Dr. Coggan is not a fan of that particular 20 min test (even though it is in his book with Hunter Allen).

He is probably even less enamored with the newer 8 min tests I've seen.

Doesn't much matter as reproducible, train/test off the same to monitor improvement.

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

http://www.twowheelblogs.com/...ns-seven-deadly-sins

You're not even doing it right with the 5 min at FTP.

Here is the test from Hunter Allen's blog

http://www.hunterallenpowerblog.com/.../01/what-is-ftp.html

Scroll down to "The Threshold Test"

IMO, the 5 minutes is to blow out the legs and get you properly warmed up. If I didn't do the 5 minutes, I don't think my 20 min avg would be as high.

---

blog

I was going by this

"Allen and Coggan's protocol is as follows:

1. 20 minutes easy warm up
2. 3 x 1-minute wind ups with a minute rest between (100 RPM pedal cadence)
3. 5 minutes easy
4. 5 minutes all out (hard at first, but not so hard that you can't complete the effort)
5. 10 minutes easy
6. 20-minute time trial effort (like the previous 5-minute all out effort, keep in control, hard but steady, you don't want to over cook it and die at the end)
7. 10 to 15 minute cool down"

and also using Trainer Road's and Zwifts new 20 minute FTP tests as for examples. Both use a 5 minute clearing session at FTP (well 1.05Xsupposed FTP) for their minute clearing.. not saying Coggan is affiliated with Trainer Road or Zwift but the methodology appears the same, or at least highly similar.

---

"4 wheels move the body, 2 wheels move the soul"

Straight from the Hunter Allen Power Blog regarding the 5 min hard effort

3. Ride 5 minutes all out. Punch it and hold it! Start at a high pace, but not so high that you die at the end. You should have a little energy held in reserve to kick it toward the finish line in the last minute.

The goal of this first part of the effort is twofold: first, to open up the legs for the rest of the test, and second, to measure your ability to produce watts in the VO2max power zone. This initial 5-minute effort also helps to dispense the “freshness” that always exists at the beginning of a ride; your next effort will produce power that is more likely to be truly representative of your FTP.

So at what percent of your FTP (you don't know you have yet) are you supposed to do that effort? Seriously though? All out is pretty ambiguous for a test protocol.

---

"4 wheels move the body, 2 wheels move the soul"

That's one reason I'm not a huge fan of the approach (although it does work reasonably well).

Another reason is that you can often arrive at an equally-accurate estimate w/o doing any formal testing at all.

This is why the 20 min test protocol is tricky. I have personally gone so hard in the 5 min blowout hat I'm worthless for the 20 min tt. Obviously that's not ideal. And to make it more open ended everyone's all out 5 min tt is gouling to be a different % of ftp. My 5 minute power is 120% but again I'm worthless for a 20 min test following that.

---

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

First of all thanks for replying to this thread Andrew. I really do appreciate your time.

So as you can probably surmise I did and FTP test tonight. I did Zwift's 20 minute test. It was very similar to the Trainer Road tests I have done in the past and I felt at least it's precision to my previous tests would be close.

Do you think an hour test is necessary for setting power training zones? in other words is there any benefit to doing a longer or just different test protocol?

---

"4 wheels move the body, 2 wheels move the soul"

Me personally I follow the Friel 30 minute test. Warmup how ever you'd like and the slam it for 30 minutes alone. He believes this gives you an accurate number because by yourself and outside of a race you're lacking the full motivation and that 30 minute number should transfer over.

I do this test on the trainer and it seems to work very well for me.

While we have you here...

Question that's been on my mind:
Is there a metric that describes how long you can hold FTP for? And is there a practical difference if someone can hold their FTP for 1.1hours vs 50 minutes?

yes there is a difference, it's pretty simpl:

if you can hold a specific wattage for 66 minutes, by definition it's not your FTP.

if you can hold a specific wattage for only 50 minutes, by definition it's not your FTP.

The lay mens definition of FTP (I am a lay man) is basically 1 hour power, I'm not sure if that was ever the intent from AC's point of view.

Basically in training you have various schools of thought, one being that raising (lay mens version) of FTP, reasonably floats all boats (IE all your power for longer durations) the other being that Maxlass or threshold is event specific and that should be your focus during whatever you might describe as specific phase of training.

IE extension of speed for longer events (say IM) vs increase of (threshold) FTP for shorter events…with various other training ideas somewhere in between.

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over the difference in all out power for 50 vs 66 minutes, unless it means hour record or Oly gold etc.

Maurice

That's pretty much what my stance is, but am curious what causes the difference. Is it sort of a pain threshold thing, etc.



Going off the: FTP isn't defined as the power that can be held for an hour.

If you're really bored…and I mean REALLY bored:

Read this, a 16 year old kid asks Canova for advice and it turns into a 113 page thread on threshold…basically you can read the whole thread or just skim and read Canova and Cabral's posts: (quotes)

c) Due to these considerations, I think that the problem of the Threshold is a false problem. Not always to work for raising the threshold is important, of course if you have already a good level of threshold. The threshold is the base for the SPECIFICITY of every event, only for 10000 and HM is a specifism itself.

Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/...page=6#ixzz3uYaktT64

But what is important to remember, is that every distance needs a specific Aerobic Support, that is not the real AnT. For example, in the case of 3000 SC/5000, we can create a MAX LASS (Maximum Lactate Steady State) of 6/8 min at a level of 11-13 mmol of lactate, and the AnT that we need is the speed at a level of 8 mmol about. So, don`t pay attention at the CONVENTIONAL THRESHOLD of 4 mmol,because is something for physiologists, but really in many case doesnt mean anything.

I try to write the level of lactate that you must use like AEROBIC SUPPORT for the specific workouts in different events :

800m 8-12 mmol
1500m 7-10
5000m 6-8
10000m 5-7
HM 4-5
Mar 4

Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/...age=11#ixzz3uYeTtGI4

A really long thread with lots of shit, but for some worth the read

I used to do more of the FTP type testing, but lately I've just gone by what power I can do in certain workouts and races to determine what my FTP/CP is. I generally do one or two indoor 10k races in the winter and use that as a gauge going into the season. It's worked quit well.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

How do you calculate the estimate without formal testing?

I target 110% of what I think I can do in the 20 min FTP test

I agree that effort is ambiguous but that's why it's called testing. If you are consistent with your testing procedure then your results will likely reflect your changes in FTP.

If someone used just the 20 min test, it will most likely give a fair approximation of their FTP but slightly higher. Then there is that 95% thing, I've found that I'm more like 92% of that 20 minutes so even more variation to that test.

Is that amount significant? It depends on what you use it for. If that person used a slightly inflated FTP to calculate effort for a race and used recommended efforts from someone that did the test differently, they may/may not have an issue with that effort. They should be working with that effort while training to find out if that is a good pacing strategy anyway so if it's off a little it probably won't make a difference. Some people like bigger numbers, if that's what keeps them riding then they need to realize that references to FTP are slightly different from what they did.

If they are using it to just set training zones it probably won't make much difference. It would be a nicer number to brag about though.

If you really want to nail down a FTP you need a longer effort, personally I like the 2X20(4) test or I take the power from a flat Olympic distance race that I had a strong bike and run in and divide it by .90 That is a little vague but it works for me, I also don't have an FTP that most people would brag about.

My $.02

jaretj

Maybe we are just debating semantics, but in my view 50 minutes or 66 does not fall in the approximately one hour - one is nearly 15% less and the other is 10% more. I'd say that like the various tests in this thread it gets you in the ball park, but it doesn't really meet the definition.

#2 of the seven deadly sins - from the power that you can routinely generate during long intervals done in training.

Not Andy here but for me, the average wattage I can do for something like a 3 X 15 or 2 X 20 with 2 minutes easy in between is darn close to my FTP. It's certainly close enough for the purpose at hand.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

There are multiple ways of estimating FTP (because, like, e.g., weight, it's a physiological trait or characteristic, subject to change over longer periods but relatively stable over shorter ones). Although some are better than others (and a 40 - or, really, ~40 - km TT is one of the best), it's really up to each individual to figure out what approach works best in their particular circumstances.

No, and no.

Don't conflate how people choose to train with how they choose to describe their capabilities, set training levels, etc. The two are completely independent of each other.