FTP Research

Triathlon Forum
1

Hello All,

https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/publishahead/Functional_Threshold_Power_Is_Not_Equivalent_to.94787.aspx

Excerpt:

While mean bias was 2.9 ± 24.6 W, there were large limits of agreement (LOA) between FTP and LT4.0 (−45 to 51 W). All other lactate parameters, lactate threshold (LT) (236 ± 32 W), individual anaerobic threshold (244 ± 33 W), and LT thresholds determined using the Dmax method (221 ± 25 W) and modified Dmax method (238 ± 32 W) were significantly different from FTP (p < 0.05). While FTP strongly correlated with LT4.0, the large LOA refutes any equivalence as a measure with physiological basis.

Therefore, we would encourage athletes and coaches to use alternative field-based methods to predict cycling performance.

2

Thanks Neal. It was based on a 20 min test. I guess that just adds more evidence to what others have always said (eg Coggan) about the inaccuracy of basing zones on 20 min average multiplied by a fudge factor.

3

In layman’s terms does this mean the 20 minute test isn’t valid and the hour test is? Or?

4

In layman’s terms does this mean the 20 minute test isn’t valid and the hour test is? Or?

I think it says 95% of a 20min test does not correlate to lactate profiles.

I think that was almost predictable.

5

In layman’s terms does this mean the 20 minute test isn’t valid and the hour test is? Or?

I think its fair to say that the one hour test is a much better estimate of your maximal lactate steady state however the 20 min test is not useless. Seiler suggests “calibrating” your 20 min test to the one hour test (ideally with a lactate level). What that means is your fudge factor may not be 95% it might be 85%. I would also think most would agree with me when I suggest it is almost never going to be 95% it’s much more likely to be lower for a non-elite.

6

Thanks!

7

Thanks for the insight…

8

I wasn’t aware that a straight up “maximal self-paced 20-minute cycling time trial” was the protocol for estimating FTP.

9

The problem with FTP is always that its really hard to find your TTE time (the time you hit lactate threshold) and maximize your power during that time. Some people hit it at 35 minutes, some people hit it at 90 minutes. Its also never factored in to FTP. For example, one rider can have an FTP of 300, but that power cracks in 40 minutes, another can 275, but cracks at 90 minutes.

I wasn’t aware that a straight up “maximal self-paced 20-minute cycling time trial” was the protocol for estimating FTP.

There are so many now, and companies come up with shorter and shorter absurd standards. There’s an 8 minutes test, ramp test, etc.

10

The problem with FTP is always that its really hard to find your TTE time (the time you hit lactate threshold) and maximize your power during that time. Some people hit it at 35 minutes, some people hit it at 90 minutes. Its also never factored in to FTP. For example, one rider can have an FTP of 300, but that power cracks in 40 minutes, another can 275, but cracks at 90 minutes.

I wasn’t aware that a straight up “maximal self-paced 20-minute cycling time trial” was the protocol for estimating FTP.

There are so many now, and companies come up with shorter and shorter absurd standards. There’s an 8 minutes test, ramp test, etc.

I don’t think they’re absurd, they each have their pros and cons. It’s about understanding why you’re testing and what you’re going to do with the number that comes out of it, then choosing the test that’s best for the job.

If your goal is to establish maximal lactate steady state power then you should do a 60 minute test or something close to it. Problem is that it’s a pretty daunting test that takes a lot out of you, so most people won’t do one very often, and doing a good test takes a fair bit of experience to get pacing, nutrition, etc, spot on.

Ramp test isn’t a particularly good predictor of maximal lactate steady state power. But it has a couple of other advantages. There’s no pacing involved which means you can get very consistent and repeatable results. And it doesn’t take too much out of you which means you can test more frequently and with less disruption to your schedule.

Personally the only time I really want to test myself for 20 minutes or longer is when I’m racing and highly motivated. For 6-8 months of the year I race fairly frequently, including TT and long mountain climbs, which gives me a very good idea of the watts I’m capable of putting out over 20-60 minutes, and how that correlates to the occasional longer distances I do like 70.3s. The rest of the year I’m still training but have no desire to put myself through the pain of a 20 minute test, let alone a 60 minute one, so I use the ramp test as a much less onerous way of monitoring my fitness and adjusting my training zones.

11

Because blood lactate of 4.0mmol is ftp ? (Genuinely asking)
I’m a big fan of the 20min test, athletes making excuses and wanting the stars to line up on test day are missing the point. Workout performance (relative and absolute) should be a more appropriate fitness marker.

12

IMHO the 4.0mmol figure is a rule of thumb that seems to have become set in stone as the amount of lactate you can tolerate indefinitely.
http://lactate.com/questions/question_03a_what_is_threshold.html
Also a 20min test is fine but some people test higher or lower than either a ramp test or full hour effort, just as long as you compare the same test methodology all is good. Perhaps its should just be called a twenty minute power test and leave out FTP from the title as it causes confusion.

13

Was testing protocol just a 20 min test or did it include the two high power washouts to lower anaerobic contribution before the 20 min?

14

Hello AndrewL and All,

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/wattage/26tkVQRMzQ4
.

15

Man it’s just not the same around here without Andy Coggan and Trev. They’d have been on this like cheese on a pizza.

16

Man it’s just not the same around here without Andy Coggan and Trev. They’d have been on this like cheese on a pizza.
Have they taken their leave?
Haven’t noticed any comments from either recently but wasn’t aware of a reason.

17

They make their rounds. :slight_smile:

The last back and forth that I know about was on Timetrialingforum and that was a month or more ago when Trev* (as usual)* initiated the flare up.

18

Because blood lactate of 4.0mmol is ftp ? (Genuinely asking)
I’m a big fan of the 20min test, athletes making excuses and wanting the stars to line up on test day are missing the point. Workout performance (relative and absolute) should be a more appropriate fitness marker.

No. As a matter of fact, Seiler commented that specifically for cycling, MLSS is very often higher than 4. I think he mentions 5.x being common.

I personally am a fan of the 20min test, during summer months at my local 15km TT. I do follow it up with a 3-5 minutes test a few days later
and calculate a CP and W’.

I have tested that if I take that CP, drop it by 5 watts and do a 4x10min at CP with 90sec during which I take a lactate sample, I will be at SS. I have done this many times.

This is really not necessary but cool to do. I need a life

When fall rolls around I do a ramp test, realign the data and use that during the winter.

I do believe the CP/W’ model predicts pretty well “failure”. Last Sunday 8 riders i some bike race in France did a TTT. There CP/W’ depletion model was BANG on.

19

I’m new to this so I’m just guessing… on Garmin Connect they have a Power Curve that gives you historical points of data for specific time periods. For me:

1 minute - 331w
20 minutes - 200w
60 minutes - 162w

Only the 20 minute time was a deliberate test (outdoors with a few minor interruptions) but it looks like the longer I go the worse I look on paper. I’m thinking my real FTP is not 95% of 200.

edit - I may have stopped for a beer during those 60 minutes so I may be selling myself short! I guess I need an indoor trainer if I’m going to get serious about this. I have a 20 mile bike leg in a race next Saturday so that will be informative too.

20

When fall rolls around I do a ramp test, realign the data and use that during the winter.

I did my first ramp test (used the built in version in PerfPro) and was very surprised by the outcome after looking at the data and other things. I think this might be the test I use from now on. I was previously using 20 minute tests if at all. Where I live it is near impossible to do an outdoor test for 60 minutes (and I don’t race so I cannot use a race). Even with a 20 minute test I would have to drive pretty far out of the city to find a 20 minute section of road that was suitable for a test. Indoors I overheat in a 60 minute test unless it is middle of winter.

From the ramp test I set my starting point for trainer application intensity and then from there I just adjust as I go in the weeks ahead.

Anyway I like the ramp test. It is brutal in those last minutes, but I do like it.