I’ve been riding the road bike (no PM) all winter, and just started riding the tri bike again with a PM. I’ve got several rides’ worth of data now in Cycling Peaks, but I have not yet done a formal FTP test of any sort. The rides include a mix of LSD and harder, shorter efforts. I was wondering if, instead of doing a formal FTP test, I can get a reasonably accurate representation of FTP by selecting the max 1’, 5’ and 20’ power from the last 28 days in my Cycling Peaks summary and plug them into Eddie Monnier’s Monod spreadsheet to calculate CP60? The results I’m getting from doing this seem to correlate to the power histogram well, as well as to the normalized power on the harder rides. Is this an accurate enough method for setting training zones and for estimating changes in fitness over time, or is the increased accuracy of conducting a formal test worth the effort?
This might sound obvious, but why don’t you simply do an FTP test?
This might sound obvious, but why don’t you simply do an FTP test?
That’s a good question- I will do one soon, but the reasons I was asking are:
a) in Dr Coggan’s now-famous “7 deadly sins” post, there are several methods that don’t involve actually doing a test. Analysis of data from a ride is one method.
b) I still have a few weeks of unstructured riding before I begin a formal power-based training plan for the season, so I don’t necessarily need to do a formal FTP test at the moment. It’s more out of curiosity and…
c) having at least a rough idea of FTP would be helpful in pacing a 2x20 test when i do actually do one.
a) in Dr Coggan’s now-famous “7 deadly sins” post, there are several methods that don’t involve actually doing a test. Analysis of data from a ride is one method.
b) I still have a few weeks of unstructured riding before I begin a formal power-based training plan for the season, so I don’t necessarily need to do a formal FTP test at the moment. It’s more out of curiosity and…
c) having at least a rough idea of FTP would be helpful in pacing a 2x20 test when i do actually do one.
It would appear that “c” above might suggest that you actually DO need to do a formal FTP test ‘at the moment’.
I did my first FTP test of the year on the PT300 yesterday; it hurts, but just suck it up and do it. It doesn’t matter whether or not you still have a few weeks of unstructured riding before you begin your formal power-based plan for the season; a data point is a data point.
Just do it.
a) in Dr Coggan’s now-famous “7 deadly sins” post, there are several methods that don’t involve actually doing a test. Analysis of data from a ride is one method.
Notice that not all methods are equally reliable. Inspection of data from one or more rides are the two least reliable methods. Using the data from one of the less reliable methods in the critical power model doesn’t magically make the data more reliable.
If you want to know your FTP, do a test.
It’s your training and you can do what you want. As the others have noted, the Critical Power calculator will only be as good as quality of the values used. If they are not genuine reflections of you what you can do, it isn’t going to give you a good FTP value. If you’re not inclined to test, you could use that number for a few 2x 20 minute interval sessions and then adjust later. My take would be to test as well, I like the Critical Power approach myself with the short and long tests several days apart.
http://cycling.wikia.com/wiki/Test_your_self
"the seven deadly sins…
…er, ways of determining your functional threshold power (roughly in order of increasing certainty):
- from inspection of a ride file.
- from power distribution profile from multiple rides.
- from blood lactate measurements (better or worse, depending on how it is done).
- based on normalized power from a hard ~1 h race.
- using critical power testing and analysis.
- from the power that you can routinely generate during long intervals done in training.
- from the average power during a ~1 h TT (the best predictor of performance is performance itself).
Note the key words “hard”, “routinely”, and “average” in methods 4, 6 and 7…"
Here are some more thoughts on the issue:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/05/seven-deadly-sins.html
.
I’ve been riding the road bike (no PM) all winter, and just started riding the tri bike again with a PM. I’ve got several rides’ worth of data now in Cycling Peaks, but I have not yet done a formal FTP test of any sort. The rides include a mix of LSD and harder, shorter efforts. I was wondering if, instead of doing a formal FTP test, I can get a reasonably accurate representation of FTP by selecting the max 1’, 5’ and 20’ power from the last 28 days in my Cycling Peaks summary and plug them into Eddie Monnier’s Monod spreadsheet to calculate CP60? The results I’m getting from doing this seem to correlate to the power histogram well, as well as to the normalized power on the harder rides. Is this an accurate enough method for setting training zones and for estimating changes in fitness over time, or is the increased accuracy of conducting a formal test worth the effort?
IME, unless you’re doing group rides and going “all out” for those durations, if you “cherry pick” out of the rides you’re going to be significantly off in your estimate. The “critical power” or “Monod” testing requires MAXIMAL efforts for the durations.
That said, I’ve found that just using 2 tests (e.g. 3 or 4 minutes and 18 minutes) and then plotting those 2 points on a Joules vs. seconds plot and then finding the slope (slope is basically “FTP” in J/s=watts), is a fairly accurate way of estimating FTP. Just make sure that in the tests (especially the shorter test) you end them literally cross-eyed and ready to collapse. It’s important that you “blow through” your Anaerobic Work Capacity to get a good value IME.