how should the average cyclist estimate than? I have used 20 min TR FTP test at 95% power for a couple years. Sure I feel it's overestimating a bit but it at least gives me a baseline test to keep constant. If it's 3% off I am not sweating it.

Should at least do it as Hunter Allen prescribed with a 30s maximal effort and a 5min maximal effort preceding the 20min test.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I've been using the Spinervals Threshold test for many years. I has 3 x 30 secs, 3 min maximal, and then 3 x 1 min maximal, then the 20 min test. Regardless, it hasn't hurt me at all in execution even if Kiwicoach is all besides himself over it.

To me, it doesn't make a hill of beans how I estimate it. It matters only that the %-age I utilize for pacing - works for ME.

I couldn't care less what someone else thinks about the way I test. If it's possible, I care even less about how someone else does it.

However short duration tests are fantastic for testing short-duration power, like sprint power, track tt power, or pursuit power. Why go to WKO4 to calculate "PMax/FRC" to get sprint power when you can just go do some sprints!

Why bother with anything "modeled" at all when the real thing is so easy to test for these days with power meters on just about every bike and trainer? (at least in Slowtwitch land). Coggan himself says something like "the best test is the performance itself" (or something very similar to that) about 12x per day

I can see modelled FTP being useful because doing a "pure" FTP test regularly sucks for those who don't do pure FTP-test-like races. (FTP is super easy for me to track because I do lots of pure 40K time trials). Though I'm fast enough at 40K that you might claim it overestimates my FTP because it's too short. :)

Don't estimate it. Do a 40K TT and get the answer. It will only take about an hour and it's a great workout.

Ditto - I do the full hour and hold parameters steady. If there was more there, I might wait 10 days and try again, but for me its remarkable how fine a line I can walk by "feel", where you know "I'm gonna blow up", vs "hurts, but is going OK".

Why indeed.

In this context, the purposes of modeling are 1) to extract accurate and precise parameter estimates reflective of different underlying physiological determinants of performance (without necessarily performing any formal tests), and 2) to smooth the measured mean maximal power data a bit, to provide a robust point of reference for additional calculations (e.g., you can imagine how much any adaptation score would bounce around if you based it on the raw mean maximal power data).

I did 4x15’ at around what I thought was my FTP with 1’ spin in between each. The resulting watts for an hour was two under my initial estimate

I also base FTP off what I can average over longer 2-4 hr rides. Looking at all ride data can also give a good idea. This is w/o WKO.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

But not nearly as "accurate and precise" (whatever that means) as when performing formal tests (ideally performance itself). Calling something "accurate and precise" is only meaningful when you have some reference truth to measure precision and accuracy against. And that's performance. So if it's easy to go out and perform to acquire data for those 3-4 key parameters (e.g. sprint power, pursuit power, FTP, et al), might as well do that. I find it pretty easy to do, so I feed that information to the model so those key points have the highest quality data I can get. Then I can let it fill in the rest for me.

I do completely understand the benefits of WKO4 (and similar) in providing things like great longitudinal tracking of parameters and providing clear, easy-to-digest graphical representation of my current "signature" as a road cyclist.

I was being a bit facetious because I tire of the constant heartache on this forum about FTP testing accuracy.

I don't honestly see what all the fuss is with it in the first place. Who cares if you over or underestimate it a bit?

Do a workout; if you hit the numbers, great, if not, adjust them. Make a note for next time.

Seems pretty simple when you get right down to it.

Actually, I don't think you entirely do.

As an example: there is no test duration that would provide a 'pure' indication of FRC. It can only be separated from other determinants of performance via modeling.

There is a bit more to it than that, though.

For example, successful use of various pacing guidelines requires having a reasonably accurate estimate of your FTP. If instead you go by your 'vanity FTP', you are likely to overshoot the mark, and pay the consequences.

Deadly sin #6 is my favorite as well:

http://lists.topica.com/...e.html?mid=910290920

Agreed, wholeheartedly. It seems like so many feel they have to retest to justify moving FTP up. Or if the test shows a certain number that they are somehow prohibited from using a different FTP number for workouts. I “manually” adjust mine up (and possibly down) without testing regularly when I notice previous targets are too easy/hard.

Yeah, I just, personally, haven't found FRC all that useful. Not because it isn't inherently useful, just that it's not part of my current toolbox. Disclosure: I don't regularly WKO4 (though I bought a license and tried to use it). Not because of it's science/math underpinnings - other reasons.

Edit: But what I don't understand is the OP's implying he uses FRC as some sort of proxy for track TT power. When hopefully his athletes would do actual track TTs if that's what they're training for. That's sort of what I was needling him about - being uppity about modeled FTP accuracy then using a non-directly-measurable parameter like FRC as a proxy for something very easily directly measurable. Getting a solid track TT measurement for someone with access to a track takes 3-5 minutes after their regular track warmup!

Yeah, keeps me up at nights.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

That's nice and sometimes that's all that matters.

But what if you turn up on race day and find your current threshold doesn't cut it in competition. Sure alls you can do is alls you can do but even when it is 100% me, how do you know that is your true 100%.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

When did shilling become allowed on this forum?

Not to speak for Hamish, but suppose you were coaching a pursuiter who was trying to meet the time standard for automatic selection to the national team (and hence access to financial and 'in kind' support, invitations to team training camps, etc.). You could measure how much power they could produce for the requisite duration, and with some additional measurements/knowledge estimate how close they were to meeting their goal. What that would not tell you, though, is where the greatest remaining gains are likely to be found. OTOH, if you knew that their mFTP was at an all-time high but that their FRC was lacking, you would have an answer to that question, and would have a better idea of how to proceed.

??

Who do you think is shilling?

Well yes, I had a Sprint Cyclist in Rio, nice little cartwheel in the Keirin. She doesn't do any FTP testing.

WKO4 tells you not only your power at PMAX/FRC but the duration you can sustain this. So while a PMAX/FRC of 2400 watts sounds impressive the ability to hold it for only 3-4 means a rider who will start fast and die just as fast. Vanity PMAX/FRC.

As Andy mentioned we test the model to normalise the data. To know whether our good is good enough. To compare with others and to compare our progress. A rider turned down for a Development U23 team in U19 because they couldn't see any further progress in the rider or a rider in our coaching group signing for a World Tour team purely off his power test data (clearly a solid background on track and conti pro leading into that).

Andy does often remind us that "the best predictor of performance is performance itself" but then no two races are ever the same so is what you are testing actually relevant to your test. In cycling the FTP is strongly related to performance in everything from a pursuit to a long road race.

I would argue a well developed threshold with good time to exhaustion is the best way to start the specific preparation for a goal performance.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Similar? Nothing similar to WKO4.

I say it again, no two performances will ever be the same. Am told in swimming the saying is "you never dive into the same water twice".

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I could see how, in principle, that would be a useful tool in the toolbox of a coach. (I say "in principle" only because I, as noted, haven't put much effort into adding that tool to be my toolbox to speak directly about it with any authority).

So let's look at the life of a sprinter. Any major event they will ride 2-4 events: Sprint, Keirin, Team Sprint and Kilo/500mTT. So already there are four different performances. Really exponentially more as not two different races are the same. Even a TT differs with conditions on the track, shape of each track etc and then in the racing depending on position coming into the sprint and who you are racing against. PMAX/FRC and power at FRC and the associated times to exhaustion give you an indication of preparedness to perform in any situation if the build up is well planned.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

If you are suggesting I am being compensated for touting WKO4, then no. I was a beta tester but the real cool stuff has happened in the last year.

As to this forum. Seriously?

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

For my purposes there are. Golden Cheetah. I know that WKO4 has more advanced modelling stuff in it now. But as noted, my current use-case is direct measurement power to populate a power-duration curve.


So does the model predict that variance? :)

I think it depends. In (indoor) track pursuit my performances are very repeatable. I'm working with a 3-4 second range, generally. I'd think swimming time trial performances are probably also very repeatable among experience/elite swimmers.

In 40K TT because of wind and course condition variances time isn't that great, but I work within about 6-7W variance (given a good state of fitness). And that's pretty much in the "error bars" of power meter bias accuracy.

I think if you're athletes' performances on race day are very unpredictable, then there's something to work on them with. A track pursuit performance should be highly predictable. Same with sprint TT.

Then how do you know your strengths and weaknesses? Where do you focus your efforts. Do you try and lift power or build capacity?


Over what time frame? Are you using any sort of taper? What if your event is in a different locations. We train and race on an outdoor 400m concrete track and compete at Nationals on one of two very fast indoor velodromes.

I measured times and power on our Tuesday 16km Time Trials for several riders and found a very poor relationship between power and times due to conditions each night.

No two races are ever the same. You are being way too simplistic.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I teach undergrad and graduate-level classes in mathematical modeling. As the statistician Sam Karlin used to say, "the purpose of models is not to fit the data but to sharpen the questions." Models help us to test (and reject) hypotheses, so we can figure out better questions to ask.

Why not just do the full hour? Taper for it and do it. I rather underestimate it then over estimate it when it comes to racing.

I had a client last week moving off CX to his base workouts. I had him do a 35m over/ under near threshold workout, his average power was 314w and his NP power was 326w. WKO4 said afterwords his MFTP was 282w or 287w. So MFTP has his FTP 10% lower than he did a 35m effort. I have worked with this client for a long time and 1 hour efforts in the 280w area a pretty easy for this client year around and not near his threshold. I have seen this happen several times with some other clients. Maybe I am missing something about MFTP?

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

Honest question...........

If an hour is "pure" and a 20' test gives "vanity" results.......aren't you still going to be forced to ride to a %-age of the pure number......for anything over an hour?

It's not like people are doing 20' tests and then looking at a chart that tells them to race at 70% of their measured FTP............and then going out and doing that, without trials (at least I hope no one is doing that).

IMO, if you're worried about how someone else derived at their FTP.....or, how they're applying it.....then using vanity to describe them is a bit hypocritical.

Another thread about FTP testing, FML.

On average, 95% of maximal 20 min power provides a reasonable estimate of FTP. Where the "vanity" part enters the picture is when people mis/overinterpret the data, convincing themselves that their FTP is higher than it really is. This in turn contributes to other mistakes, e.g., pacing errors. The more accurate the estimate of FTP, the less likely such problems will arise.

Oh, and an hour isn't "pure", as FTP is not, and never properly has been, defined as the power that you can maintain for precisely that duration. (The longer you go, though, the smaller the contribution from FRC, making the data more representative of FTP.)

This is what happens when people rely on second-hand sources.

The bastardisation of a 20 minute "FTP test" even made it onto mainstream British television last year, on Channel 5's Tour de Celeb. Asker Jeukendrup, I'm looking at you.

I never understand why most even care.

Most folks would be way further ahead if they just did frequency, consistancy, duration.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Exactly, although I would note that consistency in testing for FTP is useful, especially when applying that to proper training intensity depending on the workout objective. Meanwhile, this thread has degenerated into an esoteric discussion between Kiwicoach and Coggan regarding proper testing for world class athletes. At that level, yeah, they should be getting it right. But for those of us in the geezer divisions the hair splitting on FTP is just not that important.

Agree

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Says the guy wasting his time obsessing over crank length!

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I do not all feel I am wasting time. I am working on lots of stuff on my trainer for the off season. Is making it fun.
And it is way way more than crank length, but ....

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

hahaha. So awesome. That thread is ridiculous. Apparently geriatric cyclists need only concern themselves with crank length to get faster.

I guess a few things in that.

Does the average rider not deserve to benefit from what we learn from training high performance athletes. Just because someone won the genetic lottery does that that make their goals any more important than yours?

Every Rec Rider or Cat 3-5/C-E rider I coach who owns a power meter wants to make the most out of the tool to guide their riding. Most often to maximise their cycling time to fit around a busy lifestyle.

As mentioned above, the bastardisation of the term, concept and application of FTP for all cyclists.

Also I see no one got the joke in the naming of the thread. Speaking of bastardisation of power meter training metrics :)

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I use a powermeter. The biggest benefit for me is that it forces me to work harder in training. For long course racing I mostly ignore my power meter except in setting an upper limit to avoid burning matches. And for my AG, I think it's fair to say I'm a FOP rider.

Yes, it would be great for average riders to benefit from your knowledge. But in my opinion, you need to get out of the tech-blather if you want the average person to absorb what you are saying. Instead of the mini treatise, I would have simply argued that 5 hr power is the more important measure for IM than the FTP you get from a 20 min test, but that doesn't mean I can't use the latter for most training intensities. Meanwhile, I just want to ride and train without needing to pick up a second PhD ... hence, the bastardization you see.

And no, I don't get the joke in the title even with you hinting that there is one.

So it was you with a knife in the dining room after all? I should have guessed...RIP, FTP.

Looking for a little guidance here at 63 yrs/ 145lbs. What I have been doing is riding consistently with the power meter and seeing results. Occasionally hitting PBs on NP while training. Currently up to 192 while on a road ride of an hour to two hours. After I exceed the 192 (for example) a few times, then I move it up to say 195. For my purposes, is this good enough progression to challenge myself?

You have said that performance is the best indicator of performance. So my humble approach to that is by increasing power in training/races rather than tests. Your thoughts?

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

Not sure what was tech blatherty about my response. But can you appreciate my frustration when trying to outline this stuff to people so they appreciate their $500-$10,000 investment in a power meter when people say you can determine FTP from a 3min test.

Re 5hr power. Andy has pointed out many times that FTP relates well to power from a track pursuit all the way out to an ironman bike ride. I would add that no two Ironman's are the same and using some form of standard starting point to map out the build up to race day. Also that from 30min outwards the power duration curve tends to flatten out a lot.

I am teaching my riders to go by feel and use power as a guideline to monitor their effort. Advice to some is to go harder, advice to most is to go easier.

While I use WKO4 to crunch the data I did recommend to one weekend warrior that the metrics in Strava were fine for what he wanted to do. Shame that they, like many, don't acknowledge where they got the ideas for thresholds and performance managers from.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Someone waffling on about their beliefs in another thread.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Having grown up competing long before heart rate watches and (much later) power meters were widely available, going by feel comes naturally. I.e, I don't use WK04, Strava, etc. I don't bother with the PMC. I just use it to train harder and set my match burning limit. Perhaps I would be better if I used all these tools as if it were my job instead of my hobby.

$10,000 for a powermeter? That has got to be upper end.

Anyway, best of luck with your WC athletes.

Me too, but I can tell you for sure that if I was still training and racing the way I was in the 1980's then I probably would have lost interest in the process a long time ago and moved on to something else. Experimenting with new approaches and different ways of looking at things - especially when they make me question what I think is "right" - keeps things interesting to me. Not jumping on every new bandwagon, but looking hard at the new approaches and tools to glean what's valuable from them. I like to always keep learning and growing. To each their own though.


Keep in mind some of the contributors to this thread are coaches, sports scientists, or other researchers for whom this type of constantly seeking/developing better tools is their job.

Another PPP of mine is that "training is testing and testing is training."

(I would recommend only changing your FTP in 5 W increments, though, as it's hard to pin it down any more precisely than that.)

So what if you could determine FTP based on a 3 min test? You seem to be pretty dismissive about that possibility but yet you are not arguing why the Xert guy is wrong. Empirically his stuff seems to work pretty well at estimating the same results you would get from a 20 min test.
FTP for training is not a full proof approach anyway especially for triathlon. I could test with the best protocol known to man and still have a different actual FTP every day of the week dependent on how much swim bike run fatigue i have in my legs, if I had a good night sleep or not, if I am well hydrated, if it hot or humid or dry etc. So training by your super scientific method which says I need to do 5 x 5 min @ 120% FTP is bullshit if my FTP is 20w higher or lower that particular day.

Copy, but in my defense the thread title is not what you would use if you want to start an academic discussion.

Says who? We know one person really really really believes it works.

And, compared to what? What is the Gold Standard of threshold estimation.

And when you say it works well, what is your performance criteria? Now I don't think having a well estimated threshold has any impact on performance, so curious to know how you think it "works".

Those who claim that XERT overestimates their FTP get told they didn't do it right.

I mentioned above, several times now that no two races are ever the same so obviously concur that a well estimated threshold is only the start of the plan for training and for race day and you still have to use the noodle to get the best performance possible.

Armando seems to claim that XERT will do all this for you. I call bullshit on that.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I happily stand corrected. Well played Strava.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

A. I'm not an academic.

B. FYI

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Just do the full hour. It's not that much more difficult and you will get a much more accurate estimate.

I didn’t realize you troll other sites too

You don't get around much, do you?

This has me wondering. If we do FTP in 5 W increments, how sensitive are we to be to our weight? For example, it doesn't seem to be so sensitive (unless you say so) to change it for every pound we drop. Would you update rider weight gain/loss in 5 pound increments or when?

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

We have a very accessible, reliable and valid way of tracking weight. FTP testing is not as accessible and reliable and i'm not even going into the validity.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

Well I value it, FTP, as a tool.

I used to "race" my training only going by the clock. Which isn't a very wise thing to do.

With tools like watts, IF, NP, etc. that takes into account weight, etc., I can still know that I had a good training day without setting a PB. They allow me to see that although my time, due to conditions, wasn't there, the training effort was good. Like wise, it helps me slow down effort wise when I need to slow it down for recovery.

Don't know about the "validity" that you are talking about. It may not be a perfect measurement; yet, it's worth using as a guide, is readily available and generally understood if not perfectly understood.

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

I have never really thought about it (as I only weigh myself quite rarely), but what you say makes sense, i.e., you should ignore the noise and only respond to the signal.

Now precisely how much of a change qualifies as the latter instead of the former is a somewhat different question, the answer to which probably varies with the individual.

That's hilarious. It's the most valid measurement of power at maximal steady-state possible. Anything else is merely a predictor (some better, some worse).

Not accessible?

Who can't ride for an hour, can't rest a day before, can't fuel up, can't go hard for an hour. Can't do a sprint, can't do 1min maximal, 5min maximal and 30-40min maximal.

Not reliable?

Where is your data to support that comment? I have numerous riders in tempo, sst and threshold phases of their cycling training at present, riding at a percentage of their ftp and the efforts are spot on. Any changes in performances reflect the individual (lack of sleep, poor diet, poor recovery, doing too much), not the ftp number.

Not valid?

"The best predictor of performance is performance itself". What is a more valid predictor of endurance performance than a test involving going hard for a prolonged duration.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Urrrrgggghhhh

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319947872_Cycling_Power_Outputs_Predict_Functional_Threshold_Power_And_Maximum_Oxygen_Uptake


A study using 95% of 20min as FTP :(

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

A knife to the heart? Really?

Im not big on hyperbolae. so i'll just go with it pisses me off when people open bullshit threads to promote some product or other that they may or may not be aligned with. My FTP will never be modeled in WK04, I prefer to knife you in the heart.

Guess you are also too lazy to read the posts in the thread where I explain the choice of title and declare that I have no financial interest in TrainingPeaks or WKO4.

I would expect someone so lazy will never have any data worth modelling in WKO4.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I'm unclear which of your 11 posts explains the "knife to the heart" sensation. I don't think Dr Coggan explained it either, in his multiple posts. I recognize you claim no financial interest in TrainingPeaks or WK04, just like you might recognize that i wrote "may or may not be aligned with".

My data may be unworthy, we will never know. I'm fine with that.

Post 51

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Post 51 isnt by you.

---

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those with friends.

Indeed it isn't, try 58.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I'm surprised someone so sloppy can analyze data in WK04.

---

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those with friends.

Surprised someone so lazy gives a rats arse.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Not always.