If you can do 1 x 60' at 100% FTP daily for around an hour, then you should be on one of the pro teams.

You are comparing bike powers with running speeds? Not sure I follow... how you can make a correlation unless you estimate (say with a Stryd) the power at 4:10 vs the power at 4:00?

Also "tempo" is a vague term: from the bike you are defining "tempo" as 0.78 IF. .which is an effort that many endurance trained folks could hold for 3-4 hours. I am not sure the runners definition of "tempo" is a pace that they can hold for 3-4 hours. I really don't see any runner with a 4 min per km threshold being able to run a 50 km race at 4:10/km.

Yes....we've discussed that a bit.

Run Tempo pace is about the same as bike threshold power.

However, I wouldn't agree that Biking for 60' @ FTP every day is sustainable, anymore than a hard-10K every day would be.

that is why i said 60' threshold power is a once in a while effort, FTP efforts i see others do at 20'x3 over 2 hour ride maybe? I also see crit racers able to do ftp for multi event one day races.

Anyways tempo biking feels much easier than tempo running

This is the quote I don't quite agree with. Several days in a row? Sure...maybe even for a week, if well rested beforehand--ok. Every day, no. That goes for a 20'x3 every day, as well.

If we define:
1. running threshold pace = 60' pace
2. biking threshold power = 60' power

then:

1. run tempo = ~0.95 IF
2. Bike tempo = ~0.85 IF

That's why.

Assuming we are sensibly choosing not to get into the argument about exactly how long you can hold bike FTP for, my understanding is pretty similar to Tom's.

Yes. Just trying to establish a common baseline between to two sports to illustrate the difference in effort run-tempo and bike-tempo.

It might help to peg the running tempo to an effort you could sustain for a duration of time.

threshold bike around 50-70min threshold run 50-70 min. I might be willing to narrow that range for running.
tempo run about 90-100 min +/-.
tempo bike would be longer (IMO) mostly bc running has a higher physiological cost than running at sub threshold but above all day long effort. You're just going to accumulate more fatigue running vs cycling due to ground impact forces

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

So?

Let's assume for one sec it was possible for a cyclist to do 60 Mim at FTP Every day it would be harder for a runner because of impact . Cardiovascular it should be rather similar but again a bit harder as most people have a higher HR on the run than bike
Anyway there is a reason a elite cyclist can spend more time on a bike than a elite runner can because of the impact at at some stage the runner has to do alternative training to work the cardio system more.

As for the op if you have a 280 watt FTP 220 is not a tempo bike
Thats more an ronman effort and off course depends where your lt1 is
IE for some people with and FTP of 280, 220 watts can still be bellow lt1
So just using watt numbers can be a bit iffy. If you don't indicate where lt1 is as well.

A few things:

Threshold can be defined as your pace/power you can hold at quasi-steady state. IMO the gold standard would be an Max lactate steady state test (the highest power you can hold for 30+min at a steady lactate level) 60min TT is a good enough guesstimate for that, and was one of the first definitions of FTP. It's possible that someone's 60min power is slightly higher or lower than their true threshold, usually a bit higher.

Tempo has 100 different meanings. All three of these can be more precisely defined as percentages of each other.

BUT

Different athletes will have different metabolisms. Long endurance (ie long course tri) will generally have a lower global lactate level, which means a higher fat burn and lower glycogen burn. Sprint inclined athletes (track cycling, 5k runners, stuff under ~1hour) will have a higher global lactate level, which means lower fat burn and higher glycogen burn.

Practically what this means is that a long course athlete will be able to hold their "tempo" (let's say 90% of threshold) for a much longer time than a sprint focused athlete. It also has an effect on how their FTP measurement turns out (a sprint athlete will appear higher in a 20min, an endurance athlete will appear higher in a 60min).

I try to pace my efforts based off of metrics more specific than FTP or threshold. 3-5min max power is a better baseline % for VO2's than FTP %. 70.3 power is a better baseline for "tempo" efforts than FTP. MLSS/LT1 is a better baseline for Z2 than FTP%.

I'm not trying to crap too hard on FTP, but it's such a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic power (especially in the ramp/20min) that it's not very useful for pure aerobic or anaerobic efforts.

First, most of that has very little to do with the OP. Which is simply that when a runner describes a tempo effort (very close to threshold), they mean a significantly harder effort than a cyclist does...a cyclist's tempo is roughly 10-15% lower relative (to threshold) effort than a runner's tempo.

Second, you are conflating the various short-duration-approximations of FTP with FTP---which has always been defined as the power one can hold for approximately an hour. However, very few people like to do 60' tests---so, shorter duration approximations have been proposed (30'/20' SS, 20' with 5' blowout, ramp tests, etc). These sub-60 min test are NOT alternate definitions of FTP---they are simply poor estimates of it, for all the reasons that have been enumerated 1000 times on here.

This is what rmt and I were agreeing NOT to get into, because its not relevant to the OP's question.



No its not---not, in a practical sense. Very few people have access to a lab for determining MLSS---even if they do, such testing is expensive unless you're a lab-rat. And, home Lactate measurements are of questionable value. Further, it presumes that there is some major penalty for training at some point just above/below MLSS---there's not. It further presumes that your MLSS on training-day, is the same as it was on lab-test-day---its not. But again, none of that is relevant to the question asked by the OP.

Thanks for answering, basically trying to avoid inviting a runner to tempo ride with our having them to stress out they will be riding at ftp pace, or invite a biker to tempo run thinking it will be z2.

The numbers I stated where based on looking at many Strava users and their work out statements

No, it's just that runners use the confusing term "tempo run" really meaning "threshold run".

Tempo intensity in universal terms is in zone 3 in the 5 zone system, so about marathon pace for the majority of runners.

That is all.

---

"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden

This. The rest falls into place once the OP reckons this simple fallacy.

Here is my system, as a FOP age grouper:

Threshold/LT2/3 to 4 mmol/L, defined as a pace I could hold for 45 minutes to one hour if tapered and in a race situation.
For me, 330-340 watts for cycling and 5:30-5:40 pace for running.
HR range 160-165 for cycling. 170-175 for running,
A classic workout would be 4x8 minutes with 2 minutes rest.

Tempo/LT 1.5/2 to 3 mmol/L defined as a pace I could hold for 2-3 hours (higher end for cycling) if tapered and in a race situation. Marathon Pace for runners.
For me 300-315 watts for cycling and 5:55 to 5:45 for running.
HR range 150-157 for cycling and 160-167 for running.
A classic workout would be 3x20 minutes with 3-5 minutes rest

Steady/aerobic threshold/LT1/1 to 2 mmol/L defined as my maximum "all day pace" where muscular fatigue becomes the limiting factor.
For me 250-275 watts for cycling and 6:40 to 6:10 for running.
HR range 135-145 for cycling and 147-157 for running.
A classic workout would be 4 hour ride with 2 hours steady in middle, or 2 hour run with 1 hour steady in middle.

I feel like this also could change based on the ftp and size of the person. A person with an ftp of only 250w and size of 80kg likely has an ftp more in the 45min lowest end of the "45min to 70min" time span where a person with a 400w and size of 60kg might be more likely to do it for 60min or even 70min. And repeat it more.

I think the trap is that lots of people get really deep and repeatable at an ftp but never raise the ceiling because they spend too much time going "kind of hard" but never necessarily spend enough time "going harder than usual" to raise that ceiling.

It's like the 100 pushup challenge crap each year people do. If you're reasonably skinny you can hit the 100/day ceiling pretty fast then never "get stronger" as you're not lowering the count and upping the intensity by putting some weight on your back.

I'm totally guilty though, it's "more fun" to ride tempo gravel for a few hours flying along than sludging up gravel hills at some ungodly slow speed and having an average pace of "turtle".

At least for me, I don’tbthink I agree with your definition of tempo run. My tempo runs and tempo rides correlate quite closely.

Its not just his definition....the "threshold" version of tempo running dates back to at least Jack Daniels.

I wasn’t meaning to suggest he originated the definition by putting the word “his” in front of it…..better wording would have been “the definition he is using.” Maybe I just run tempo slower than others.

Tell the runner it is a marathon effort ride. Tell the cyclist it is a threshold run (why would they think Z2 for tempo though?).

Contrary to typical triathlon and cycling terminology, tempo more or less means threshold to runners. I even had a runner tell me that tempo meant "almost all out" for whatever distance was attached to it. A 2 mile tempo meant almost all out 2 miles, an 6 mile tempo meant almost all out 6 miles, etc. so it really had no consistent relative intensity level.

Excellent post

you've touched on one of my biggest pet peeves in this area of sport science, which is that there is a huge range of terms that get used in really sloppy ways. eventually i'm not sure everyone means the same thing when they use these terms, which defeats the whole purpose!

we have a bunch of different models of numbered 'zones.'
we have power, heart rate, and rpe models
we have a bunch of qualitative categories: recovery/easy/steady/solid/tempo/threshold/hard/max/etc
we have lactate as absolute measures or as a % of threshold
we also have, sometimes, paces and heart rates attached to those lactate values
we also have Vo2 max and % ranges thereof
there there are all the sloppy 'threshold' categories like 'aerobic, anaerobic, lactate, ventilatory, etc', and then %s, paces, or heart rates attached to each.

eventually i think the solution is to commit to really unambiguous tech that reliably measures a metric that you're invested in long term, OR, just decide to go with a really simple "easy/medium/hard"-type approach.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/