These were done without a clearing effort.

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Its really hard to tell based on this graph since the intervals between watts is 50w.

The results from a 20 minute test are an estimate anyway so 92% could work, but I'd argue that the 5 minute clearing effort would take more than 3% out of your 20 minute test, but everyone would probably have a different input. At any rate use all the data from all rides, use how you feel, etc...and adjust it as needed and if knowing a more accurate number is a goal of yours keep testing every 3-4 weeks.

I'd argue that a 5 minute clearing effort in my case leave me completely destroyed for the 20 minute portion. But that's just me.

That's why I tend to like 2 x 20 (2) and NP the entire 42 minutes. Or like it better.

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

Yeah, you have to figure out what works for you and the program you're following. The important thing is to set it correctly so that you can just barely make it through your workouts that are based off of this number. You will then learn more through your workouts what YOUR sustainable race pace power is than just using a % of the FTP number.

I use trainerroad and you better damn well do the 5 min clearing at max effort or you'll end up with too elevated of FTP for the next 4-6 weeks of intervals.

Andy Coggan has said something along the same lines. The clearing effort business is Hunter's procedure not Andy's.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

2x20 could certainly be a better test and having taken both of them to compare results they are pretty close in results to the 20 minute test with the 5 minute clearing effort and I'd rather take the short of the two...but like another poster said the FTP number for the sake of a number doesn't mean anything as PM's can be off from another, but make sure you have it where you want it so you can actually do your intervals correctly for the coming weeks. No win in having it too high to say it's high and struggle with workouts and/or not hit your targets.

Well I decided to use 95% of the 20 min test. And I found out quickly that it was too high. I gave it 4 weeks but I think I dug myself a hole to dig out!

Actually, those were simply 20 min power PBs (x 95%). What came before each such effort is unknown, but I imagine most of them were set in competition, after a thorough "warm up."

I have never seen the point of this calculation. Just look at average power during the efforts themselves (deadly sin #2). If you have paced things so poorly that NP is significantly higher, you need to repeat the workout...the algorithm isn't going to save you.

Maybe for some folks NP wouldn't be accurate. For me NP = AP so no concerns there. I've seen it advertised both ways.

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

Even with clearing I'm pretty certain that my ftp isn't 95% of the 20 min.

Last test I managed to gut out 317W, with a few days rest before & a 300W FTP nugget to chase, collapsed shaking quivering on the bike I was quite happy.

Then the training started based on that....

I'd never failed an interval before, but pretty quickly it became apparent I couldn't complete the sets, knocked it down a little & completed a block, now I've set the FTP back & so far can complete all the sets.

For the upcoming year I'm considering shifting to longer intervals, ie. Focusing on the % of FTP I can hold for 1,2,4 hours rather than raising CP20.

Not everybody's is - see the graph posted to this thread, or better still, Fig. 9 here:

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/...ation-model-in-wko4/

Your experience is why I have never been a huge fan of this approach (although it certainly does get you in the ballpark).

Regardless, you did the right thing in adjusting your FTP/your expectations...that's the beauty of training with a power meter, I.e., "testing is training and training is testing."

Too high meaning that when you performed workouts designed around being ridden as % FTP that the workouts were too hard to sustain? Was wondering if it was just me.

I have that issue. I base my FTP off my 40K TT race efforts. Unscaled AP. Which should be pretty accurate. But when I'm doing, say Trainerroad or whatever, I typically have to dial things down in order to not put myself into the pain box on a daily basis. I don't know whether that's me being a wuss, me being physiologically abnormal, or workout designers making incorrect assumptions about what % FTP is, say, "endurance" pace.

Thanks for the link, I've been looking at this recently & started to consider moving away from an ftp test towards a modeled ftp.

The problem I run into is that in training I'm often intentionally below my power duration curve, so I can recover & go again the following day. Ie. Can't 'race' every day. But that would lead to a lowballed model...

I almost want to run two curves, the daily/tired curve and a predicted post-taper curve. Training on the former to push the later.

Are your 40 km TTs done outdoors? That could very well explain things.

Get ready for that torturous hell. Can't say that I've ever tried focusing on 4 hour, but 90-150 minutes is always part of the regiment. The key is staying fueled, and often I'm downright loopy by the end of the workout.

It looks like I should invest in WKO4 then...it might solve some of my problems. I've felt completely trashed basing my FTP of the stand alone 20 min test. So I've adjusted it down by 10w. I'll give this a few weeks to see how my runs and intervals on the bike go.

Or maybe not, since the modeling approach only works well if you perform "full gas" efforts across a range of durations on a fairly regular basis. That makes it really useful for most racing cyclists about 9 mo out of the year, but less so in the off-season, or for triathletes. I would therefore recommend simply choosing one of the seven deadly sins (or, if you have a long history of doing 20 min tests, use a different correction factor, e.g., 0.92 instead of 0.95).

I have a slight fear of this, but I am going ahead with the risk and leaning on the PPP: sooner or later you have to increase the power.

I am currently using a swagFTP based on weeks of training efforts and not a formal test. I started ramping up after an illness and my CTL dropped to 55. My mFTP dropped fairly low and higher intensity efforts dropped out of the 90 day window so the mFTP is 23 watts lower than my sFTP that I am using to govern my indoor session intensities. I have been in an extensive aerobic block with a slower ramp rate, but I stepped it up in hopes to get back to at least my former fitness level before the illness. Last night I tried a 3 x 20 @ 97% sFTP and while it was tough I made it through to the end. Now I am at this crossroads at to how to manage the training load on back to back days and I know that it is a personal decision and some risk, but I feel that I am that point of stepping up a bit more. I would use the mFTP, but without the higher "full gas" efforts in the model I can see why it may be down a little going through weeks of extensive aerobic training.

I know some people are skeptical of certain metrics but I am watching CTL and I have played it somewhat cautiously so not to have a relapse with that illness as I have seen happen with a number of coworkers. 1/1/2015 CTL 55 > 3/21/17 CTL 75. Still digging out of that hole, but hoping not to dig myself another one by getting too aggressive with the ramp rate. I am a little baffled as to the next step.

One thing my mFTP and sFTP in WKO4 were within a couple of watts before an effort fell out the 90 day window. While it may be true that my FTP did fall during the illness I did not drop the FTP number that I am using for training session by very much, but I did drop it a little based on training observations.

I hope you have realigned your training efforts and are back to trending in a positive direction.