For my TT stuff I've taken the "best indicator of performance" into practice.

I try to do an outdoors TT effort on a route with no real disturbances around twice a month. Sometimes I kit up in race kit. I usually don't.

I can use this along with what workouts I hit and miss, to know what to set the workouts at.

A 10mi TT is a duration that I can pretty much do at the power I would do a 3x8min workout at. But it's just 1x all-out. So, given that........there's my interval target power for 8min and 9min under over stuff. As I improve, add a set OR move out the rep length.

thanks, that's kinda where I'm heading. I just feel like doing an FTP test is a bit of a wasted training day. ramp test leaves me tired enough that I don't want to do anything but some Z1 noodling around, but at the same time doesn't really give that much "time in zone".

Also, I'm ditching any "training plans" for now rather just focusing on 3 key workouts per week, plus some free-rides and Zwift races. The last training plan I did (4 weeks) my FTP went up 7 watts. I want to see what happens when left to my own devices/instincts.

Monday - 2x20 at Sweet Spot/Tempo (90-93%)

Wednesday 30s at 150% FTP, 30s recovery - 2-3 sets of 10-15 (currently at 2 sets of 10)

Thursday - 4 x 6min at 105% w/ 4mins recovery.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

It depends....

If those races are TTs of about 20mins duration then they would be useful enough to estimate your FTP. If they are drafting races of varying duration, you may never record a 20min max effort representative of your ability. I've recently done quite a few races on Zwift, and until a couple of weeks ago my 20min power was given as something in the mid 270s. For most races, even relatively short ones of 25-30mins, my max 20min average won't be over 265W. I then did an actual 20min FTP test around 2 or 3 weeks ago and averaged 296W. Down on my best but about what I expected under the circumstances. That's a pretty significant difference IMO. Drafting races on Zwift tend to start and end flat out with calmer periods in the middle. As a result, I've had many races where my overall average power for a 25-30min race was higher than my 20min average for the same event. So I would expect most non-TT Zwift races to yield a significantly lower 20min average than an FTP test.

The benefit of a 20min FTP test is consistency. Bunch races don't provide this. TTs can, if its a flat route (ie consistent pacing) and a fixed duration. So if you did a TT over a single lap of Tempus Fugit every few weeks, that would be pretty decent replacement for an FTP test. If the profile or duration varies, then no.

Also regarding the ramp test, I have found that for me at least, this gives very optimistic results. I suspect that's because I tend to perform well for shorter surges as compared with longer steady state efforts. When Zwift introduced the Ramp test to their menu, I had 20minute power of about 310W (so 20min est FTP of 295W), a best actual 1 hour effort of about 275W, and I tried the ramp test to be told my FTP was 315W. there is no way my FTP was 315W. I think that was at least 35W too high. The 20min effort was also too high, but less so. I decided i didn't really care what the "correct" FTP figure was so log as I had a consistent figure I could use to define interval and pacing intensities. If I'm training regularly, I'm satisfied enough estimating a value from my harder training efforts. On the few occasions I've done a 20min FTP test for comparison, I've been able to predict the result within a few watts (I do accept my estimate can't help but influence my pacing during the test!).

I've been doing the 20 minute FTP test a few times as of late (take max power * .95) and it's an excellent workout on its own, and NOT a crusher by any means despite it being hard. Sure it feels tough and you're pushing super hard by the end, but it's not terrible until the final segments if you've paced it right. I don't see how that should wipe you out for the rest of the day if you're in decent bike shape as it's like a 45 minute total workout with only 20-24 minutes at intensity.

I mean the TSS for that 20 min test (I used the one on Zwift, which has the short high-power rampups as well prior to the 20') was 67, so that's not a killer by any means. My one-hour unstructured aerobic rides that I ride in slope mode usually generate more TSS than that (obviously it's a longer session.)

The 2 x 20' @ FTP workout is pretty staple for riders of all types and has been discussed here a lot as legit.

But to answer your question, I'd say it's fine to pull your 20' power off your Zwift races and use that. FTP tests aren't perfect, and are a somewhat moving target, so it shouldn't be critical to workout if you are just slightly off reality, as you'll vary as well from fatigue, sleep, etc. anyway. As long as the workouts are giving you the right stimulus (and again, the workout structure itself also matters) you're good to go. For outdoor racing though, it may be better to do a field test just so you don't get a rude awakening when you go indoors to outdoors or other unexpected problem.

You can do this, and do sort of spontaneous/unstructured types of tests to keep your PDC up to date. I use wko5 and that softwares ability to model FTP is pretty much spot on as long as your PDC is accurate. So maybe a test protocol at the beginning of a season/start of training to get the PDC accurate, and then unstructured testing on places where your MMC is below the PDC model. Is there any software you are using at the moment that allows you to compare mean max to the power duration curve? To do this, you need to be able to see places on your curve where you need to throw down some hard efforts to keep it accurate. I use WKO5, but that is a costly piece of software, but super valuable if you take the time to learn it. I'm not sure if something free like golden cheetah can do this as well.

I use the modeled FTP from my software during the season, because I'm riding outside, doing all kinds of efforts and keeping my PDC up to date. In the winter, when most of my riding is inside and much more structured (and focused on below threshold efforts), I need to do testing because my PDC isn't accurate in the anaerobic end of it, and that causes the model to be innaccurate. I've found the TR ramp test to be extremely accurate for me (guess i'm in the middle of the bell curve), I did the ramp a few days after an all out effort up Alpe du Zwift, and the average power for that, and my FTP per the ramp test were within 3 watts of one another, and 5 watts of my modeled FTP on WKO5 (which was highest by the way, and what I'd expect because I hadn't done any really hard short efforts recently, skews FTP high)

---

USAT Level 1 Coach
Team Next Level
http://goteamnltri.com/

I don't usually get to ride until 9pm (sometimes later), so unless I can follow up an effort with something else right away, I can't do anything else that day.

(my 20min power number came from a 21 min TT race on Zwift, so basically the same as doing the 20min FTP test, but more fun than testing).

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

I'm using Golden Cheetah. I've been using the Zwift ramp test and it seems to be pretty accurate for me as well. like I said, my TT effort that underpins the 20min point on the PD curve wasn't perfectly paced (started a bit under, then built the power, then overshot the mark and had to back off....)

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

I think this is the crux of it. Taking all of the pros and cons of the various FTP testing protocols (ramp/8min/20min/40kTT), an anchor/benchmark for training is what they're all after. Which one is right? None of them and all of them. I personally like the ramp test because for me, it's more repeatable from test to test and takes much less mental effort to pace than than the 20min test or a 40k TT. You need other inputs when determining race pacing plans regardless of the source of your FTP estimate.

I haven't played with Golden Cheetah in about 10 years. The most important graph for this in WKO5 is one that lays your modeled Power Duration curve (nice smooth line) overtop of your Mean Max Curve (supposed to be smooth, but has some bumps and valleys in it). The idea is, after some good baseline testing (short, medium, long 100% all out efforts over a couple days), all you have to do is look for places where your Mean Max curve is most below the PDC, and then go and do an all out effort at that time.

---

USAT Level 1 Coach
Team Next Level
http://goteamnltri.com/

I personally was going to use this approach and not do an ftp test last week after my first block. I had a few workouts that seemed good enough to estimate it. I decided to do the 20min test anyway, and got 7w higher than my prediction. Not terribly different, and the test is brutal, so itd be up to you if the tested difference is appreciable enough to warrant the suffering...

---

Strava

I'm in the same boat. Actually, for the racing I'm planning for this year, FTP isn't even all that relevant, except in the sense of being generally aerobically fit. I'm never going to be using FTP itself as a pacing strategy.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

I have been training steadily in tri now for 5 years and I don't test anymore. I can tell when my ftp is getting a little low and bump it 2%, but I really only sway between about 375-405W depending on fitness, so not a big swing.

I found the 20 minute tests to be very accurate but just killed me (a great workout, though).

The ramp test estimates my FTP too high by about 10W but is a good workout and doesn't leave me nearly as toasted as the 20 min test.

I did one 10-mile TT this summer at 463W and garmin and TP told me to increase my ftp from 396 to 435W (HA!!!) after that race. I would die if I tried workouts at that ftp output.

So, I've landed at just going by feel and adjusting every 5-6 weeks by a few percent. I'm 197lbs for reference...so the numbers aren't as big as they may appear.

---

Blog: https://davidkoppeltriathlon.blogspot.com/
Coaching: https://dkendurance.com/

Here's my thought on the value of an exact FTP number. I haven't done a formal FTP test since 2014. I do lots of interval riding around a "FTP" number just so I have a proper target range for training numbers.

In the past 25 months I've ridden bikes over 50,000 miles. So the benefit of huge volume is sure my FTP doesn't change much. I just don't see much value in honing in on an exact digit. Training and racing is all done within a "window" so IMO why stress over 5 watts with an FTP number. Unless of course you like the suffering of all out tests. I bide my "all out" matches for racing.

---

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

Seems like a big number to me. As of this morning I was also 197lbs (down 18 since Jan 1), but 100W less than you....

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

No.

clear and concise. I like it!

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

Well, it may be big, but my power curve is quite lopsided and power heavy until about an hour, then reality checks in. The main point is I think racing on a bike alone for me, takes me to a whole different level that has very little to do with my ftp. My tri % of ftp is consistent though, like 68-72% for IM, 80-83% for HIM, 90-93% for Oly.

---

Blog: https://davidkoppeltriathlon.blogspot.com/
Coaching: https://dkendurance.com/

I find that 95% of my 20-minute power in a roughly 20-minute Zwift race results in a higher FTP than a ramp test. The power of competition.

In general, I don't do a lot of FTP tests. I've been riding long and consistently enough that it does not move much even when I do. It does not seem worth the effort of the test for change that is likely going to be less five watts. In my training, I don't really think of FTP as a hard number as much as a range. If my FTP tests at 260, I think of it as in the 250s and 260s and move it around for particular workouts based on what my body tells me. Sleep, recent workouts, life stress, time of day- all of that matters and changes from workout to workout, so why always use the same number?

exactly...
but I have a more verbose reply. What are you trying to accomplish? All the test does is provide an estimate of something that you hope is related to your fitness. What if all you are really measuring is how much better you are at doing the test? What does that tell you. What you need is really hard efforts that take you to your perceived limit, so yes racing and other options that you are motivated to do all out are good for giving you a power duration curve. Why not look at how that curve changes over time? So yeah 20 * x is maybe useful for helping set up values for training workouts but the tests are the races you do or what ever you do that takes you to your true limit. If those efforts show on your curve as a change then you have improved that part of your fitness. Also that curve can provide insight into your strengths and weaknesses so if you want to focus on one or another then it helps show if that is actually happening.

So the answer to the FTP test question is as Robert put so succinctly No.

Holy crap. What speed did you avg for that? That is mighty impressive. Literally double me.

28.2 I think. It's a bit hilly at 354' over 10 miles.

https://www.strava.com/activities/3626620982

---

Blog: https://davidkoppeltriathlon.blogspot.com/
Coaching: https://dkendurance.com/

Your best 20min. in a race is probably closer to your FTP than 0.95*FTP, since the effort typically includes surges/pulls (i.e. poorly paced), and is part of a >20min. effort (i.e. you don't get to put it all out there for 20min then collapse).

If you are racing (or doing the competitive group rides) on Zwift on a regular basis I'd say skip the FTPs.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

No.

Tim Cusick in most of his webinars on getting the most out of WKO5 suggests once you have a well established power duration curve, with testing at around 5s, 60s, 5min and 20-60min, from there it's a case or doing tests where you see your MMP dip below the power duration curve.

I find this happens most where I have riders do set distances, like U17 track cyclist's doing a 500m TT, 2000m pursuit and a 15km road time trial. They tend to have good 30s, 2:30min and 20min power but dips outside those durations, or differences compared to an elite doing a 1000m TT, 4000m pursuit and 40-km TT and good 60s, 4min and 45min power.

Although once they have a year or two in elite riders start to really discover their strengths and you dial into the events they will do well at, and the "best predictor of performance is performance itself" becomes the priority.

Hamish

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

If you ever get aero you could be dangerous!