Critical power vs FTP

amaferanga

So far my training is based around FTP calculated using one of Dr. Coggan's protocols (warm-up, 5 minute max effort, 10 minute rest, 20 minute max effort: FTP= 0.95*(20min power)). Last (and only) test gave FTP of 280W.

But since I've decided to stick with Golden Cheetah from now on (having tried Sportracks Training Load plugin) and it uses critical power I thought I'd see how my CP compares to my FTP. Based on my 20min and 3min best efforts (around the time of my FTP test) I get a CP of 287W.

I figure in the grand scheme of things this isn't really significant and I figure I'll probably use CP from now on since I use GC, but I'm just curious as to how other folk have found their numbers compare.

Regardless of which number I use though, I'm pretty sure my FTP/CP has gone up in the last month, probably by about 10W, which is what its all about anyway (TBC by testing on Monday/Tuesday)

Bronzie

The 20 minute test is Hunter Allen's suggested protocol, not Dr Coggan's.

In fact, the 20 minute test is not necessarily that reliable as there is a sizeable element of anaerobic power within a test of that duration, the exact proportion of which can vary from test to test.

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/05/ ... -sins.html

Note also Alex's comments about using CP modelling to establish FTP:
The "test" rides chosen should have been performed within a reasonably close timeframe (say within the same week), and should not be cherry picked from other rides. They need to be stand-alone maximal efforts. It is also preferable to have two very good data points rather than three or more unreliable data points.It also helps to use the same (or very similar) durations for all future Critical Power test inputs.

amaferanga

Ah okay, Hunter Allen's then. But the point of the 5min max effort before the 20min effort is to reduce the anaerobic component is it not?

Bronzie

Yes, that's how I understand it. I guess you won't be a million miles out if you apply the same protocol everytime.

Let's face it, many are unable due to local road conditions (or unwilling) to do the full 1 hour test.

chrisw12

amaferanga wrote:

So far my training is based around FTP calculated using one of Dr. Coggan's protocols (warm-up, 5 minute max effort, 10 minute rest, 20 minute max effort: FTP= 0.95*(20min power)). Last (and only) test gave FTP of 280W.

But since I've decided to stick with Golden Cheetah from now on (having tried Sportracks Training Load plugin) and it uses critical power I thought I'd see how my CP compares to my FTP. Based on my 20min and 3min best efforts (around the time of my FTP test) I get a CP of 287W.

I figure in the grand scheme of things this isn't really significant and I figure I'll probably use CP from now on since I use GC, but I'm just curious as to how other folk have found their numbers compare.

Regardless of which number I use though, I'm pretty sure my FTP/CP has gone up in the last month, probably by about 10W, which is what its all about anyway (TBC by testing on Monday/Tuesday)

'I figure in the grand scheme of things this isn't really significant'

That's my thoughts on the whole thing.

At the end of the day there's got to be a bit of variability over setting ftp. I'm even starting to think that the gold standard 1 hour test has variability in it since MY one hour best power figures vary due to terrain and conditions.

I think consistency is the key. Pick your test, pick your protocol and be honest with yourself.

For that reason I chose not to use the test in the book because I know there's no way I'll do a honest 5 mins before a 20 min effort.

Alex_Simmons/RST

When considering what your FTP is, tests are but one data point. They hopefully are a very good data point but should be taken within the context of other data.

IOW - you can use a multitude of sins for validation, but a consistent testing protocol is a good idea.

amaferanga

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

When considering what your FTP is, tests are but one data point. They hopefully are a very good data point but should be taken within the context of other data.

IOW - you can use a multitude of sins for validation, but a consistent testing protocol is a good idea.

Are you saying that provided your ride data is consistent with your ftp / critical power then there's nothing to worry about?

Think I'm gonna stick with critical power from now on.

Alex_Simmons/RST

amaferanga wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

When considering what your FTP is, tests are but one data point. They hopefully are a very good data point but should be taken within the context of other data.

IOW - you can use a multitude of sins for validation, but a consistent testing protocol is a good idea.

Are you saying that provided your ride data is consistent with your ftp / critical power then there's nothing to worry about?

Think I'm gonna stick with critical power from now on.

My point is that sometimes when testing we might have an off day or forgot to re-zero the meter or whatever, so we need to consider test data it in the context of all the data we have. If it looks way out of whack, it probably is.

With a consistent protocol, such things are minimised and it becomes a pretty reliable indicator.

But since e.g. racing or doing intervals is a reasonably regular part of the ride diet for many, these also provide good indicators along the way and can provide validation of a test result.

Scrumple

I use Dr Kellogs coco pop protocol.

Which is why I have no idea what FTP is.