Half Monty results too high

I’m just trying to work this out myself. My hm numbers are way higher than my ff. Just did a ff and my map and ftp dropped >20%. I’ve been trying to work out what why etc etc. So work has been super stressful, a race I’ve been training hard for was cancelled because of rain and maybe I just screwed up my taper. Who knows. But if I ride 9 hammers on my ff numbers - easy peasy. If I ride on my hm numbers - I fail on #9. The hm numbers “feel right”, and interestingly end up very close to what I manually adjust erg numbers to, to achieve the rpe.

But… My “thing” is long hard efforts. I like riding 6-7 hours just below ftp. So I think it might be more complicated than what mac says. I’m definitely not a sprinter - my mate is… my profile usually shows TT or rolleuer, unless I blow up like this time. When I blow up it says sprinter which I know I’m not. I’m much faster over 200km than I am over 500m.

I think you just need to keep playing and testing and adjusting and working out what actually works for you.

And then you’ll have days / weeks etc where stuff just doesn’t work, and maybe your results are just whacky. (I suspect my last ff false into this category)

1 Like

Sounds like you got a lot of data points, but I just did my first FF after HM so thought I’d pile on. My FTP and MAP from HM are both about 8% higher than what I got in my last FF. I was able to ride the HM targets comfortably, though, so I’m guessing the difference in my case is due to recovery. I went off of a ketogenic diet about 4 months ago (following 4 years of being on keto), so I suspect that my body just isn’t great at regulating carbs / glycogen yet. The max effort sprints at the beginning of FF seem to really burn me down.

How are you getting on now? Sounds like your HM numbers were probably very close to being the right settings to use and put the FF down to a ‘bad day’

My FF and HM results are very similar, so it’s hard to generalise on this. FWIW I’m classed as a Pursuiter.
What I have found though is that the workouts seem to be on the hard side of the spectrum for me. Nine Hammers and similar hardcore workouts are basically impossible. Not even close. Also longer sessions like the It Seemed Like Thin Air mash-up are not possible for me at 100%.

So I’ve now taken to tweaking the intensity down just enough to get to the end without resorting to extra rests and hitting cadence targets etc. I find it doesn’t take much of an adjustment to make a difference. For example I completed Attacker yesterday at 97% FTP (other metrics at 100%) and that felt just right. It was properly hard, but just about achievable hitting all power and cadence targets. Had I attempted this at 100% I think I might well have blown up before the MAP efforts at the end of each interval. But just that slight reduction in FTP power targets was enough to allow me to hit the MAP parts at full power and recover for the next interval.

When you think about it, it’s not that surprising that 100% workout intensity might not work perfectly for everyone all the time. For some (like me) it could be a little too high and for others a little too low. I guess it all depends on how well we perform in our FF/HM tests and how the workouts relate to our strengths and weaknesses. Not to mention our good and bad days, which could easily move our performance a few percent in either direction.

@WillD I did 14 Vise Grips at my previous HM targets a few days ago - these are ~27% higher than my most recent FF targets. It was hard, but I got through it all. Once the intervals start getting shorter it felt like I could have ramped it up some more. For example the last 2 intervals feel too easy, but the 2minute interval was v hard. If I could do 14 Vise @ my old targets then I’ll just keep working with them, and come back another day to try FF again.

Got a chance to explore somewhere new today IRL, 6Km climb west of the Sunshine coast (Queensland AU). Stunningly beautiful watching the sun rise over the ocean, whilst climbing. Did 3x climb intervals, felt really good. Full climb was ~23mins, so it’s kind of like the intervals in ISLAGIATT.

1 Like

just did FF as part of end of plan. HM about 4 weeks prior. MAP was really close this time around - within 2 watts. FTP on the Monty was 7.5% high. I am sprinter, for what its worth

1 Like

I also find HM to fake my FTP numbers. Same rider type (sustained efforts are marked as weakness and VO2max as strenght in my last FF).

Ok, maybe this dates me. But, every time I see the title of this thread pop up it reminds me of the movie Major League and the argument from the fans in the outfield. :rofl:

1 Like

I did half Monty today.

I always find results are less than I get on full frontal

FTP is typically 8 to 12 watts lower than I achieved on FF

I am usually an attacker or pursuiter.
I have by now done these often enough to be doing both reasonably well

Just as a (cruel) side note. Nine Hammers is what we refer to as a ‘Bench Mark’ test for FTP and MAP values. If you just barely get through all 9 or hit failure at some point during the 9th Hammer, I would say your MAP and FTP settings are just about spot on for you.
If Nine Hammers ever feels “easy” then your FTP and MAP values are too low.
I know it’s a bit…mean… to have 9H as a session that is used to test where your limits are, but it does really help us have that sort of ride as we continue to validate the HM and FF results from users are assigned at the end of both tests.
We are planning on using all FF, HM, 9H (and a few other sessions…) as a way to validate and further improve workout targets based on your test results.
That being said, getting this sort of direct feedback on how you (and everyone in this thread) feel about your 4DP settings after both tests, and how difficult you find each workout after getting new test numbers is massively helpful.

As a personal request, for the first few workouts after a new fitness test adding in a short phrase in the pop up window that covers your screen upon completing a workout. Specifically in the ‘notes’ section which is above the icons for the 3rd party platforms you can share your activity to. Phrases like “Targets felt too easy with these new numbers” or ‘targets felt too hard/impossible with these new numbers’ would be incredibly helpful and allow us to make updates to our tests and workouts a bit faster to ensure everyone is getting just the right dosage of suffering.

9 Likes

Just clarifying -put the notes here in a forum post, or in the workout comment field? I’m ok if you use the workout comments with a word cloud (for example) to try and understand stuff, but you should make sure users are clear about that.

1 Like

przemonides With your rider types, likely, your FTP is still overestimated. The heart rate-constrained effort does help lower your newly estimated FTP based on a ramp test, but we still have some tweaking to do.
The only counseling I can provide is that I have not yet seen an instance where the HM estimated FTP is higher than what a single ramp test would indicate (for the more short-duration inclined - Sprints - Attackers - Pursuiters).
Please believe me when I say that we are not done with HM (or FF) and how it calculates your metrics. With Half Monty being one of the first real projects I can take ownership of, I don’t think I will ever get to a point where I say “it’s perfect.” Updates we are researching now will make our testing more reliable and more accurate.
As far as ramp tests go, I can confidently say it’s the most accurate one across the ability levels of all cyclists, but in my eyes, the bars for that claim are pretty low… And we are working and will be working on improving it as much as we can.

Apologies for the rambling on that. Main point: if you feel your results from either test are not quite right, please note that in your past activity comments, and note if sessions were too easy/just right/too hard in the sessions you do after your more recent test.

5 Likes

Ah yes, in the post activity notes. Will edit that now!

Hi Coach Mac,

Are there plans to add any HR constrained workouts? The last few HM I’ve completed I’ve struggled to keep my power and cadence consistent so I can stay in the target HR zone as per the onscreen instructions. Or, is this expected?

1 Like

I find HM consisten,y produces and FTP that is 8-12 Watts too low. Perhaps it’s me or my technique, failure and stopping always seems quite sudden.

I’m like you and it’s great to see Coach Mac commenting in here.
HM over-states me completely, every time.
At the same time I find 4DP tends to get my MAP and FTP a little low.

I’ve hit a rhythm to being able to understand myself and so what I tend to do is:

  • If my most recent test is a 4DP and it shows gains across the board, stick with that
  • If my most recent test is a 4DP and it shows a lower FTP/MAP than my most recent HM, modify MAP/FTP to approximately 50% of the difference
  • If my most recent test is a HM and it shows significant gains in MAP/FTP, drop them by about a third of the difference to the last 4DP initially and modify from there to feel
  • If my most recent test is a HM and it shows no gains over previous 4DP, go to hospital, head to morgue, I must be dead.

I cope with repeated hard, short efforts so much better than a long sustained effort. The ramp falls into this as I can motivate myself to drive on for the duration that lasts and can subsequently recover quickly, which gives me big boosts to both. The thing is, if I instead had to drop from the ramp to something a lot closer to threshold the test would realise, very quickly, I’m spent at this point. I don’t need a long recovery, but I need a recovery.
I’m just of the type where I find a 5-10 minute extreme effort easier than a 15-20 minute moderate effort.

2 Likes

Yes I am a MAP sort of rider , sometimes AC, but rides like 9 hammers kill me, need more recovery. But I find HM gives me ftp 8-10 too low and MAP slightly low.
I can always exceed HM figures in FF