions (temperature, weight, humidity, etc.) on a calm day. If you pass your prior mark on the road, you are more aero and therefore are faster (as long as your power output is the same).

The Black Box

In the process of researching how to calculate one's highest possible FTP from VO2max, I've investigated the relationship of many different physiological variables. I didn't want the work to go to waste, so I've taken many of the relationships and built them into a spreadsheet that links them together. Here's a screen view of the spreadsheet with my numbers intered into it:



Here's a link to the spreadsheet in Google Docs (click on "edit this page" at the bottom of the sheet to enter your own numbers in the green boxes):
The Black Box

I haven't locked any of the cells, so the Google Docs spreadsheet might get screwed up. If that happens, you can download a copy of the spreadsheet in Excel format at FTP from Calculate VO2 from FTP.

And finally, I've created the ultimate black box. This spreadsheet pushes each of the physiological variables to the limit. It assumes that you have excellent genetics and that you are training to the absolute max with the best available techniques and coaches. If all of that were true, this spreadsheet would tell you your FTP. If you produced above that number for an extended period in the Tour, you'd get a one-way ticket home. Here's that Pro max spreadsheet with Lance's numbers entered:



Here's a link to the Google Docs Pro max sheet (click on "edit this page" at the bottom of the page to enter your own numbers in the green boxes:
Pro Max spreadsheet

Here's the Excel version for download:
Theoretical max FTP from VO2max

I think drug testing based on power is a crazy and unworkable idea, but it's interesting to ponder.

Lance Stats From TdU

Lance said his average power was 340 watts after 2 hours of yesterday’s stage of the Tour Down Under. Assuming a variability index (VI) of 1.1 (which I’ve found to be typical for hard paceline riding on rolling terrain), then his Normalized Power (NP) for that period would have been about 340 watts x 1.1 = 374 watts for that period. If his FTP is around 420 watts (about 5.7 w/kg, I think), http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s-1-9-18332-1,00.html, then his intensity factor (IF) for that two hour period was 0.89. That lines up with the IF values I see for a very hard Tuesday Worlds ride for me. It’s very hard, but not impossible. So it sounds like the numbers work based on those assumptions.

Heartrate and VO2max Predicts Cycling FTP

In my research of the relationship of VO2max and max potential FTP, I stumbled on this calculator: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm.

I've seen lots of littel cutesy calculators like this; but for fun I input my data: male, 150 lbs, age 40, ave HR (at FTP) 162 bpm, VO2max = 70 ml/kg/min. I was quite amazed to find that it predicted my power output at FTP (based on average heartrate) to be 290.46 watts. My last two FTP test results are 290 watts and 292 watts.

Either this is a really cool coincidence, or there is some good science in the paper on which the calculator is based, found at http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf. I haven't read it yet, but I will.

This is the formula used in the calculator:
kCal/min = (-59.3954 + (-36.3781 + 0.271 x age + 0.394 x weight(kg) + 0.404 x VO2max(ml/kg/min) + 0.634 x HR(bpm)))/4.184

I don't know what each factor means yet, but I probably will after I go through the research paper.

Calories burned vs oxygen intake is relatively well understood. Oxygen intake is commonly measured (it's VO2max). And I know that the calculator assumes a 24% efficiency from chemical to mechanical work for cycling, which is a commonly-used and accepted factor (it usually ranges from 20% to 25%).

Now if I can find good data relating FTP and % VO2 max for elite cyclists, I should be able to set up a direct relationship between VO2max and FTP in well-trained cyclists. This would be the relationship that LeMond is proposing to use in evaluating power output of riders in the pro peloton to test for doping.

Hippodrome

This is a good winter trainer workout for gradually transitioning from pure FTP build into a little more intense L5 work. It'll give you 55 quality minutes and 66 TSS.

• WU: 15 min @ 65% FTP (L2)
• Then do this set 3 times:


• 5 min @ 88% FTP (SST)
• 3 min @ 112% FTP (L5)
• 2 min @ L2


• Then:


• 5 min solid tempo
• 5 min cooldown spin
  

Google is very helpful in making up workout names: In 532 AD, the Nika Riot occurred in Constantinople, and about 30,000 people were killed in the Hippodrome (horse track). Also, 532 AD was the first year that the Anno Domini calendar was ever used.

Ouch.

Since 2000/2001 my winter training plan has included at least one day per week on the TT bike. This winter is no different. In November and December I've done one SST workout per week on the Cervelo.

Winter is also the time to do position tweaks. A few days ago I added a new Thomson stem to my P2K. It is the same length as my old stem, but has a 10-degree downward angle (the old one had a zero angle). That lowered the front end 16 millimeters [90cm x sin(10 deg) = 16mm]. I also moved the tri-bar extensions forward about 15 mm. To maintain a similar reach, I shifted my saddle forward about 1.5 cm forward. Shifting the saddle forward meant that I had to raise it a little to keep the same height from the BB. I had to add new shifter cables and cable housing due to the extended new position. To polish it all off, I sawed 2.5 cm off the top of my fork, steerer tube, whatever you call that thing, and took off several spacers.

As I mentioned, up 'till now I've only done SST workouts - 85% to 90% of FTP.

After I made the adjustments, I did a 45 minute workout including 4 threshold power intervals - 100% of FTP - each 7 minutes long. Not what I would call a difficult workout.

For two days after the workout I have been extremely sore. Legs, back, shoulders - it's been hard to sleep, even. I don't know if it was the slightly different position, the slightly higher intensity, the fact that it's my first winter over 40, or maybe all three. But it hurts like hell.

The experience has changed the way I'll approach my TT training for the rest of the winter. After a few more workouts to hopefully 'stop the hurt,' I'll start doing shorter, harder intervals on the TT bike. If many of my TT efforts this year will be prologues or very short TTs in the Georgia Cup series, I'd better get used to VO2max level efforts on the Cervelo. So from here out, it's weekly 355s on the TT bike: 3x5min@L5 (L5 is 110% FTP power).

If I find that there is as much difference between the 355s and the FTP efforts on the Cervelo as I found between SST and FTP, then there's probably more soreness in my future.

Five Pain Portraits

I've recently administered FTP tests for a few other riders - 45 minutes - as hard as you can go and still finish the test. All of them were strong and experienced racers. But as you can see from the charts below, none of them had the same approach to the test. It was fun, and sometimes very painful, to watch.

This guy started too easy and probably had too much left at the end:

This guy started too hard and struggled at the finish:

This guy's approach took him to all sorts of highs and lows. A premature finishing push and subsequent burnout probably cost him a few watts:

This guy had good, if slightly undulating, pacing and turned himself inside out, in and out of the saddle, to maintain his number in the closing minutes:

This guy's metronomic output was juuuuusst right (guess who's the experiened time trial specialist of the group?). Amazing consistency and near-perfect pacing.

I expect higher numbers from the first three riders if they choose to test again later in the season - from better pacing strategy if not also from improved fitness. If the last two want higher numbers, they'd better just "Ride Lots."

Seven Stages of Road Racing

The holidays gave me a few minutes to browse other cycling blogs, something I haven't done in a while. I saw this post on Stuart Lynne's blog and found it amusing:



http://tt-training.blogspot.com/2008/03/seven-stages-of-road-racing.html



Sounds just like my 2006 season.

CTL and FTP History

One of the useful things about power data is that a watt in 2006 is the same as a watt in 2009. So chronic training load (CTL) and functional threshold power (FTP) are reliable in comparing training and fitness across multiple years. If your power meter is giving you good numbers (close your eyes and accept it, Hoppa, it won't hurt), then CTL and FTP are 100% valid indicators of how hard you've worked in any year and what FTP benefit you developed from the work. The comparison works best in the winter FTP-build phase.

The comparison is a good test of your training program's effectiveness. There are important contributors to, and indicators of, fitness and succes other than CTL and FTP (genetics, luck, nutrition, weight, confidence, stress level, sleep quality, team strenth, equipment weight and quality, spousal support, tactics, strategy, motivation, sprint power, crank torque, 5-min power, cadence, CdA), but for me they are the ones that matter the most.

LeMond, Armstrong, and the SRM Dope Dog

I’ve been studying cycling from every angle for the last few years. It’s increasingly rare that I encounter a truly new idea or perspective that “opens a new door” or provides me a completely original line of thinking about cycling performance or culture. But I stumbled upon one on Friday.

A little background: In preparing for a 3-hour drive to Ringgold to see the inlaws (a visit which was enhanced by a 40-mile ride over new Tennessee roads with my Lovely Wife), I downloaded onto my Shuffle several cycling-related podcasts: a couple Fredcasts and a couple from The Spokesman. One of them contained stuff from Interbike 2008. That’s where Lance gave a press conference this fall to discuss his return to competitive cycling. A sort-of-hard-to-hear recording of his press conference was included in the podcast.

I already knew that Greg LeMond had attended Lance’s press conference and, based on what I’d heard, had made an ass of himself with all of his repeated questions about Lance’s new doping controls. Lance has, in lieu of a salary, requested that Astana hire a dope testing specialist to set up and carry out a continuous testing program for Lance for the 2009 season. All of his data will be published on the web in real time.

Well, Greg repeatedly attempted to grill Lance and his consultant about it. In the recording you couldn’t hear the questions very well, but you could tell that Lance and pretty much everyone else in the room wished he would just shut up and go back to selling bikes.

Greg and Lance in '94 - before they had much to argue about.

But that’s not the interesting part. Greg’s been doing that for years and everyone’s used to it. The guy who runs the Fredcast hung around to work on some technical stuff after the press conference. A little while later, Greg LeMond and Lance’s drug testing consultant entered the room and continued in private their heated discussion. As Greg turned to leave, he held a brief interview with three or four journalists. That’s the part that got me thinking.

One last caveat before I finally get to my point: Although I’m an admirer of Greg LeMond for his accomplishments and for what he’s contributed to American cycling, I’m not particularly fond of his constant Lance attacks (airing of American cycling’s dirty laundry in public goes against my grain and hints at a character flaw in LeMond – although Lance has his share of those as well).

In the interview after the press conference, which can be heard at http://www.thefredcast.com/?p=406, Greg made his point. Essentially, he said that no matter how the doping labs test professional riders, and no matter how sophisticated their testing methods get, the riders and some of their teams will always be a step ahead and be able to evade some of the testing. Maybe that’s true. I have very little doubt that Lance will race clean in 2009, but will everyone in the peloton be clean – no. CERA stays in your system for about 60 hours. Blood doping with your own blood is virtually undetectable.

LeMond proposed that there is one ironclad way to catch dopers: use an SRM. Measure their race power output.

He argues that through chemistry, physics, and physiology, we’ve established very accurately the relationships governing the energy systems of cycling. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. And a watt is a watt is a watt. VO2max, or the amount of oxygen that your body can process per minute, limits and controls how much energy your body can produce. Everyone's career-best FTP (and other power outputs) has a set ceiling.

Your VO2max is largely determined by genetics. Training level and age can also play roles. For a 25-year-old, very highly trained cyclist it’s virtually a constant number. It will drop slightly with age, but not much until you reach your upper thirties or forties. And even then it changes pretty slowly if you remain highly trained. {And for Causey and Ron I think it’s a universal constant.}

Improvements in racing tactics, training methods, teammates, nutrition, and your mental approach can all make you a more successful cyclist. But if you are a very highly trained professional cyclist (alreadying eating and training at the highest level possible) your maximum power output won’t change much after a young age even though your endurance can be greatly improved with additional years.

LeMond argues (and he has physiologists to back up his argument) that there should be a baseline VO2max established for every professional rider. Based on that VO2max, assuming the highest mechanical and metabolic efficiency that’s possible for humans, there would be a maximum functional threshold power (FTP) calculated for every rider in the peloton. Competitors (randomly or all of them – he doesn’t say) would have their bikes fitted with SRM power meters during race stages. Any rider who demonstrated long-term power output exceeding the theoretical maximum would be considered a doper and immediately removed from the sport for life – end of rule. LeMond says riders like Merckx and Anquetil never produced a FTP of 8 watts per kilo and doesn’t think modern riders are doing it honestly. (Van de Velde reportedly stayed with the front Tour group in the mountains in 2008 with 5.85 watts/kilo – something he’d not been able to do in the past with the same power output).

While this approach would be a very radical idea - I’m certainly not sold on it -- it’s a fascinating one. It would also be terrible for cycling and cycling fans.

Would the SRM dope dog weed out dopers of all types – I don’t see why not. But it would turn professional cycling into more of a video game than it already has become. It would be like having Johan Bruneel, Bjarne Riis, and Jonathan Vaughters sitting across the table from each other with monitors and joysticks. Dopers would shift their focus from max power output to maximum recovery ability, and the dope race would continue.

Knowing the exact FTP of every rider in the peloton and having race radios to completely control all of them would remove from cycling what magic that remains in the sport. The echoes of Anquetil and Merckx would finally and completely be dampened by technology and the modern era. Let's find another way.


Jaques Anquetil


Eddie Merckx

Bike Food

It's obvious that if you do long rides you have to eat and drink or you will endure much suffering.

When my wife's legs stopped working at mile 48 of our 76-mile group ride yesterday, I asked her what was wrong. She said, "I don't know, but I can barely turn the pedals." After she'd struggled to the finish, I asked her what she'd had to eat and drink, and it became obvious that she'd staged her own littel hunger strike in the Peach Peloton.

My rule of thumb is that for rides over about 30 miles, I make sure to consume at least 200 calories per hour even if I have to choke it down. That's usually in the form of a Hammer gel or half a Hammer bar along with one bottle of Heed per hour. I noticed one rider in our group yesterday drank two large bottles of energy drink every hour. Everybody's different, and I guess he prefers liquid calories. If I tried that I'd be chasing back on from lots of one-man nature breaks.

If you're so inclined, enter your preferenced in the poll to the right.

Poll results:
Calories per hour on the bike:
Random - 16%
100 - 0%
200 - 8%
300 - 16%
>300 - 58%

Type of food:
Energy Drink - 66%
Energy Bars - 75%
Gels - 66%
Fruit - 25%
Store stop food - 50%
Salty foods - 33%

6789 SST

I 'invented' a new trainer FTP-build workout last night (boredom is the mother of many new workouts). I’ll call it 6789 STT. (SST is sweet spot training – 90% of FTP - not a new idea, but probably a pretty good one). It goes like this:

Begin riding at L2 effort. At 14 min, do 6 min of SST. At 23 min, do 7 minutes of SST. At 32 min, do 8 min of SST. And at 41min, do 9 min of SST. L2 effort between sets and for the last 10 minutes to make an hour-long workout.

Figure by Andy Coggan, PhD

Suffering

Last night I finished the hardest workout I've ever done. Honestly. It wasn't complicated - just get on the computrainer and go as hard as I could for 45 minutes.

The cave result was a good one for me - 290 watts (4.34 w/kg), only about 22 watts lower than the number that big 'Hoppa stamped out down there a couple of weeks ago.

But the new level of suffering started me wondering - are the higher numbers due more to adaptive physiology or psycology? Have I become a stronger cyclist or a better sufferer? I guess in the end it doesn't matter how much of each has contributed, because racing requires plenty of both.

It's been plenty cold this week, at least by Georgia standards. So I'm throwing in a couple of zaps from the BBQ ride - when it was a little warmer. One of the reasons why we suffer on the trainer in the winter:

Upgrading the Tarmac

I did a 2-hr ride on the Tarmac yesterday and was pleased with it. My first impressions compared with the Orca:

• Tarmac has slightly more responsive steering, which means slightly less stable (a little more twitchy), and seemed to be a little more responsive to accelerations.
• Tarmac is about 1.5 lbs lighter than the Orbea (around 15.3 with pedals) and I think I did notice some difference.
• Tarmac seems to dampen road vibration a little bit more, but it might be the Roval Fusee wheels as much as the frame.
• The S-Works Toupe saddle is nice and very light, but I like my slightly heavier and more boring Fizik Arione better.
• I don't care for the S-Works stem, so I'll replace it with a Thomson X2.
• The reach was about a centimeter too long, so I'll install a shorter stem.
• I like the Roval Fusee wheels very much. They are very light (1500g/pair), stiff, and more aero than my Ksyrium SLs that I have been using for training.
• 2008 Dura-Ace shifting was smooth for the most part. I'd say rear derailleur works as well or a little better than my 4-year-old Campagnolo Record, but the front derailleur is slightly inferior to Record (not quite as smooth when upshifting under power).
• I don't the like Dura-Ace hood shape, but I'm sure I'll get used to it. The cockpit isn't as clean looking due to the Dura Ace non-internal cables, but I'll get used to that, too. The Campy hoods provide a much flatter top-of-bars platform, which I like. I think the 2009 Dura Ace has copied Campy (and SRAM) and have a flatter top and routed cables.
• The only component that I really did not like was the S-Works carbon bars. First, they have the flattened, ergo oval shape to the top horizontals - I don't care for those. But the biggist issue is the vertical slant to the bars as you move from the top horizontals and begin to curve around to the hoods. I like bars that stay horizontal in that top curve before turning down to the hood locations.

I could have roatated the S-Works bars clockwise and moved the brake hoods downward on the bars, but then the oval top tube would be sloping back at a weird angle and the drops would have been sloping toward the ground more than I like.

So last night I gave the Tarmac a litte makeover. I made (or will make) the following changes:

• Swapped the stock 100mm stem for a 90mm Thompson X2.
• Swapped the white and blue S-Works Toupe saddle for a black Fizik Arione.
• Swapped the S-Works carbon seatpost with a Thompson Masterpiece seatpost.
• Swapped the Michelin Pro Race 3 tires for Maxxis Cormets.
• Swapped the threaded-stem tubes with smooth-stemmed Specialized tubes (easier on the pump gasket).
• Swapped the heavy, bulky-looking Profile design bottle cages with carbon Bontragers.
• Swapped the carbon ergo bars for FSA Energy aluminum bars (which are lighter, by the way - which surprised me).
• Will remove the blue bar tape and replace with black for winter. I'll likely go to white in April.

Now I'm good to go. Anybody want to buy a bunch of Campy shop tools?

Adiós Orca, Nga'aiho Tarmac

I can't say enough good things about my 2005 Orbea Orca. It's been a great bike. But I have a new one now, so I guess the Orca will be eBay fodder soon.


2008 Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL


In a couple of weeks I'll give a comparison between the bikes.

FTP Paradigm Shift

Three weeks ago I had a very poor time trial result in Ringgold. I felt mentally with it and well-motivated during the race, but in reflection I realized that I never exhibited the 'symptoms' that I normally do in an all-out TT effort. In a good TT, a couple of strange things normally happen to me:


1-At least once or twice during the effort, I convince myself that I've ramped up the power too hard, totally screwed up my pacing, and honestly question if I'll be able to finish the course. I can remember sorting through false excuses in my mind to explain to my teammates why I didn't show up at the finish line ("I got tired" doesn't sound too hot). It's never happened, and I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's absolutely true. Your mind can play tricks on you in a hard TT.


2 - At least a couple of times during the effort, I involuntarily cuss, shout, talk, or whatever. It's like I've contracted Tourettes Syndrome and have no control of my speech. It's really very strange. I've startled a few volunteers by doing it.


Neither of those things happened in Ringgold. I think that means I didn't leave it all out there. I'm not sure why that happened - end of a long, hard season, I guess. Come to think of it, neither of those things has happened in my TTTs, either. I wonder if that's because I'm not giving it everything or because I have rest intervals?


The day after the Ringgold TT, I did a FTP test on the Computrainer. Near the beginning of the test, my computer monitor went out. It got so fuzzy that I couldn't read the wattage on the screen. I continued working hard and completed the test. I was expecting a good result, but when I downloaded the data I found that my FTP was only 264 watts. I had expected it to be around 280, at least. I was disappointed in the result, but in a way I was relieved. I figured it had been a long year and it was normal for me not to be able to maintain my FTP from January to October, and that's why I performed poorly in Ringgold. It all seemed to fit, and it gave me an easy out. I looked forward to starting a new FTP ramp in November.


But yesterday, November 3rd, I performed another FTP test. This time I had a new monitor and could use the average wattage number as a carrott during the test. Guess what? My FTP is 286 watts!


All of this shifts my training paradigm and convinces me of three things. First, the Ringgold thing was a failure of my mind, not my legs. Second, I have to get an Ergomo BB for my TT bike before February to give me a carrott and maximize my power output. And third, I'm starting my FTP ramp for 2009 about 2 watts higher than the end of my 2008 FTP ramp.


Can I gain 20 watts in 14 weeks this winter like I did last winter? I have no idea. Either I'll have lots of work with no improvement this winter, or I'll move to a 300-watt FTP, 4.6 watts/kg. Most likely it'll be something in between.

2008's a Wrap

The season is officially over. My 2008 was very successful both individually and from a team perspective. We have a great group of sponsors for 2009 and I look forward to the difficult task of topping this year's results in 2009 with Security Bank Cycling Team.

Here's a look at my yearlong Performance Manager Chart. The most notable parts of the graph are the long, slow CTL buildup over the winter (the long Peach Peloton rides make it look like a regular heartbeat). I began peaking much too early, in February. As a result I was forced to put my CTL into a dive in late March and early April in order to have time to rebuild a peak for the Tour of Atlanta in late May - my most important target. The strategy worked and I had a very successful ToA.

My CTL held pretty steady throughout the summer. I saw a late-season bump around Six Gap Century and my training for the State TT Championship, then a tail-off as I took it easy in late October. The CTL ramp for the State TT was too steep and I'd lost too much FTP by late summer, resulting in a poor performance in Ringgold.

It's interesting to note that many of my power records were set in late June and early July following a slight dip in CTL after the ToA - just as would be expected.





Most of my racing will be March through June next year. That will make a two-peak season pretty much impossible. So I plan to push more of my intensity training into January or February and ramp it up more slowly.