I know how to do a FTP test so don't need to see how to do that over and over and was not what I was asking, sorry if that was vague. My original post was for a FTP for a Triathlete as a know the Allen/Coggan chart is for cyclists.

What I am hoping for from this post is to be able to tell someone that, wow.... you have lots of work to do or your in the ball park for your age/sex. So whether your 20 or 60 or M or F and you get a FTP of say 100, where does that put you in the realm of people in your AG as a Triathlete.

Power to Weight ratio for a cyclist. Plug in your #s to see where you are at.


http://www.americanroadcycling.org/TheBook/PowerToWeightCalculator.aspx

I like 'eyeballing the curve' too - the performance on that interval falls just slightly under what I estimated my maximum to be, which is in line with how the effort felt (hard, but not a to-failure effort) and in line with other efforts on the curve. It's only the W' that's thrown waaay into the negative - I guess it just means I have to play with the decay constants until things line up, and that my recovery improved over the default values (and previous efforts).

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

do you have a different aphorism for the over 40/ over 45 set? b/c their FTP surely ain't gonna increase year to year

This may be true with someone who is an experienced cyclist/triathlete. I don't find the generalization of +/- 5 watts true for the age groupers I have experience working with. On the contrary, FTP varies greatly. A generalization of FTP for a XXXlb male or female is not going to be within +/- 5 watts for each cyclist.

---

"Just don’t abandon everything you’ve ever learned because of something someone said on the internet." - Eric McGinnis

An anecdote for your friend - I am a FOP female AGer with FTP at 3.64W/kg. Strong swimmer, ok cyclist, weak runner. Does that really provide more info than her results at the local tri? I like Desert Dude's eFTP + 5% model better. Stop comparing yourself to the accomplishments of others and focus on your own incremental improvements.

---

http://trainingwheelsrequired.wordpress.com
@KellyNCollier

Well, key word is formally. After a few workouts and hard efforts with a power meter you can deduce a pretty close estimate of FTP even without a "20min all-out" or similar test.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

Over 40 it is still a good goal.
Once you hit 50 try not to lose more than 5%
lol

---

---

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

I'm not talking about guessing based on gender/weight
I'm talking about guessing based on the power duration curve produced by recent training and racing.

---

---

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

I definitely agree. You can have a great estimation of FTP based off of workouts completed.

My original post, and thus jackmotts reply, were in regards to FTP estimation formulas. With a group of highly trained athletes, the generalization using a formula may be closer. However, with age groupers and weekend warriors many coach, I don't find them to be accurate. So many more variables than just age, height, weight, etc.

---

"Just don’t abandon everything you’ve ever learned because of something someone said on the internet." - Eric McGinnis

Well that is a horse of a different color (I have always wanted to insert that into conversation somewhere) I don't believe a formula, like what the OP was looking for, is accurate, hence my original post and then reply to you. Off of previous efforts you can more accurately estimate FTP.

---

"Just don’t abandon everything you’ve ever learned because of something someone said on the internet." - Eric McGinnis

Since most of the people wanted to try and tell you how to test it, figured I would give you some "data points".....

FOP AG Triathlete & CAT2 Cyclist. 6'1" / 160-165lbs FTP 340, so roughly 4.7 W/Kg.

Fastest Amateur Bike Split at Vineman 70.3 in '13 took 295AP and 305NP
4:41 at Kona in '13 took 234AP/245NP and then 4:38 at IMFL in '13 was 221AP/226NP
3rd Fastest Bike Split at USAT AG Nats in '14 was roughly 310AP (Garmin file corrupted)
3rd Fastest Amateur Bike Split at 70.3 Worlds in '14 280AP/292NP

Hope that gets this thread back on track and you can get some other data points. Would be interesting if TP's did some data collection and created a chart for triathletes...........

---

-Brad Williams
Website | Twitter: @BW_Tri |Instagram: @BW_Tri | Strava | Co-Founder & Coach at: KIS Coaching
Partnered with: Zoot Sports | Precision Fuel &Hydration | ISM

I copied this from a different thread that I posted on the subject of aging:

"Given that there is a large neuromuscular decline in aging coupled with a decrease in muscle mass and a decline in vo2max one of the best ways to hinder this is to do some high intensity work.

Now it may not be right for you, but in general to slow/hinder/reverse etc the decline associated with ageing some high intensity work is probably the right thing to do. ""

While not specific to cycling and FTP it is specific to aging. Here is the thread: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=4698999

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

The power duration curve as opposed to only one point in the curve - FTP / 60 minute power?

tommyallore,

Why do you not advise the 1 hr test? In my opinion that is the ideal test and all others are compromises. You want to know the max power for one full hour, so test it for one full hour. When you test for 20 mins and multiply by .95 (or whatever) you now have an estimate and not the real deal.

I seem to be in the minority in this this belief. What am I missing??

---

"It doesn't get any easier, you just get faster" - Greg LeMond

It depends a lot on how seriously you trained in your 20's and 30's. If you hit a very high level, say a solid cat 1 rider in your 30's, it's very unlikely that you will be faster in your 50's.

It depends a lot on how seriously you trained in your 20's and 30's. If you hit a very high level, say a solid cat 1 rider in your 30's, it's very unlikely that you will be faster in your 50's.[/quote]
Didn't Metcalfe ride the Olympic Trials in his 30s?
My point is that hitting the 50 year old mark does not mean that one should automatically expect a 5% decrease in FTP each year.

Curious as to how you estimated your FTP to get negative W' ?

The right approach would be 3 or 4 short test / best efforts ranging from 3 - 20mins to obtain your correct critical power profile (and therefore W'). In my experience with CP & W' over several years I've never seen negative W' values when the testing to define it is done appropriately.

Regards

David

---

David T-D
http://www.tilburydavis.com

Based on three datapoints that I felt were representative of a near-maximal effort - one 3.5m, one 14m and one 35m - I estimated the FTP to probably be ~5W higher than those efforts (I considered them near-maximal because while I did basically collapse at the end of the shorter two, they were both done at the end of a one-hour and two-hour ride, respectively; the third was "hard, but could've gone a touch harder"), which lines up with the progress seen since my last 20min test, two months ago. The base calculation pegged my FTP at 262W, which means the actual FTP is in the ~265W-268W (~4W/kg) area which is what I thought it would end up as. The calculated W' was 17,300kJ, again a value that matches up well with "cracking" during a race or interval session.

The effort that "broke" the W' calculation was the aforementioned 35min effort. I've never before seen this happen, but I've never done a such an effort (duration-wise) before so I can't compare it to previous points. I think what happened is that the decay constants in the exponents don't match my rates of recovery during the effort, because Golden Cheetah calculated my total W' for that effort to be ~25,000kJ which makes absolutely no sense.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

There is a chart in WKO that you can see how your w/kg stack up against different categories (recreational, CAT5 - Pro, World Class). This is what the OP is looking for with respect to Triathlon. The purpose of such a chart is that if you aspire to be a pro tour cyclist, you better be at the top of the chart in at least one of the power curves. If you plan to race CAT 2 and actually finish, well the numbers are there and you have your target.

You are not in the minority of people who understand that anything other than a full hour test is just an estimate.

Can you provide more explanation on this? Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I'd imagine the watts would vary in each measurement (3.5 > 14 > 35) and you'd have to do some extrapolation to get your [1 hour] FTP. If you drew a curve on a graph and plotted a wattage against the 1hour point I would imagine it to be lower than the 35 min number. I'd also expect if you took the 35m number and ballparked the FTP it would be 35m watts < FTP.

A 1hr test only gives you your 1hr avg power. There is nothing magical about 1hr avg power. I think you will also find that Dr Coggan says that FTP is not strictly speaking a 1hr avg power.

Sorry, I mis-worded it. I meant to say "I estimated the FTP to probably be ~5W higher than what those efforts indicate". Meaning, if I extrapolate FTP from those efforts, the actual FTP is a touch higher than calculated. Basically: 1) Do 3 fairly hard efforts, 2) Calculate FTP from that 3) Add ~5w to that number, get another estimate that feels more accurate.

Before this gets out of hand: Doing three sub-maximal efforts isn't my method of setting my FTP. I just happened to have these three which would've been impossible with my previous tested FTP, so I figured it's a good time to update.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer