Getting my 1st FTP # ?

[Piotr]

Maybe it's just semantics, but tracking 20 minute or any other long training efforts is offered as the second best way to determine FTP behind full 40K TTs. Sure DocSpoc talks about just tracking his 20 minute power, but if that number is hit in regular training and it's repeatable in and between sessions then according to Andy it's a very good estimate of FTP under ideal conditions. So DocSpoc talks about tracking 20 minute power which is fine and Andy talks about doing the same thing (or 25 minute or 30 minute or whatever you do as a regular long L4 training interval) and calling it FTP.

I'm no fan of 20 minute *0.95 or any other universal conversion factor that doesn't take into account the individual athlete's AWC/CP relationships but tracking regular long training intervals makes a ton of sense to me regardless of what you call it.

-Dave

Yes, tracking numbers is fine by me too. In fact, I track my 2 second through ~4hrs powers on my MMP . But the reason FTP is defined as 1 hr maximal power is because it is a determinant of aerobic fitness (and therefore cycling), while 20 min power is not. If someone does a bunch of 1 min intervals and their 20 min improves it is in no way indicative of an increase in FTP. That's precisely why you still see a lot of people claiming to have improved their FTP by doing short intervals. Didn't I read something like that on Wattage today?

 

[Piotr]

since when are "many people" equal to you?? if you're going to take the time quote me, at least read the quote that you quote. my post specifically refers to me and to others that have a hard time or can't be bothered getting up for a 1hr effort.. i'm just saying for them and me it's unnecessary an a waste of time... an extra 10mins for ***ME*** to get a better workout.. that's SO worth it.. actually lots of times i do 10mins between intervals... ewww... i'm so weak... LMAO!!!

it is kind of funny that you think because you routinely do 1hr periods of threshold in your workouts that puts you on some sort of pedestal or something... seriously, who the hell cares? LOL.. i care about what, how etc i can do to perform better in competition... i don't spend time patting myself on the back and self aggrandizing because of what i can do in training. the yard stick is performance in competition.. if i get a better workout doing 3x20 that's what i do.. if it was better for me to do 60x1 that's what i would do..

do you seriously thing that doing 1hr thesh... makes you better than others? that's pretty weird man!

and again... with the reading comprehension... look at the number 6 from you own link (the list goes from worst to best)... so using long intervals is the second best method on the list.. how deep can the foot go in the mouth... lol...

Daayyum!

 

[doctorSpoc]

Yes, tracking numbers is fine by me too. In fact, I track my 2 second through ~4hrs powers on my MMP . But the reason FTP is defined as 1 hr maximal power is because it is a determinant of aerobic fitness (and therefore cycling), while 20 min power is not. If someone does a bunch of 1 min intervals and their 20 min improves it is in no way indicative of an increase in FTP. That's precisely why you still see a lot of people claiming to have improved their FTP by doing short intervals. Didn't I read something like that on Wattage today?

a) aerobic fitness is only one of the POTENTIAL determinant of cycling fitness... arguably the most important one, but still only one.. the best evidence of cycling fitness is results in your chosen discipline..

b) not talking about using the results of a 20 min effort with excellent rest, perfect motivation etc, etc... talking about using what you typically do day-in-day-out for 20-30min from day to day under normal training load.. Dr Coggan has determined that this is very close to 1hr power (with perfect rest, motivation etc).. i say who the hell cares about how that number compares to 1hr power? if that's what you're doing in training use that and your race results to track progress... use all your other numbers to figure out any potential problems...

c) there is no real, practical reason to track 1hr power... it's just not necessary, from a practical going out on the road choosing a power to ride at and doing your workout point of view... and this i'm saying even for you. maybe for a totally uninitiated newbie.. it could help them get in the ball park of where they are supposed to be, but for anyone who's even done a few workouts... it's just not going to be that helpful

 

[doctorSpoc]

The value in knowing what your FTP is comes in periodization. Once you're good enough at cycling that you can't go hard all the time without burning out in overtraining, you have to cycle your load. You can't always go as hard as possible, but you don't want to go so light that you get no benefit out of the exercise. Knowing where your quantifiable max is let's you set a quantifiable target below that max, rather than just relying on your perceptions of what is and isn't possible for you.

ok.. that sounds really good.. but tell us precisely how you actually use your FTP number to achieve this?

ok, you've just completed your test exactly as prescribe... you have that number in hand and you do what? ...precisely now... don't want vague descriptions and theories.. i want to know how exactly you use that number... i'm all about practicality.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

... But the reason FTP is defined as 1 hr maximal power is because it is a determinant of aerobic fitness (and therefore cycling), while 20 min power is not. ..

So did you miss the part about Deadly Sin number 6 or are you saying Dr. Coggan is wrong in suggesting that regular repeatable long intervals are the second best way to estimate FTP. Clearly he believes that long interval progress(and that covers 20 minutes) is a very good indication of FTP progress.

Spend some time with a Monod spreadsheet and I think you'll find that in general if both your one minute and 20 minute MMPs improve as a result of any training then your FTP will also have improved. Sure you can construct a 'Monod lever' such that large increases in 1 minute MMP coupled to small increases in 20 minute MMP show no FTP gain or even an FTP decrease but in general for reasonable changes increases in 20 minute MMP typically indicate increases in FTP. If your your 20 minute power increase is greater than 1/20 of your 1 minute power increase your CP and predicted 60 minute MMP will both increase.

Try it, plug your current 1 minute and 20 minute power numbers into a Monod spreadsheet then bump up your 1 minute by 50 watts and your 20 minute by 5 watts. See what that does to your CP and 60 minute MMP. So even if you're focusing on 1 minute improvement if it happens to yield a significant improvement in 20 minute MMP then your FTP has in general risen with the exception being cases where your 1 minute MMP increase is more than 20 times your 20 minute MMP increase.

Folk's MMP curves are typically pretty flat by the time you reach 20 minutes and intervals that long really are good ways to estimate sustainable power and FTP. If you don't trust the extrapolation from 20, then track 25 or 30 minute efforts which are realllllly out on the flat part of the curve. The point is you don't have to track exact one hour efforts to track FTP, they just have to be predominately metabolic efforts and 20 minutes is long enough to satisfy that condition.

-Dave

 

[Piotr]

Well, I guess I was wrong and doing a 1 hr FTP test is not necessary and I could be just as good by simply doing 20 min intervals. I wonder though why they put in that deadly sin # 7 in there. The one that nobody is mentioning and the one which is the best way to determine one's FTP.

BTW, since someone misread what I wrote (ironically), I don't routinely do 1hr FTP tests (roughly twice a year), but I do believe in the benefits of riding straight 60 minutes @ 90-95% FTP and then extending the time as opposed to N x 20 min. I have seen improvements every year from it and that includes racing results.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

...but I do believe in the benefits of riding straight 60 minutes @ 90-95% FTP and then extending the time as opposed to N x 20 min. I have seen improvements every year from it and that includes racing results.

As do I, especially indoors on the trainer it sometimes just seems easier and more efficient to get through the break in period once and just get in some good solid work.

I've got nothing against a full hour test if you've got the motivation and venue (and I know you do, and I did but it got tougher with the move to Seattle). I definitely view my 40K TTs as gold standard FTP tests but with the usual problem of TT bike power differences (have gotten better this past season) and they're usually a bit less than an hour

I think it's great if folks can stay focused for full hour long FTP tests but it's equally valid to use sufficiently long but shorter efforts and you seemed to be strongly disagreeing with that notion.

Perhaps I read too much into your posts...
-Dave

 

[Piotr]

So did you miss the part about Deadly Sin number 6 or are you saying Dr. Coggan is wrong in suggesting that regular repeatable long intervals are the second best way to estimate FTP. Clearly he believes that long interval progress(and that covers 20 minutes) is a very good indication of FTP progress.

No I didn't miss it, but a good indication of progress ("Wow, I'm doing 20 min intervals faster than last year!") doesn't tell you your FTP. It's all an estimate. When I initially did 20 min tests I was off by 10-15 watts.

Spend some time with a Monod spreadsheet and I think you'll find that in general if both your one minute and 20 minute MMPs improve as a result of any training then your FTP will also have improved. Sure you can construct a 'Monod lever' such that large increases in 1 minute MMP coupled to small increases in 20 minute MMP show no FTP gain or even an FTP decrease but in general for reasonable changes increases in 20 minute MMP typically indicate increases in FTP. If your your 20 minute power increase is greater than 1/20 of your 1 minute power increase your CP and predicted 60 minute MMP will both increase.

Try it, plug your current 1 minute and 20 minute power numbers into a Monod spreadsheet then bump up your 1 minute by 50 watts and your 20 minute by 5 watts. See what that does to your CP and 60 minute MMP. So even if you're focusing on 1 minute improvement if it happens to yield a significant improvement in 20 minute MMP then your FTP has in general risen with the exception being cases where your 1 minute MMP increase is more than 20 times your 20 minute MMP increase.

Folk's MMP curves are typically pretty flat by the time you reach 20 minutes and intervals that long really are good ways to estimate sustainable power and FTP. If you don't trust the extrapolation from 20, then track 25 or 30 minute efforts which are realllllly out on the flat part of the curve. The point is you don't have to track exact one hour efforts to track FTP, they just have to be predominately metabolic efforts and 20 minutes is long enough to satisfy that condition.

-Dave

There's only one way to check if the Monod spreadsheet is correct in determining one's FTP and that's a 1 hr TT. It is the gold standard. I don't know why people don't think it's important.

For crying out loud, we're athletes not nerds. Doesn't anyone want to know how fast they can go for an hour, or even if? Doesn't anyone want to know how to pace a 40K TT? What is this 20 min is good enough ****? When you watch someone solo in for a Paris Roubaix win, do you say "Wow!" or "What a showoff". Isn't that what racing is, showing off our talents, toughness, and skills? Yeah, I can do a 1hr test and I'm proud of it and I don't believe in the lowest common denominator type of training that some subscribe to.

Edit: Dave, that last paragraph wasn't aimed at you. Just a rant.

 

[Felt_Rider]

.........lurker speaks

I appreciate the public discussion from you guys. As a newbie to all of this I hope I can sift through the different perspectives and head down the right path. It seems that each of you are doing good or at least feel as if you are or have positive data indicating as if you are successful on the path you have chosen.


............lurker goes back to lurking

 

[acoggan]

for most including the OP FTP is calculated from 20min-30min power so why not just dispense with the calculation and just track progress from the 20-30min number directly

Because doing so often leads people down the wrong path training-wise (just ask Gordo Byrn ).

 

[acoggan]

So did you miss the part about Deadly Sin number 6 or are you saying Dr. Coggan is wrong in suggesting that regular repeatable long intervals are the second best way to estimate FTP. Clearly he believes that long interval progress(and that covers 20 minutes) is a very good indication of FTP progress.

I do/they are. However, there is a significant difference between the power that you can routinely produce in training during long efforts (e.g., 2 x 20 min) aimed at raising functional threshold power, and a one-off maximal 20 min test. That is why I emphasized "routinely" in my footnote to the original 7DS post.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Because doing so often leads people down the wrong path training-wise (just ask Gordo Byrn ).

so please clarify why it is that you rate using long intervals done during regular training as the second best way of estimating 1hr power?

do you disagree with the notion that a rise in 20min power is almost assured of being associated with a rise in 1hr power? that a rise in anaerbic capcity even a significant one won't move [edit]20min power significantly?

 

[DancenMacabre]

As do I, especially indoors on the trainer it sometimes just seems easier and more efficient to get through the break in period once and just get in some good solid work.

I've got nothing against a full hour test if you've got the motivation and venue (and I know you do, and I did but it got tougher with the move to Seattle). I definitely view my 40K TTs as gold standard FTP tests but with the usual problem of TT bike power differences (have gotten better this past season) and they're usually a bit less than an hour

I think it's great if folks can stay focused for full hour long FTP tests but it's equally valid to use sufficiently long but shorter efforts and you seemed to be strongly disagreeing with that notion.

Perhaps I read too much into your posts...
-Dave

I did my first ever full-on 60 minutes non-stop @ on the trainer this week, @ 97% of FT. It was not intentional. Originally I thought oh, I will do 2 x 30 or 3 x 20, but ended up not wanting to stop at 20 or 30 minutes. So then going for the full 60 seemed plausible.

It felt like a nice accomplishment for a newbie like me. Plus I saved myself the usual 5 minute break(s) between 'sets'.

In retrospect though it seems like a fantastic exercise in training my mind to stay focused and concentrate on doing a full 60 minutes. Especially since I don't have any routes I can ride for 60 minutes nonstop nearby.

So a good exercise for the mind and will. Not to mention it is nice to sort of 'prove it to yourself' that you can produce a certain wattage for 60 minutes even though the monod calculations already told me that I could 'produce X watts for 60'. Putting aside the mental aspect I doubt that metabolically it makes me any fitter than doing 2/30 or 3/20.

If 20 minutes are all I can do, then I'll do 3, or if it is 30 then I'll do 2, and if I feel especially chipper, then maybe 60 minutes nonstop. Do your best, isn't that one of the mantra's?

 

[doctorSpoc]

I do/they are. However, there is a significant difference between the power that you can routinely produce in training during long efforts (e.g., 2 x 20 min) aimed at raising functional threshold power, and a one-off maximal 20 min test. That is why I emphasized "routinely" in my footnote to the original 7DS post.

you can ignore the 1st question in my post above.. didn't see you've already answered it here.. also it sort of implicitly answers the second question too... so you can basically forget it too.

so what are you going on about then? did you see me suggest doing a 20min test, fully rested, full motivation etc.. to approx FTP?

here's a quote from my 1st post in this thread "also.. FTP is also approx. what you typically can do for a 20min effort in training"

made the point that a) doing 1hr tests and intervals are not necessary, and you can use 20-30min intervals done during regular training track progress.. i also made the point that why would you call or try to interpret a 20-30min interval done during training as FTP.. why not just call it what it is "a 20min interval done during training".. if your ave for your 20mins intervals starts going up your aerobic fitness is going up... there is no need to calculate or think about FTP or do 1hr tests at all?

the last important point i made was that cycling fitness is closely related to aerobic fitness but there is more to cycling fitness than just aerobic fitness.. the best test for cycling fitness is your racing results in your chosen discipline(s).

 

[Enriss]

ok.. that sounds really good.. but tell us precisely how you actually use your FTP number to achieve this?

ok, you've just completed your test exactly as prescribe... you have that number in hand and you do what? ...precisely now... don't want vague descriptions and theories.. i want to know how exactly you use that number... i'm all about practicality.

Well, for one thing, it gives you a nice indication of progress. How can you reliably know whether your training is making you better unless you test yourself? The FTP number gives a nice objective measuring stick to judge yourself by.

As far as how you use the FTP number during training, once you have an FTP number, you know what power you have to ride at to be pushing past your current FTP, and what power you can ride at to recover. If you don't have numbers, you have to judge your workouts solely in terms of how you're feeling, and feelings might encourage you to try too hard and burn out, or ride too lightly during recovery.

As far as hard numbers, you'd need to consult a qualified coach if you wanted hard numbers that somebody would actually use, and I'm by no means qualified.

I could certainly throw out some B.S. numbers as an example. I've got a Monod spreadsheet open that says a rider with a 300 watt 60 min power should be able to ride at 316 for about 20 minutes.
So, assuming the rider is fresh and well recovered and all that, there's no reason at all to ride below 300 watts. We know that directly from the test. We'd like to push past the numbers we currently have, so we have to ride above 300 watts. Now, if we did an honest FTP test, we can't ride above 300 watts for 60 minutes, so we ride at maybe 316 watts and try to push that past the 20 minute mark.
Eventually, you observe a bit of an overtraining effect, so you start backing off maybe down to 280 watts, and you let your body recover.
Without the numbers, what can you do? Ride hard, ride long, ride fast, and hope that you're putting the right stress on your body to improve your FTP?

 

[doctorSpoc]

Well, for one thing, it gives you a nice indication of progress. How can you reliably know whether your training is making you better unless you test yourself? The FTP number gives a nice objective measuring stick to judge yourself by.

As far as how you use the FTP number during training, once you have an FTP number, you know what power you have to ride at to be pushing past your current FTP, and what power you can ride at to recover. If you don't have numbers, you have to judge your workouts solely in terms of how you're feeling, and feelings might encourage you to try too hard and burn out, or ride too lightly during recovery.

As far as hard numbers, you'd need to consult a qualified coach if you wanted hard numbers that somebody would actually use, and I'm by no means qualified.

I could certainly throw out some B.S. numbers as an example. I've got a Monod spreadsheet open that says a rider with a 300 watt 60 min power should be able to ride at 316 for about 20 minutes.
So, assuming the rider is fresh and well recovered and all that, there's no reason at all to ride below 300 watts. We know that directly from the test. We'd like to push past the numbers we currently have, so we have to ride above 300 watts. Now, if we did an honest FTP test, we can't ride above 300 watts for 60 minutes, so we ride at maybe 316 watts and try to push that past the 20 minute mark.
Eventually, you observe a bit of an overtraining effect, so you start backing off maybe down to 280 watts, and you let your body recover.
Without the numbers, what can you do? Ride hard, ride long, ride fast, and hope that you're putting the right stress on your body to improve your FTP?

no argument about numbers... i have a powerTap and 3yrs of of numbers that inform me of what to do and have never found the need to nail down FTP with any degree of accuracy or do a 1hr test to a) tell me how hard to ride in training or racing and b) to track my progress

see the post above by Dr Coggan (he came up with the term FTP.. i think?).. see he said that tracking power in long intervals during training is a good indicator of aerobic fitness.. he relates that power to closely alining to FTP, but i think that it's completely unnecessary step.. it's 'the power you routinely do for 20,30 whatever you do in training'... call it what it is. this also means... that he agrees with me, that doing 1hr tests for most are just not really necessary..

we are talking about FTP in particular here.. in any case i'm not going to repeat everything that i and others have said in this thread.. read the thread to understand why nailing down FTP is really not that important...

i guess the other point i would REALLY like to stress... and i'm sounding like a broken record even to myself now.. is that all the predefined zones, Monod spreadsheet, calculators etc.. are really just useful for brand spank'n new newbies.. they only try to estimate what a typical person might do.. what you or i can do could be quite different. using the calculator, cookie cutter approach to training can potentially be very detrimental to your progression as well because it's only an estimation (can also end with you riding too hard or too easy)... but people take it as gospel.. the point is that if you determine that you need to do 20min intervals and want to know how hard to do them.. just do a a few 20min intervals workouts with a power meter.. they are totally self correcting and you'll know in no time exactly how hard to ride them.. what and easy one is, what a hard one is.. knowing FTP isn't going to tell you how hard YOU should be riding them or any other length interval.. and it's not going to write your training plan for you either.. that's the point. you simply do not need to know your FTP to train effectively.. it's not necessary.. numbers yes, FTP no..

 

[Piotr]

I did my first ever full-on 60 minutes non-stop @ on the trainer this week, @ 97% of FT. It was not intentional. Originally I thought oh, I will do 2 x 30 or 3 x 20, but ended up not wanting to stop at 20 or 30 minutes. So then going for the full 60 seemed plausible.

It felt like a nice accomplishment for a newbie like me. Plus I saved myself the usual 5 minute break(s) between 'sets'.

In retrospect though it seems like a fantastic exercise in training my mind to stay focused and concentrate on doing a full 60 minutes. Especially since I don't have any routes I can ride for 60 minutes nonstop nearby.

So a good exercise for the mind and will. Not to mention it is nice to sort of 'prove it to yourself' that you can produce a certain wattage for 60 minutes even though the monod calculations already told me that I could 'produce X watts for 60'. Putting aside the mental aspect I doubt that metabolically it makes me any fitter than doing 2/30 or 3/20.

If 20 minutes are all I can do, then I'll do 3, or if it is 30 then I'll do 2, and if I feel especially chipper, then maybe 60 minutes nonstop. Do your best, isn't that one of the mantra's?

Good for you! I don't know whether doing 3 x 20 or 1 x 60 is metabolically that different, but I'm convinced that it will make you a better cyclist. This is the "experience" that sets experienced riders apart from the newbies. You now know what a 1 hr effort feels like and how to cope with it. You may one day find yourself in a break or a chase that lasts that long if not longer. I did.

 

[Piotr]

For the record, I don't deny that DS #6 is a legitimate way of estimating progress. In fact, I upped my FTP setting in WKO this summer by 10 W based solely on observation (e.g. without a formal test). I do take exception to the notion that 1 hr test is a waste of time.

 

[gman0482]

Wow, I never expected to get all of this great help, I am eating all of this up. Thanks to all of you for putting your 411 in. I'm still feeling out my FT boundaries on the trainer, along with my time limits, but I went out riding yesterday (a nice 70*F teaser) and I can say that it was a totally different ride now that I'm factoring in cadence and power. Much much better.

Tons more to learn, thanks again everyone.

-Greg

 

[DancenMacabre]

Good for you! I don't know whether doing 3 x 20 or 1 x 60 is metabolically that different, but I'm convinced that it will make you a better cyclist. This is the "experience" that sets experienced riders apart from the newbies. You now know what a 1 hr effort feels like and how to cope with it. You may one day find yourself in a break or a chase that lasts that long if not longer. I did.

Thanks

I did another one of these 1 x 60 self-flogging exercises today and it was positively grueling. First 30-35 minutes were fine, but after that I kept having thoughts of stopping. They start as little creeping hints but by 50 minutes you would give almost anything to quit right then and there.

You say it makes you a better cyclist, I tend to think there's something to that. Since peak performance almost definitely has both physical and mental/motivational components, then taking care of each part of the equation makes sense. Can we truly quantify the effect of being highly motivated? I mean what is highly motivated for me, maybe is not all that much to somebody else. I am going to guess that power training system can't pinpoint exactly how much, for each given person, the motivational effect is. Isn't that the whole train with power, (using rpe, etc) and not 'by power' idea?

Having done a 60 min TT now, then at least I know how it feels both to complete it and all along the way. When I work outdoors, then I can better gauge how long I could have maintained a hard 30 minute effort that ended due to some interruption like a light or long downhill.

Maybe someone doing 45 minute crits or points races though might say who cares about a 1 hour TT and just work on 20-30 minute chunks.

For me, since I have no 1 hour outdoor TT route, doing them on the trainer is the only way.