When to re-test FTP

It surprised many that just doing a limited amount of "quality only" work can gain good results... but it shouldn't.

Make sure you 'zero' the PT regularly, especially following changes in temperature.

If you can easily do the 2x20's at your FTP then retest but pick a testing protocol that's suitable for you (either 1hr or Monod) and stick to it.

If you can do 2x20's without undue pain and suffering then try 3x20s :p

Some people find they can't attain their "outdoor numbers " when training indoors even after fixing all the usual suspects. In this situation it may be worth having two sets of numbers - indoor and out.

When I had a coach he would have me ride 2 x 20 mins at a wattage just a few percent above (not below) my FTP. But I would only do that particular workout once a week, not every day. Just FYI.

halbritt said:

So I wonder whether to re-test after only a couple of weeks or to simply increment my workouts based on PE and test FTP again at the end of the 6 week block?

None of the numbers you posted strike me as indicating a glaring need to re-test, but if you've been feeling that much stronger then it certainly doesn't hurt to retest. If nothing else, it's a solid hour or more at threshold, which is a good workout on its own.

What I typically do is make notes of workouts where I'm feeling like my PE is lower relative to my power output, until I get a chance to retest. If the retest indicates that my FTP has improved, then I'll apply the change retroactively to the workouts where I had annotated the difference in perception. In this way I continue training according to my schedule, and then catch up my TSS/PMC once a convenient test opportunity comes up.

Congratulations on your recent improvements. Sure helps to see some results :-)

About your situation, a few things come to mind...

I used to do a lot more testing but don't do so nearly as much. Why? Because in effect training is testing. My interpretation of which is that your routine, everyday numbers are going to give you a plenty reliable enough gauge of where you are at oftentimes than a one-off test. You can have a superb day where everything falls into place and put up a great metric but you may find that number isn't particularly repeatable. IMO, that ends up being more of an outlier.

So for instance, I haven't done a 20 or 60 minute "test" since Jan. Yet just via regular, routine 2 x 20 & 1 x 60 workouts, I know my power output is up about 20 watts. I'm very confident in that because the numbers are coming up even while carrying some fatigue and being repeatable, not just one-off or outlier performances which everyone can have.

I've put a 1 x 60 L4 workout back on my training menu every week. While it isn't a test, a) I do go hard on it which leads me to b) a good idea that whatever power I generate during this workout, I can probably do a few more watts when fresh. As the numbers for the 1 x 60 workout get closer to my FTP, I'll nudge the latter up about ~5 watts at a time. 2 x 20's can provide similar feedback too but I find that the larger anaerobic component they carry, can lead one to overestimate FTP which is why the 60 minute workout is a good reality check (not to mention making you tough as nails...)

Following on Dancin's post, I think it was Andy Coggan who said "Testing is training. Training is testing." I.e., the 60 min test is a great training ride, and if you do enough training you should already have a pretty good idea what the numbers are going to be.

I take the second tack myself. I almost never do a real 60 minute test because it hurts too much. If you've never done one it will probably surprise you how much you can do if you're willing to suffer. But, then you quickly realize you don't really want to do THAT very often! A ~60min time trial race is the ideal test I think.

Thanks for the feedback. Still not sure if I want to re-test or not. I actually like the idea of doing a 60 minute TT, but I have to plan some recovery around it. I've been waiting on Coggan's book which I've ordered and I expect it to give me more insight.

I haven't read "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" but I've seen this image a lot:

[IMG]inchoate.harm.orgcoggan sst.jpgOpen ↗[/IMG]

Based of the shape of the curve "training effect", I don't really see much benefit to riding at 95-105% of threshold. Looking at the figure, the effect on FTP is greater riding at 90-95% than riding at 100-105%. Training effect seems to peak at 95%. Is that accurate?

Note, I'm focused entirely on improving FTP presently. My AWC is inordinately high compared to FTP and I'm guessing VO2MAX is at least adequate comparatively.

halbritt said:

...Based of the shape of the curve "training effect", I don't really see much benefit to riding at 95-105% of threshold. Looking at the figure, the effect on FTP is greater riding at 90-95% than riding at 100-105%. Training effect seems to peak at 95%. Is that accurate?...

Remember that the diagram you posted is a conceptual illustration and not a literal data plot across a large number of athletes. IOW, don't take it too literally in terms of exact workout intensity for best results. Some coaches prescribe a lot of SST work, some prefer to do a session or two of pure L4 per week, some believe in a 'pull-up' approach utilizing a lot of L5 work and then there are the HIIT advocates that take the intensity vs. volume philosophy a lot further and of course there are still plenty of coaches and athletes that firmly believe LSD and long hours in the saddle are the way to go.

The point is there isn't one 'truth' in terms of the best way to raise FTP. That's the disclaimer, but FWIW I've had good luck with a combination of heavy SST work during winter build cycles coupled with more focused L4 and L5 work in the spring and summer topped off with some L6/L7 work before periods of important racing. But even when I'm doing a lot of SST work I don't totally eliminate some work right up at or slightly beyond FTP each week so I wouldn't totally rule out some 95-105% work in your weekly cycle. After all it's hard to know when you're advancing if you don't push yourself from time to time and sooner or later you'll need to go harder to stay on an improvement track.

Anyway if you're chasing FTP then yes, a lot of SST work is a good way to do that. Just don't train too 'prescriptively' and hold yourself back with preconceived limits on days when everything is clicking. It's o.k. to go a bit harder and in general a good thing to push yourself from time to time as long as you complete the session and don't overly trash yourself for subsequent training sessions. OTOH, that chart does conceptually tell us that on those days when we're not feeling invincible that a good solid set of 15 to 30 minute efforts at even 85-90% of FTP can have a lot of training benefit.

Good luck,
-Dave

DancenMacabre said:

So for instance, I haven't done a 20 or 60 minute "test" since Jan. Yet just via regular, routine 2 x 20 & 1 x 60 workouts,

Ditto here. I used to test every 6-8 weeks, but now I can get a really good idea from my regular training. No 1 x 60 here unless it's SST, but I regularly do 3 x 15 on 2.5 min recovery or 2 x 20 on 2.5-5 min recovery and those workouts are roughly maximum effort across the set of repeats (not every one is maximal by itself).

Although the total duration of effort is less than 60 minutes, I'm never fully tapered going in to an FTP session and there is just a bit less motivation without having a number pinned to my jersey, so, in the end, the average power that I can sustain across the intervals is close enough to FTP for government work.

For the OP: you got a response from DaveRyan. I'd read (and reread) it. When he gives advice, I pay attention and have certainly benefited from it greatly.

Since you haven't read the "book", I'd suggest a few things...

FTP: Strictly speaking on a day to day basis, it isn't as important as some might think. What I find more relevant is what I've done recently. My FTP may be X or Y or whatever, but if I did a given workout last week ( say 1 x 60 or 2 x 20 or 1 x 120) and I'm going to do it again today, then I look a lot more at what I did last week than whatever my FTP is. On any given day, you do the best you can to complete your stated workout goal whether that's on par, higher, or lower than FTP.

Example, today I did 2 x 20's (plus other work) and I had a number in mind given the last time I did this workout. As it turns out I did about 5w higher than that. Mind you, RPE and my effort level wasn't any more or less than last week. However it could have just as easily have turned out that I did 5 fewer watts - I would not have sweated it either way knowing I did the workout to the best of my ability...today. Again, you do the best you can and save yourself the worry of sweating every little detail. In your case, you did 100m @ ~215w. Well when you do another long SST (90+ minutes) ride soon, you'll have that 215w for 100m to compare it with.

Plus if you are using WKO, you always have the option of going back and changing your FTP and it will recalculate your TSS, etc from that point forward.

Oh and a big +10 on SST. That's what I do and I'm another happy customer :-)

I'm not suggesting FTP isn't important, it is in planning tapers, peaking, freshness for races, quantifying training load, etc. For day to day use though? I think your recent performance is probably the best gauge.

JollyRogers: how interesting about your PB type numbers & motivation. I've had pretty good racing result for a newbie and yet all my PB's > 3 minutes come from regular training sessions. Probably still figuring out the art/science of getting my best performances on race day and not just training day :-)

DancenMacabre said:

JollyRogers: how interesting about your PB type numbers & motivation. I've had pretty good racing result for a newbie and yet all my PB's > 3 minutes come from regular training sessions. Probably still figuring out the art/science of getting my best performances on race day and not just training day :-)

This year is my first year back road racing after a 22 year absence, though I have been training with power for 4 years as a triathlete. I'm the opposite when it comes to PBs for maximal power. My best 1 minute and 5 second powers are during training, which makes sense as those typically occur on the 2nd or 3rd repeat whereas in a race you 1) hopefully aren't maxing out on 1 minute power early and 2) tend to make the hardest efforts later in the race when the legs aren't as fresh.

If you count NP, then my highest 20 minute power has consistently been when racing. 60 minute power is a bit harder as the only races I've over or approaching an hour have been TTs and my 60 minute mean maximal power on my TT/tri bike is ~ 8% lower on that bike than my road bike. I also don't do 60 minute max efforts in training, but my highest 60 minute power on my TT bike has been during a race.

halbritt said:

Based of the shape of the curve "training effect", I don't really see much benefit to riding at 95-105% of threshold. Looking at the figure, the effect on FTP is greater riding at 90-95% than riding at 100-105%. Training effect seems to peak at 95%. Is that accurate?

This chart is a better depiction of the relative training benefit for the different intensity levels:
Source: Road Cyclist's Guide to Training by Power by Charles Howe

I'm glad Frenchyge posted that table (which you can also find in "The Book"😉 because SST may be good for raising FTP but outside of time trials it's good to also train in the other zones/levels (including the lowest zone for active recovery workouts).

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. "The Book" arrived yesterday and I'm already mostly through it. There's definitely a lot of helpful details in it specifically around this topic.

Regarding the comment on zeroing my powertap, I'm using a 2.4+ and an Edge 500 which does an auto-zero, so that's not a worry.

I'm still curious about the training effect on lactate threshold and where it peaks, specifically relative to FTP. I'm hoping to find a bit more info on that topic in the book. As I stated, I'm solely concerned with raising my FTP at this point. I'm a pretty big guy and have spent most of last fall and this winter riding in the mountains, going anaerobic frequently and then recovering. I have disproportionately high power numbers from 5s out to 5m.

halbritt said:

I'm still curious about the training effect on lactate threshold and where it peaks, specifically relative to FTP.

Really? Did you look at that chart I posted above..... 'round about row 3?

frenchyge said:

Really? Did you look at that chart I posted above..... 'round about row 3?

Yes. Which gives an arbitrary value of 3 (checks) at L3, 4 checks at L4, and 2 checks at L5. This suggests to me that training on the easier side of threshold will have a more beneficial effect on FTP than training on the harder side.

My interest lies in the fact that I don't have planned recovery days. Due to family obligations it's inevitable that I'll have to spend a day or two off the bike every week and I'm never certain when that will be. With that uncertainty in mind, I'm reticent to increase intensity to the point where a recovery day becomes a necessity. Also, I tend to want to go harder than I should

They're relative values per unit time, but they are not arbitrary. Dr. Coggan developed the meat of that chart, and the levels listed correspond to his training levels -- L4 is 95-105% FTP. So, the answer to your question before, is: "training very near FTP produces the maximum benefit per unit time towards raising lactate threshold."

When you also roughly consider the number of units of time that one can sustain training at different intensities without compromising their training plan, then you end up with the conceptual 'sweet-spot' diagram that was shown earlier in the thread. If you are limited in your available training time due to family commitments, then consider those available training hours instead and you will have your own chart of total benefit vs. intensity level to use in planning.

halbritt said:

Yes. Which gives an arbitrary value of 3 (checks) at L3, 4 checks at L4, and 2 checks at L5. This suggests to me that training on the easier side of threshold will have a more beneficial effect on FTP than training on the harder side.

My interest lies in the fact that I don't have planned recovery days. Due to family obligations it's inevitable that I'll have to spend a day or two off the bike every week and I'm never certain when that will be. With that uncertainty in mind, I'm reticent to increase intensity to the point where a recovery day becomes a necessity. Also, I tend to want to go harder than I should

When I'm strictly worried about raising FTP (i.e. off season or when there are time gaps between clusters of races) I apply the checkmark chart this way:

Time Available to Train - intensity level

1h-1h20m ish - 95%-105% FTP (2 x 20, 3 x 15, etc)
1h20m - 2h - Sweet spot for as long as I can hold it after a 15-20m warmup
1h45-2h15 ish - Tempo
2h30m and longer - either mid Z2 with tempo/SST blocks or as high in Z2 as I can sustain for the duration

If, due to accumulated fatigue, I can't execute at the planned duration/intensity, I either drop down to the next level, ride easy, or skip the workout (rarely), depending on how big of a "miss" I have.

I live in a very flat area so terrain rarely forces me into higher than desired intensity, though occasionally the wind may do so. To quote a Cogganism, "Alls you can do is alls you can do".

That's very close to what I've adopted as a "flex schedule" training approach.

Coincidentally, I'm starting to adopt a similar approach.