FTP Test - My power went up my score went down Help!

meursault

Can you help or shed any light on this?

FTP test 21 Feb 2019

https://www.strava.com/activities/2165170798/overview

Best 20 min power 159w
Weighted Avg Power (Dr. A. Coggan formula) 146w
at a weight of 81kg
1.67w/kg

https://www.strava.com/activities/2241991207

Best 20 min 165w
Weighted Avg Power (Dr. A. Coggan formula) 136w
at a weight of 76kg
1.45w/kg

During the weeks in-between I have been building aerobic fitness, longish low intensity rides, with a view to build as the season progresses.

Not a racer, but have a work challenge on some strava sections to take back. So looking for some all round fitness/power/endurance gains. Old mamil here, 53, so realistic about how much in terms of gain, and I am aware how low that FTP is.

ryan_w-2

159w @ 81kg = 1.96w/kg

165w @ 76kg = 2.17w/kg

That's what I would take from the above. I wouldn't worry about any special formulas, just keep it simple.

meursault

Ryan_W wrote:

159w @ 81kg = 1.96w/kg

165w @ 76kg = 2.17w/kg

That's what I would take from the above. I wouldn't worry about any special formulas, just keep it simple.

I see, thank you, looks like the w/kg calculation on Strava is incorrect for some reason. Even subtracting the recommended .05% gives a w/kg slightly over 2. Salute!

MiddleRinger

Power went up. Weight went down. Winning all round.

Ryan_W wrote:

159w @ 81kg = 1.96w/kg

165w @ 76kg = 2.17w/kg

Although technically (165w x 0.95) / 76kg = 2.06w/kg

Still a solid improvement though man, keep on doing what you're doing!

ryan_w-2

MiddleRinger wrote:

Power went up. Weight went down. Winning all round.

Ryan_W wrote:

159w @ 81kg = 1.96w/kg

165w @ 76kg = 2.17w/kg

Although technically (165w x 0.95) / 76kg = 2.06w/kg

Still a solid improvement though man, keep on doing what you're doing!

I said no silly formulas...

He did a 20 minute test and those were his power numbers.

If he wants to know his hour power / FTP, then he needs to do an hour test.

When in form, my 20m is around 380-400w. Using the .95% method, I 'should' be able to do 361-380w for an hour.

I can tell you know that I can't. Hour power is more realistically IRO 330w.

meursault

MiddleRinger wrote:

Power went up. Weight went down. Winning all round.

Ryan_W wrote:

159w @ 81kg = 1.96w/kg

165w @ 76kg = 2.17w/kg

Although technically (165w x 0.95) / 76kg = 2.06w/kg

Still a solid improvement though man, keep on doing what you're doing!

Grazie, Grazie.

meursault

Ryan_W wrote:

MiddleRinger wrote:

Power went up. Weight went down. Winning all round.

Ryan_W wrote:

159w @ 81kg = 1.96w/kg

165w @ 76kg = 2.17w/kg

Although technically (165w x 0.95) / 76kg = 2.06w/kg

Still a solid improvement though man, keep on doing what you're doing!

I said no silly formulas...

He did a 20 minute test and those were his power numbers.

If he wants to know his hour power / FTP, then he needs to do an hour test.

When in form, my 20m is around 380-400w. Using the .95% method, I 'should' be able to do 361-380w for an hour.

I can tell you know that I can't. Hour power is more realistically IRO 330w.

I hear you, I did wonder how I could sustain 95% over an hour, I agree, I can't.

The calculation is from Joe Friels Book 'The Training Bible'. I suppose you have to have some kind of estimate. That book is geared towards racing, where I'm looking for more slight but measurable improvement.

Anyway, I am grateful for your input.

barongreenback

I think the FTP debate has been done to death but FTP is not hour power, merely a number used to set training zones. Unless you are planning to train with that information then i wouldn't worry too much.

https://blog.trainerroad.com/is-ftp-rep ... our-power/

Sträva estimates of average power are good enough though so you could use that as a rough measure of improvement on an identical circuit in identical conditions.

meursault

barongreenback wrote:

I think the FTP debate has been done to death but FTP is not hour power, merely a number used to set training zones. Unless you are planning to train with that information then i wouldn't worry too much.

https://blog.trainerroad.com/is-ftp-rep ... our-power/

Sträva estimates of average power are good enough though so you could use that as a rough measure of improvement on an identical circuit in identical conditions.

I have done my two FTP tests on Zwift, without a power meter, using their estimates. Strava uses that data, but calculated mine incorrectly. somehow. I have set heart rate zones based on max HR. I wanted an FTP number as something to measure my progress (if any). Just looking for a general improvement in fitness and power and general cycling ability.

barongreenback

You need to stick to one protocol. I wouldn’t compare Zwift to Strava as they are measured in different ways unless you have a power meter (and even then there may be differences between your FTP outdoors and indoors).

Also your best 20 minute power may not be the balls out effort suffering to produce an FTP result. You need to test under consistent conditions (even if you are using an algorithmic estimate).

MiddleRinger

meursault wrote:

I have done my two FTP tests on Zwift, without a power meter, using their estimates. Strava uses that data, but calculated mine incorrectly. somehow.

If you're measuring your Functional Threshold Power without a power meter, what are you actually measuring? And how do you know Strava is incorrect? They both probably are to some degree.

barongreenback wrote:

I think the FTP debate has been done to death but FTP is not hour power, merely a number used to set training zones.

This. Use it to set your zones and train to. Don't overthink it. :-)

Alejandrosdog

meursault wrote:

barongreenback wrote:

I think the FTP debate has been done to death but FTP is not hour power, merely a number used to set training zones. Unless you are planning to train with that information then i wouldn't worry too much.

https://blog.trainerroad.com/is-ftp-rep ... our-power/

Sträva estimates of average power are good enough though so you could use that as a rough measure of improvement on an identical circuit in identical conditions.

I have done my two FTP tests on Zwift, without a power meter, using their estimates. Strava uses that data, but calculated mine incorrectly. somehow. I have set heart rate zones based on max HR. I wanted an FTP number as something to measure my progress (if any). Just looking for a general improvement in fitness and power and general cycling ability.

If you can afford a power meter get one, just don’t expect that having one is some sort of magic spell. With one you can arguably train more effectively and can definitely measure your performance above time or perceived fitness.

The biggest gain most people get is from riding more

meursault

MiddleRinger wrote:

meursault wrote:

I have done my two FTP tests on Zwift, without a power meter, using their estimates. Strava uses that data, but calculated mine incorrectly. somehow.

If you're measuring your Functional Threshold Power without a power meter, what are you actually measuring? And how do you know Strava is incorrect? They both probably are to some degree.

barongreenback wrote:

I think the FTP debate has been done to death but FTP is not hour power, merely a number used to set training zones.

This. Use it to set your zones and train to. Don't overthink it. :-)

The Strava error was a decrease in FTP 'score' yet my power went up! It somehow calculated a best 20 min average lower than my last effort. I don't know how Strava calculated this way, and worked it out myself and with others help anyway.

I get your point about what is actually being measured though.

I wasn't trying to re-ignite a debate about FTP, just got confused about the data output. I'm using some of Joe Friels books as a training tool, and he uses ftp and other data as a measure of cycling ability/effort.

meursault

Alejandrosdog wrote:

meursault wrote:

barongreenback wrote:

I think the FTP debate has been done to death but FTP is not hour power, merely a number used to set training zones. Unless you are planning to train with that information then i wouldn't worry too much.

https://blog.trainerroad.com/is-ftp-rep ... our-power/

Sträva estimates of average power are good enough though so you could use that as a rough measure of improvement on an identical circuit in identical conditions.

I have done my two FTP tests on Zwift, without a power meter, using their estimates. Strava uses that data, but calculated mine incorrectly. somehow. I have set heart rate zones based on max HR. I wanted an FTP number as something to measure my progress (if any). Just looking for a general improvement in fitness and power and general cycling ability.

If you can afford a power meter get one, just don’t expect that having one is some sort of magic spell. With one you can arguably train more effectively and can definitely measure your performance above time or perceived fitness.

The biggest gain most people get is from riding more

Totally agree. I would like a power meter, but the price is just a little too much at the moment, for the value I would get out of it. I'm looking for a small general improvement for overall health and fitness, and enjoyment riding my bike! It's a nice motivator to see a number or some sort of actual progress rather than perceived effort, though I understand that is a useful tool too.

barongreenback

You’re probably better off understanding your own training zones in terms of RPE (https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/powe ... ng-levels/) and training on intervals using that.

It takes some practice though to dial in to how your body feels and one thing I’ve learnt through using a power meter is that I was going far far too hard on easy days.

That should in the long term give you improvements. The problem about Strava estimates is that they don’t take into account things like wind. So you could do 20 minutes in a headwind and Strava would show your power as being low even though you were really putting out the Watts.

Don’t buy a power meter just for the stats though. It took me buying a smart trainer and a year of experience on Zwift and TrainerRoad before taking the plunge.

meursault

barongreenback wrote:

You’re probably better off understanding your own training zones in terms of RPE (https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/powe ... ng-levels/) and training on intervals using that.

It takes some practice though to dial in to how your body feels and one thing I’ve learnt through using a power meter is that I was going far far too hard on easy days.

That should in the long term give you improvements. The problem about Strava estimates is that they don’t take into account things like wind. So you could do 20 minutes in a headwind and Strava would show your power as being low even though you were really putting out the Watts.

Don’t buy a power meter just for the stats though. It took me buying a smart trainer and a year of experience on Zwift and TrainerRoad before taking the plunge.

Thank you, will check this out.