Do you think an hour test is necessary for setting power training zones? in other words is there any benefit to doing a longer or just different test protocol?
There are multiple ways of estimating FTP (because, like, e.g., weight, it’s a physiological trait or characteristic, subject to change over longer periods but relatively stable over shorter ones). Although some are better than others (and a 40 - or, really, ~40 - km TT is one of the best), it’s really up to each individual to figure out what approach works best in their particular circumstances.
Is there a metric that describes how long you can hold FTP for? And is there a practical difference if someone can hold their FTP for 1.1hours vs 50 minutes?
Basically in training you have various schools of thought, one being that raising (lay mens version) of FTP, reasonably floats all boats (IE all your power for longer durations) the other being that Maxlass or threshold is event specific and that should be your focus during whatever you might describe as specific phase of training.
IE extension of speed for longer events (say IM) vs increase of (threshold) FTP for shorter events…with various other training ideas somewhere in between.
Don’t conflate how people choose to train with how they choose to describe their capabilities, set training levels, etc. The two are completely independent of each other.
Maybe we are just debating semantics, but in my view 50 minutes or 66 does not fall in the approximately one hour - one is nearly 15% less and the other is 10% more. I’d say that like the various tests in this thread it gets you in the ball park, but it doesn’t really meet the definition.
Both an all-out 50 min effort and an all-out 66 min effort would provide reasonable estimates of your FTP. That is because 1) the exercise intensity-duration relationship is quite flat in that region, and 2) FTP has never been defined as the power you can maintain for 60(.000000…) min.
If I choose to mFTP do my estimates can you provide some guidance of what kind of efforts to do to now and then.
I did a few 20-22min TT’s this summer and that seemed to feed it well. But that is well beyond 90 days. I don’t think I have done any maximal efforts since, other than a ramp MAP type test yet it still is estimating higher than I would expect.
BTW, it seems to be set at around 70% of my MAP test which is fine. I am just surprised it may have used that number.
The definition of FTP makes the type “A” personalities want an absolute number that is 100% accurate and they will spin wheels to justify why it is right. That will never happen. Too many variables. Can anyone duplicate the same watts during each part of the test the next time? How about triplicate it? If they can’t, then is the test was flawed?
Find a protocol and stick with it. Train hard and test often. If your “FTP” is moving right, then you are headed in the stronger direction.
So at what percent of your FTP (you don’t know you have yet) are you supposed to do that effort? Seriously though? All out is pretty ambiguous for a test protocol.
I did an FTP test (according to the protocol in the book) and a 1min/5min profile test on a seperate day but in the same week, some time ago and here is what percentages I held to give you an idea (these were all done outside by the way).
Assuming my FTP as 95% from the test done after, the 5 min clearing effort was at 115% of FTP, whereas the seperate 5 min effort was 125% of FTP. Could I have gone faster for the clearing effort? Hell yes, but like some other poster said, If I would have gone at max effort I would be worthless for the actual 20 min test. I felt this was uncomfortable enough to clear out most of the W’ (I thought this was the reason for it, not sure). A 5 min effort at FTP is not really supposed to be that uncomfortable.
So at what percent of your FTP (you don’t know you have yet) are you supposed to do that effort? Seriously though? All out is pretty ambiguous for a test protocol.
The assumption is that someone may be doing their first FTP test, so it would be rather circular to tell them to do 5 minutes at something like 130% FTP. Saying “all out” and stuff like that is probably more useful at that point.
All the same, I’ll join the chorus of people who find that part of the protocol problematic. In general if a person has done a variety of hard riding efforts over a range of durations of 90 minutes or less a pretty convincing power curve emerges. I personally know from trying the official test protocol that the all out 5 minute effort disrupts considerably my 20 minute power ability. The result is a FTP test that shows me scoring considerably lower than other objective measures.
If I choose to mFTP do my estimates can you provide some guidance of what kind of efforts to do to now and then.
The modeling approach will be most accurate when you “feed it” hard efforts over a variety of durations. One way of choosing the specific durations to potentially target for “curve maintenance” is to look for points where your measured mean maximal power lies below the fitted curve, and see if you can raise them.
That said, the estimates of Pmax and FRC are most dependent upon the shorter durations, whereas mFTP (and stamina or endurance, whatever the final term for the new metric ends of being) is most dependent upon longer durations. Thus, if you’re only interested in obtaining an estimate of your FTP, you can just focus on longer efforts. (For example, for the last 90 d I’ve done nothing but steady-state trainer rides, such that my Pmax and FRC are clearly underestimated. Yet, my mFTP is only 1 W different from where I have it set manually, based on knowing myself as a result of training with power for decades.)
Finally, the model doesn’t depend on the results of an incremental exercise test (unless that test happens to pump up your mean maximal power curve at some point, that is). That it is close to, e.g., the 72-77% range originally suggested by Ric Stern merely reflects the fact that both approaches are representative of the same underlying physiology.
(For example, for the last 90 d I’ve done nothing but steady-state trainer rides, such that my Pmax and FRC are clearly underestimated. Yet, my mFTP is only 1 W different from where I have it set manually, based on knowing myself as a result of training with power for decades.)
thanks. Typically what % of FTP do you do on those steady state trainer rides ? Do you spend much time at threshold ?
I have done lots of 85% riding but I doubted those would get used.
Knowing your exact FTP isn’t really that important. Unless as already mentioned earlier your life goal revolves something around the hour record or a 40k TT (state, national, world, olympic) championship…then just ball park it. Use whatever testing method you want…8 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes…because in the end every workout you do is a data point to help evaluate your fitness.
How do you calculate the estimate without formal testing?
#2 of the seven deadly sins - from the power that you can routinely generate during long intervals done in training.
Not Andy here but for me, the average wattage I can do for something like a 3 X 15 or 2 X 20 with 2 minutes easy in between is darn close to my FTP. It’s certainly close enough for the purpose at hand.
So at what percent of your FTP (you don’t know you have yet) are you supposed to do that effort? Seriously though? All out is pretty ambiguous for a test protocol.
**The assumption is that someone may be doing their first FTP test, so it would be rather circular to tell them to do 5 minutes at something like 130% FTP. Saying “all out” and stuff like that is probably more useful at that point. **
All the same, I’ll join the chorus of people who find that part of the protocol problematic. In general if a person has done a variety of hard riding efforts over a range of durations of 90 minutes or less a pretty convincing power curve emerges. I personally know from trying the official test protocol that the all out 5 minute effort disrupts considerably my 20 minute power ability. The result is a FTP test that shows me scoring considerably lower than other objective measures.
I agree 100% with the bolded part. Plus, when an athlete first begins using a power meter, hopefully, they’re already experienced riding by RPE and possibly HR too. This should give them enough guidance to ride at a fairly consistent hard effort for 5 minutes to prepare for the main portion of the test. If they don’t have that experience, they’re not yet ready to test. They should go out and ride for a month with the power meter and learn to correlate RPE with approximate power ranges.
These conversations always make me chuckle, because of what the other poster observed regarding type ‘A’ personalities. Triathletes are mostly a bunch of extreme type 'A’s who want exact definitions and precision for everything. Throwing things at them like the definition of FTP that includes the word “approximately” tends to make heads explode.
BTW, I don’t test myself or athletes very frequently. Instead, like others, I use training and race data to estimate zones for training.
Is it really? You really don’t know what “all out” means? I don’t know much about testing but I certainly know what the phrase “all out” means and I would suggest that if you don’t you don’t need more gadgets and gizmos and numbers but rather put down the PM and get back to the basics
This is what I’ve been doing the past year. The last actual FTP test I did based on TR was last year. Since then, I just based my FTP & power targets from that. For me doing tris, doing FTP work is just too physiologically taxing. I’ve learned not to be too attached to my FTP. Realistically, I don’t ride much at threshold even on races anyway.