I just started training with a PT and noticed that the zones put forward by Coggan are a lot different/lighter load on the lower end then Friel's. By way of example, zone one for Friel is 65%-81% of LT HR. When I do a zone 1 with Coggan's power zone, my HR at the top end of Zone 1 is below 65%.

Thoughts?

I just started training with a PT and noticed that the zones put forward by Coggan are a lot different/lighter load on the lower end then Friel's. By way of example, zone one for Friel is 65%-81% of LT HR. When I do a zone 1 with Coggan's power zone, my HR at the top end of Zone 1 is below 65%.

Thoughts?
How did you estimate your FTP? - TF

How did you estimate your FTP? - TF

I followed the instructions in Coggan's book (R&Tw/aPM). It was basically like a 15 minute warm up, three 1 min intervals, one 5 minute full blast, 10 minute recovery, then twenty minutes at full blast. My FTP was 95% of the average watts for the 20minute interval. MY HR during the 20 minute interval basically lined up with my tested LT HR.

I just started training with a PT and noticed that the zones put forward by Coggan are a lot different/lighter load on the lower end then Friel's.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Friel has a set of zones off which his training plans are designed. Allen and Coggan have their set of levels off which their training plans are derived. Neither set of levels is meant to be used with the other set of training plans. I think that if someone compared the actual rides done over the course of a season prescribed by the two plans off each's own set of levels, there would be little difference in the training.

I followed the instructions in Coggan's book (R&Tw/aPM). It was basically like a 15 minute warm up, three 1 min intervals, one 5 minute full blast, 10 minute recovery, then twenty minutes at full blast. My FTP was 95% of the average watts for the 20minute interval. MY HR during the 20 minute interval basically lined up with my tested LT HR.
The book is actually co-authored.

Here are Dr. Coggan's "seven deadly sins" on how to find your FTP; ordered from worst to best. You will notice that a single 20 min test isn't even in there. (Sorry, I cannot find the original post that this from.)
--------------------------------------------
1) from inspection of a ride file.
2) from power distribution profile from multiple rides.
3) from blood lactate measurements (better or worse, depending on howit is done).
4) based on normalized power from a hard ~1 h race.
5) using critical power testing and analysis.
6) from the power that you can routinely generate during long intervals done in training.
7) from the average power during a ~1 h TT (the best predictor of performance is performance itself).
--------------------------------------------
So, there are at least two problems with your comparison:
- You probably have not actually found a true FTP, and
- HR is is variable enough that next time you do the same test you may find that HR zones are higher than your power zones. If HR was that precise, we would be using $50 HRMs, not $800 power meters.

TF

How did you measure your LT HR? What is LT HR?

If you have a PT, use FT% for your zones. Coggan's power zones are good. Different than Friel's. Forget about LT HR and HR for now. Use HR to validate training post-ride, and to make sure that you are recovering between intervals or in zone 1 and 2.

The book is actually co-authored.

Here are Dr. Coggan's "seven deadly sins" on how to find your FTP; ordered from worst to best. You will notice that a single 20 min test isn't even in there. (Sorry, I cannot find the original post that this from.)
--------------------------------------------
6) from the power that you can routinely generate during long intervals done in training.

TF

A 20 minute interval is the 20 minute test. Take 95% of your power over 20 minutes and it is a pretty good estimate of FT.

A 20 minute interval is the 20 minute test. Take 95% of your power over 20 minutes and it is a pretty good estimate of FT.
One 20 min test does not constitute, "...routinely generate during long intervals...". If it only were that easy. A 20 min test may be a good place to start (sort of like chosing a stem length based on have the bar hide the front hub), but it's not likely to be within 10% (or more??) of FTP. - TF

I beliieve co-author Hunter Allen uses the 20 minute test.

One 20 min test does not constitute, "...routinely generate during long intervals...". If it only were that easy. A 20 min test may be a good place to start (sort of like chosing a stem length based on have the bar hide the front hub), but it's not likely to be within 10% (or more??) of FTP. - TF

FWIW my 20 min power over the last two years has routinely been within 5% of my best 60 min np. Likewise, my 30 min ap on my tt bike has consistently been within 1-2% of my 60 min ap so I use these two tests to set and periodically update my FTP. This is probably highly individual so YMMV.

I think the test he referred to is the one prescribed by Hunter Allen in the Allen/Coggan book.