If I had to choose it would be a 40k TT. I think an hour FTP test is pretty excessive unless you have a nice course outside, like a 40k TT. But doing an hour FTP test indoors seems like an awful, awful punishment for someone.

---

Twitter - Instagram

EDIT - I've just read the Coggan thread; didn't realise this was an overspill of the lovers tiff. I'm out.

---

29 years and counting

FTP is to this forum what climate science is to the Lavender Room.

[sarcasm&truth]
I think anyone advocating for whatever they post they prefer/like/believe in should be required to post a Strava or Trainingpeaks link to activity proving they've actually even ever done the test in question. How high or low the result is, who cares.

It should be a mandatory prereq to any of these threads.

[/sarcasm&truth]

ignore coggan, he has brought a lot to the power world but old dog new tricks...no..He now is more of a shoot everything down...just likes to argue

Nice

I have 'FTP test methodology' fatigue onset by reading all of these threads. I realize there are a lot of smart people debating the issue and I could learn from it, but it has devolved to the point where I am just sticking with the prescribed 20 min test and not caring anymore.

---

Strava

Where can I find the new tricks?

didn't you hear? FTP is dead...

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I don't make any specific recommendations, as the best way for any given individual to estimate their FTP will vary with their circumstances.

I have also said on many occasions that:

"The best predictor of performance is performance itself."

"Training is testing and testing is training."

"I hate it when testing gets in the way of my training."

Sure, I'm interested in knowing what you deem the absolutely best way to test for FTP.

WKO4 implements most (not all) of my newer ideas.

?

As I indicated, what I would recommend for any given individual would vary.

Thanks, I'm aware of those.
I was referring to the ones Trimeon implied you are unable to "learn"

Would you mind expanding on what you mean by that?

Thanks

Mark

Jesus not another FTP thread FFS. This is a triathlon forum NOT a cycling forum - FTP is dead anyway. Can't you two find a cycling forum to have your tiffs and f-- off the pair of you????

There are many was to estimate FTP and they are mostly as inaccurate as each other. Who cares if its a 1 hour test or a 40K TT. They will both give you the result you deserve.

---

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.

To give a couple of examples:

Going back decades, I have always done lots of long intervals in training. I'm also someone who doesn't really have any trouble "dialing it up" even when no one is around. So, for me deadly sin #6 is both convenient and accurate, and it is what I have relied upon almost exclusively.

In contrast, when she was racing bikes my wife's training was generally more varied, and she definitely rises to the occasion during competition. For her, then, deadly sin #5 (based on spontaneously-collected data, not formal testing) was usually a better option. In 2007, though, she did lots of indoor training (as our kids were still quite young), including 2 x 20 min ergometer efforts. That season I was then able to rely on deadly sin #6. That put her FTP at 265 W, i.e., within 2% of the 269 W she averaged during the one and only 40 km TT she did that year.

Nice.

What I was asking is which method do you think provides the most certainty?
If I wrote "AC says a 40km TT provides the most certainty in an estimate of FTP" would you disagree?

I'm looking at the 7 deadly sins.

Mark

In terms of the seven deadly sins, yes, I would generally consider a long TT done in competition to provide the most accurate estimate.

ETA: I have to say, though, that your question puzzles me. Did you not believe me in the early 2000s when I wrote:

"...probably the easiest and most direct way of estimating a rider’s functional threshold power is therefore to simply measure their average power during a ~40 km (50-70 min) TT"

He gave you an answer. I’ll tell you what a judge may tell a lawyer who keeps pressing a witness. You aren’t entitled to the answer you want or expect. You want him to give a “this” or “that” response to a question that he doesn’t think lends it self to such a response. You gave you a response; sorry, you don’t like it and can’t use it as a juicy “sound bite” on your blog. Let it die, man.

Thanks.

Mark

Now that he has his answer, he should be forced to go out and immediately do the test in the next 5 days and post the results..........or risk a forum ban.

I'm kidding, I'm kidding....

In the spirit of that suggestion:

Fair enough since I suggested it........I'm a fan of the 20min myself. I use the 2x8min test to set zones for the time-crunched cyclist book plans but follow up at the end with a 20min test. I'm still newer to the bike stuff, but am getting there.

Here's my piddly effort, I didn't log the warmup:
https://www.strava.com/activities/1273717088/overview