20 minute FTP

Boswell & Percy

My best ever 20 mins FTP is 300W which translates to 285W for an hour. I've gotten back into vigorous cycling and my last FTP reading was 260W for 20 mins equalling 250W for an hour.

buy my question is what's the correct way to pace myself? Do I do xW for 20 mins? What I normally do is if I'm aiming for 260W, I do 250W for 10 mins and up the average by 1W everytime? But then many people tell me not to aim for a certain wattage, but I know my limits etc.


http://m.imgur.com/FTn3ICE

imposter2.0

Put your question in the training forum - you'll get more answers.

thegreatdivide

b.1998 aka Blond aka Boswell & Percy.

Get a life pal.

smoggysteve

First.Aspect

You should turn pro.

cougie

I thought he had already? Or was cycling too easy for his awesome ability?

stueys

I'm guessing I've missed something by the responses....

But I'll try a sensible answer. I pace myself on my ftp with a natural halfway point, so I'll go at a 'sustainable' pace for first 10 mins, then lift up when I'm halfway through and then go balls to the wall for the last 2 minutes. My ftp was 309 in the summer so I'd be aiming for something like 295 first 10 mins.

The downside of that approach is you are driving the answer to an extent by having a target, so I also analyse rides (zwift races, hard climbs, use xert, etc) to give me another view on what my ftp is likely to be. I then adjust according for the test. I know that I can put out more in a race or pushing a climb than I can sitting on a turbo staring at a screen so having the multiple inputs helps me get closer to something I think is accurate.

StillGoing

Stueys wrote:

I'm guessing I've missed something by the responses....

But I'll try a sensible answer. I pace myself on my ftp with a natural halfway point, so I'll go at a 'sustainable' pace for first 10 mins, then lift up when I'm halfway through and then go balls to the wall for the last 2 minutes. My ftp was 309 in the summer so I'd be aiming for something like 295 first 10 mins.

The downside of that approach is you are driving the answer to an extent by having a target, so I also analyse rides (zwift races, hard climbs, use xert, etc) to give me another view on what my ftp is likely to be. I then adjust according for the test. I know that I can put out more in a race or pushing a climb than I can sitting on a turbo staring at a screen so having the multiple inputs helps me get closer to something I think is accurate.

I suspect you're doing it wrong then.

Firstly, the OP is a simple troll using various log in IDs, hence the responses.

Secondly, the CP20 test should be over longer than 20 minutes. The first 10 minutes should be a warm up working up to exertion so that your body is in the right condition for the actual test. The second 20 minutes should be a sustained effort over the whole 20 minutes trying to be as linear as possible followed by 5 minutes cool down. The 20 minutes actual test shouldn't be as hard as you can for a bit, a little easier and then full bore for the last few minutes or you get a false idea of your FTP. It'd be interesting to see what effect adrenalin has on FTP during a race.

alex222

First Aspect wrote:

You should turn pro.

With that sort of power you could easily sit at the back of a professional peloton

stevie63

philthy3 wrote:

Firstly, the OP is a simple troll using various log in IDs, hence the responses.

Yes but at least he has now picked a user name that makes it sound like he makes posh soap.

imposter2.0

stevie63 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Firstly, the OP is a simple troll using various log in IDs, hence the responses.

Yes but at least he has now picked a user name that makes it sound like he makes posh soap.

smoggysteve

stevie63 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Firstly, the OP is a simple troll using various log in IDs, hence the responses.

Yes but at least he has now picked a user name that makes it sound like he makes posh soap.

I thought it made him soumd more like a crap 70's folk music duet.

okgo

I would use the meter to pace the effort for the first 4-5 mins. but certainly not for the first half, and then go on feel trying to end with nothing left.

Not sure I get all the pro comments, nowt remarkable about 300w, maybe its an in joke I've missed?

benjamess

okgo wrote:

I would use the meter to pace the effort for the first 4-5 mins. but certainly not for the first half, and then go on feel trying to end with nothing left.

Not sure I get all the pro comments, nowt remarkable about 300w, maybe its an in joke I've missed?

checkout forum member blond and b.1998. it's the same guy, sad little troll who wants a reaction out of people.

fenix

OP has asked if he's good enough to go pro.
He's decided pro cycling is an easy sport and it's beneath him.
He's commented on Steve Abrahams 200 mile rides on strava by telling him how easy it is to ride at low power - despite his longest ride being 50 miles.
He hurls insults around like a toddler.
Don't waste your time answering.

fat daddy

I would HTFU and do a proper 1hr FTP test .... all this effort and at the end you are blessed with a guess to what you might be able to do in an hour ???

why not just ride for an hour and see ... otherwise go the full hog and do a quick 5min ftp test and apply fancy maths to determin what time your hour effort might be ... then apply more maths and workout your Tour de France time

jollygiant

Don't worry about riding to your FTP just get your head down and Zone 4 it the whole way round..

DavidJB

dats sum sick powah brah

darkhairedlord

stevie63 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Firstly, the OP is a simple troll using various log in IDs, hence the responses.

Yes but at least he has a user name that makes it sound like he picks up posh soap.

FTFY

ryan_w-2

FTP tests are w**k, they give you a figure which takes into account power only.

Concentrate on watts per kilo. That's where it matters.

I have a fairly decent FTP (300w ish), but I weigh 92kg, so my w/kg is only 3.26.

okgo

Not really. UK isn't particularly hilly on the whole, more watts probably more useful for most peoples riding than more w/kg. Obviously ideally you would have more of both. But I think many people get a bit caught up with W/KG thinking its the best way to measure, but most people are not going up and down mountain passes in the Alps (which is where it can make a huge difference).

If you lost 5kg you'd only be 15 or so seconds quicker up Box Hill, which is one of the longer hills in a rolling county like Surrey. Hardly night and day?

DavidJB

okgo wrote:

Not really. UK isn't particularly hilly on the whole, more watts probably more useful for most peoples riding than more w/kg. Obviously ideally you would have more of both. But I think many people get a bit caught up with W/KG thinking its the best way to measure, but most people are not going up and down mountain passes in the Alps (which is where it can make a huge difference).

If you lost 5kg you'd only be 15 or so seconds quicker up Box Hill, which is one of the longer hills in a rolling county like Surrey. Hardly night and day?

Na i was fat last season and did really badly Fat 1st cats are just shit.

pippi_langsamer-2

Alex222 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

You should turn pro.

With that sort of power you could easily sit at the back of a professional peloton

You'll probably find that even most half-decent 2nd/3rd Cat domestic amateur racing cyclists have FTP's above 300w. All the ones I know certainly do. It's really not "pro", level numbers at all.

ryan_w-2

I'm fat and unfit and have just broke the 300w (301w) FTP barrier.

okgo

Pippi Langsamer wrote:

Alex222 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

You should turn pro.

With that sort of power you could easily sit at the back of a professional peloton

You'll probably find that even most half-decent 2nd/3rd Cat domestic amateur racing cyclists have FTP's above 300w. All the ones I know certainly do. It's really not "pro", level numbers at all.

2nd cat almost certainly at most weights yes. There's a fair few 2nd cats out there knocking out mid 300's.

The Rookie

The Troll is now morbidly obese, time to stop gifting it food perhaps?

ajkerr73

Ryan_W wrote:

FTP tests are w**k, they give you a figure which takes into account power only.

Concentrate on watts per kilo. That's where it matters.

I have a fairly decent FTP (300w ish), but I weigh 92kg, so my w/kg is only 3.26.

So...concentrate on Watts per kilo, but dont bother working out the watts??

Thats a strange one!!

smoggysteve

Ajkerr73 wrote:

Ryan_W wrote:

FTP tests are w**k, they give you a figure which takes into account power only.

Concentrate on watts per kilo. That's where it matters.

I have a fairly decent FTP (300w ish), but I weigh 92kg, so my w/kg is only 3.26.

So...concentrate on Watts per kilo, but dont bother working out the watts??

Thats a strange one!!

What he means is, total power output is 1 dimensional. I can put out about 275 watts on my FTP. I am 5'6" and weigh about 68kg. I will never produce as much power as someone with longer legs and better leverage but if that person puts out say 300w and weighs 90kg I have a better power to weight ratio. I may get spanked on the flat for raw power but I probably climb better.

okgo

Which probably doesn't matter too much wholesale in this country, given its pretty flat. Hence I always find it amusing people pay as much attention to w/kg as they do. Just because team Sky bang on about it doesn't make it all that relevant to you when you're not riding steeper long climbs often.

ugo.santalucia

okgo wrote:

Which probably doesn't matter too much wholesale in this country, given its pretty flat. Hence I always find it amusing people pay as much attention to w/kg as they do. Just because team Sky bang on about it doesn't make it all that relevant to you when you're not riding steeper long climbs often.

Speak for your flat county... you can climb 20-30 mt/km in Wales or up Norf... :roll:

fat daddy

Forget your hills ... in Bristol we have traffic lights ... all that stopping and starting again, it's hell for the fatties