Doesn't the book specify doing a maximum effort 5min TT first, then a recovery, then your 20min FTP test?

Alternatively, do 2 x 20 min with 2 min rest and use the average.

If yo've never been able to hold 240w for a 40k your FTP is <240.

When I hear people saying I don't want to do a 60min test but will do a 20min test, this is what I hear. "I'm a pussy and I like bigger numbers than I really deserve b/c it sounds better saying my FTP is XXX instead of XXX-some number."

Now I'm not calling you any of the above or saying that is you. I am saying that so many people do a 20min test and call that their FTP but they are deceiving themselves. But I've ranted on ST enough about that if you want to go search for it.

Read this:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/...ven-deadly-sins.html

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

No I am totally agreeing that the 20 min test is nothing more than that and if you really want to know your 40K (one hour power) than you need to do one hour efforts. My question is why the big push to get everybody measuring 20 min FTP and saying that some how it correlates to 60 min power?????

Because most people are using the FTP number as a measure of their progress in training and to set their training levels. If they were using it to pace their 40k TTs, the protocol would be more important. As it stands, for most people the protocol is not that important provided it is consistent.

my 40kTT is about 92% of my 10miTT

i did not call either ftp, as neither is an hour. also, the above correlation does not include a 5min blowout. it is merely a 10mile vs 40k TT power correlation that works for me,as my power goes up

Unlike others that use .95 I'm more like .92 times 20 min power for figuring FTP

Most people wont be able to hold .95% of their 20min wattage on a 60 min.. I think 90-92% is more accurate.

My buddy just found a pussy FTP test that uses 2x8 minute efforts.. I told him flat out it was inaccurate at 8 mins let alone 20 mins.. I know at 8 mins, I could sustain over 300 watts easily and my FTP is no more than 240.

I've seen 60 min power anywhere from 90-98% of 20 min power depending on the person, but sounds like you may even be out of that range. If you can establish what your correlation is, the 20 minute test can still be helpful. For me, I include 2 x 20' workouts on a pretty regular basis, and I always try to do those workouts sometime close to 40K TTs because then I can say, well I can do the 2 x 20 minutes at x watts, and I can hold x -5, x -10, or whatever it is for the TT. Then I know if my power for the 2 x 20 training sessions goes up, I can increase FTP by the established correlation.

The 20 min test is a training measurement and is not a definitive measure of your 1hr FTP. I think 92% is better to use BUT you still have to train your body to go 1hr. I have a lot of friends that are Crit or Road racers that do well on a 20 minute test and then can't figure out why they suck at 40K TT's. It is bc they don't train their bodies to go at a maximum effort for 1hr (or longer). I find the 3X20, 2 hr pace and 1 hr criss/cross workouts to be the best.

Your 40K FTP is what you can hold for 40K. If you read that book carefully, you read where some folks are better suited to the shorter end of a FTP test (sprinters) and others can sustain high performance for a longer time. Where are you and what does your time chart look like? Are you high the 20 min and shorter zones but tail off as you go long?

If 40K TT ismy main goal would I then be better off setting my 262 watts (.95 x 20 min effort) down to say .90 percent as some are saying and do longer efforts to try and have sustainable power for the one hour or so for a 40K??? Or would I be better off staying at the higher 20 min .95 percent number which would have me working harder on all the 5-10-15 and 20 min interval efforts?? Either way I am building FTP???

I don't see what's so wrong about just using the 95%. If its too high, you are going to figure that out pretty quickly. Then scale down. It's a moving target either way. Your FTP today is not your FTP yesterday. Building up lots of ride data over a period of time will give you better information than one ride where you may or may not perform well.

Did you do the 5' effort before the 20' effort? If I do the 5' effort, ride easy for 10' and then do the 20' test and multiply that number by .95 it's pretty close to what I can actually do for an hour. If I don't do the 5' effort, the 20' effort multiplied by .95 will overstate my FTP.

Never, ever let logic get in the way of the truth (though I still had to chuckle at your response, even though I saw it coming from a mile away).

---

Team Kiwami
Instagram

IanH wrote:

I don't see what's so wrong about just using the 95%. If its too high, you are going to figure that out pretty quickly. Then scale down. It's a moving target either way. Your FTP today is not your FTP yesterday. Building up lots of ride data over a period of time will give you better information than one ride where you may or may not perform well.

Well, you see, it's makes dessert dude very angry. That's reason enough for me! But in seriousness, I'll be out riding instead of plotting where I can ride for 1 hour with no interruptions from traffic or traffic signals so I can set some arbitrary number so I can appease someone on the internet.

I've always gone with 20min. wattage ÷ 1.08 to make it more realistic for winter/bad spring weather riding. I'm lucky that I do have a good stretch of road I can hammer out an uninterrupted 60 min. effort for summer and my spring numbers from my above calculations-done on a trainer-translate pretty nicely.

Having said that, I do most of my efforts below my swim/bike/run FTP/CSS and use training to 'push' up my race speeds. If I were to inflate my FTP and do 20-minute efforts from that regularly (as I've tried ONCE before) I'd burn out and lose the consistency required to get real results that last.

Your FTP will change. If your goal is to do 40k TT, then at some point you should be doing 1 hour efforts. But to begin with, I find the 2x20 min is more accurate for me to estimate my ftp. Why? Because I can at some times I can go really hard for 20 min, then be totally done. Which means I get a higher number that I would be able to get in a 1 hour effort. Other times, it actually takes me some time to get into the groove of things when I do it on the trainer. So, I actually do better on the second 20 min than the first. Not necessarily higher numbers, but more consistent for the entire effort. So, i do 2 x 20s to make sure I am not cheating on too short an effort, and to see a more stable attempt. This for me is more accurate to what I would do in 1 hour TT. Meaning, I may go too fast initially and what matters in the end is how you dose it throughout the entire hour. Eventually you want to be full out for 1 hour, but that takes some time to achieve. FTP is just a number to help you plan your training and set up a target to dose your effort during an event. Yes, people like to compare it to see who is the biggest man on the block. But that is not going to help you when you try your 1 hour TT. It does not matter how you stack to everyone else here. All that matters is how you stack to yourself. As your number get better, your times will get better. When you analyze your data, you will figure out the what the accurate target is for the given event. The more you train, the less you will feel like you are guessing. But 2 x20s for me is a very good start.

my 40kTT is about 92% of my 10miTT

I have you beat... mine is ~89%. And the 40ks are the *real* races.

i am working on upping that value, it's a title you can have!!

About 89% for me as well.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

x1

Believe it or not I prefer to do 60min test over a 20min test. But I'm also the guy who prefers 4k pool TT's then doing a few hard 100's. Theres nothing better then getting into that groove and riding that thin line between success and utter failure.

I've done both the 8 minute and the 20 minute tests on TrainerRoad. The 8 minute ones are tough, cause they are WELL above what will ultimately be calculated as their FTP.

The 20 minute one is that 5% higher for the test. If you go into a 20 minute test with a current FTP of 300, the workout is going to ask you to hold around 315-318 watts for the duration of the test.

The longer the test, I think the better it accurately estimates your 60 minute FTP, but some people can do better at different tests. For those that can hammer out higher watts for a shorter period of time, but evenutally fade, the 8 minute test might give them an over-estimated value.

I think the key to successful training is to test often, and use the same protocal each time. Whether that be the 8 minute test, the 20 or even the 60!! It's all about consistent improvement over time.

Not so sure I'd take average of two. People often say they can go full gas for 2x20 and that's true, but it doesn't mean it's the same power output. IMHO, if power output on your second 20 minute interval is the same as the first, then you didn't go hard enough on the first one.

At PCSD doing two 10-mile TTs against the clock is pretty regular for a bunch of us (numerous national champions and pros). I've yet to see anyone match peak power on second effort.

Otherwise, Stover pretty much nailed it.

My price of having no sprint is being able to hold ~97% of 20 min effort for a 40k. I used to be good at suffering.