You two need to get a room...

Zero reason? Most 5s/4s would like to not be in the 5s/4s forever. Not sure why you would train for the minimum amount of work required. How do you expect to improve and be ready for higher categories?

A man who came to prominence after doping juniors and then hitching his wagon to one of the most prolific dopers of the modern cycling era.

I'd toss that book. There are much better authorities on training than that scumbag.

Well since you're so interested in the exact timeline of things, here are a few more dates for you:

10/15/2001: 1st power-based training levels proposed via wattage list
02/11/2002: Critical power model 1st brought to attention of wattage list
01/19/2003: NP, TSS, and PMC conceived
03/13/2003: NP and TSS revealed via wattage list
05/19/2003: Power profiling revealed via wattage list
08/05/2003: CyclingPeaks 1.1 incorporating NP and TSS released
11/06/2003: Quadrant analysis revealed via wattage list
11/12/2004: PMC output revealed at USA Cycling Coaching Summit
030/3/2005: Secret ‘eweTSS’ mailing list started to further develop/evaluate PMC
2005-2006: Details of PMC gradually revealed (e.g., via articles by Frank Overton in PezCycling News)
09/26/2005: 1st description of a weighting function for a training adaptation score in post to wattage list
08/16/2006: WKO+ 2.1 incorporating the PMC released
02/01/2007: 1st method for “on-the-fly” calculation of non-sustainable energy reserves revealed in blog post by Alex Simmons
10/20/2009: New model of relationship between training and performance developed
06/22/2012: New power-duration model developed
11/26/2014: 1st description of a graphical means of presenting parameters from a P-D model as a way of identifying a rider's phenotype
11/28/2013: Novel pedaling metrics developed.
12/23/2013: New individualized training levels developed
03/05/2014: New individualized interval guidelines developed

You might also find this interesting:

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/search/label/history



I have no interest in the training peaks testing protocols, we have the seven deadly sins that Andy Coggan penned years ago and they work well as far as I am concerned.

I just had to pop in and see how long it took before everybody started slagging each other off over FTP protocols. It was much quicker than I expected I have to say! Great read - chapeau everybody.

---

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.

Interesting. I don't really use power anymore however the BIG difference between old and new is that (aside from being a damn slight harder) you need to pretty accurately estimate your FTP or you're in deep shit.
If you can accurately estimate, why test it.

The 20min test, broadly, means that you go out hard and hang on and if you get it right that actually means a flat power graph.

I'm not saying the 20 min test is a better indicator, but they are totally different, not even in the same country, let alone ball park.

Personally, I think if you can get the new test right, then you don't need to do it in the first place.

Am I the only one who doesn't get why people are obsessed with finding ever more complex models with ever more complex and time consuming test protocols to estimate FTP that you then use to estimate training zones and race power? Sure, do a test every once in a while (once a year??) To set training zones. But then go out and race! Evaluate race performance by vs. power and adjust for next time. Each time you race your understanding of appropriate race power and execution will improve and it will be way better than what any model tells you what to do.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I made the same point about the protocols above. But, to be, fair, I think the point of the model is to make things simpler. It enables you to, as you say, keep a reasonable estimate of zones, just by dumping all your training and racing data into it. The model should be your bitch. Instead some people, like the author of this blog, become the model's bitch.

If one does the 40k test and the test estimates FTP to be significantly different to a much higher mFTP with a TTE of only 35 minutes, which is the best estimate?

I would put more faith in the TT data.

IOW, here is the only change I would now make to my "seven deadly sins" from 2004:

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 how it is done).
4) based on normalized power from a hard ~1 h race.
5) using critical power testing and analysis mathematical modeling of mean maximal power data.
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).