I posted this in another forum a few weeks ago and I think it holds true here. IMO, I'd rather we just go with a new standard that's easy enough we don't have to fudge tests. Be that a MAP test or just raw 20 minutes.
FTP has been sliced up so many times its not even a measurable standard amongst cyclists. Does it matter two riders technically have the same FTP but one did a test that matches his strengths so his is 50 watts higher? If they're teammates absolutely, otherwise probably not.
There's also the exhaustion effect of FTP that people completely ignore which is a huge factor. Some can hold threshold at 70 minutes, some at 45 minutes.
There's the standard 20 minute test, 30 minute test, hour test, the 20x2 test, the 8x2 test, Strava estimate, WKO estimate, GC estimate, the new TP standards; and I'm probably missing about 15 more.
Right now my FTP swings 40 watts depending on what standard I use. In WKO its low, the Strava marker is high, Golden Cheetah and 20 minute testing is somewhere in the middle. Which one we decide to go with vastly effects training so a lack of standardization is a big problem.
FTP has been sliced up so many times its not even a measurable standard amongst cyclists. Does it matter two riders technically have the same FTP but one did a test that matches his strengths so his is 50 watts higher? If they're teammates absolutely, otherwise probably not.
There's also the exhaustion effect of FTP that people completely ignore which is a huge factor. Some can hold threshold at 70 minutes, some at 45 minutes.
There's the standard 20 minute test, 30 minute test, hour test, the 20x2 test, the 8x2 test, Strava estimate, WKO estimate, GC estimate, the new TP standards; and I'm probably missing about 15 more.
Right now my FTP swings 40 watts depending on what standard I use. In WKO its low, the Strava marker is high, Golden Cheetah and 20 minute testing is somewhere in the middle. Which one we decide to go with vastly effects training so a lack of standardization is a big problem.