FTP Test

junglist_matty

Was looking to finally do an FTP test as I've just taken delivery of a new power meter, so I was looking at the FTP workouts and I'm confused... Why are FTP tests only 50mins inc warm up / cool down? Surely that's just making sh!t up!? How can you ride super hard for 20mins and then apply some fakery math to come up with some number only useful for egotistical bragging rights!

I may as well just say "hey my FTP is ~400watts because I once did a 20min interval averaging 454w on a wattbike" (not letting on that I was sick all over myself imediatley afterwards, - and that it was 20-or-so years ago). - I imagine my true FTP is going to be somewhere in the region of ~250-300w (and yeah - I've prepared myself for dissapointment!)

I'm just not a fan of this number wizzardry, surely considering 1 hour is more than do-able, anyone should just go ride as hard as they can for 1 hour and find out what their REAL FTP is - or am I missing something here?

dannbodge

It's not just made up though. It comes from data and is backed up by science.

EG: My 95% of 20mins was 266, My ramp test result was 271 and when I did a 1 hour all out effort My power was 272.

maryka

Yes but FTP tests are meant to be something you can do fairly frequently (every 6 weeks or so) and 1hr tests are very hard. By all means, go do a 1hr test if you want, but there are other ways to get a good estimate of your FTP without killing yourself for an hour every month. The aim of testing is to be repeatable under similar conditions and similar athlete motivation levels. 1hr steady efforts are also very hard to pace well if you don't do it frequently (i.e., if you aren't a 25-mile TTer on a regular basis).

The original 20 min test included a 5 min all out effort beforehand to empty the anaerobic tank as it were, which I think many people casually forget these days. Secondly, you can use lots of other data to help determine your FTP without a really hard 60 min test. My advice would be to try a few of them -- the ramp tests, the 20 min test, various other power duration max efforts and a Monod curve, etc. then go climb Alpe du Zwift and see what you get.

What you really want is an indication of where you are right now so that you can establish training zones. And then do some training and then see how you improve. FTP is just a concept after all to help define and describe your current fitness level, and give you a range of power zones to use in training. Once what was hard in z4 feels easy, time to update your FTP and move the zones upwards, etc. Rinse and repeat. Til you own a powermeter long enough that just looking at what you're hitting in training off self-paced efforts is enough to tell you what your fitness is. I hate FTP tests!

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Many riders never have intentions of regularly riding at their limit at anything close to 60mins, in races or time trials. Even on Zwift, there are plenty of 15-40min races/TTs.

The 95% of a 20min effort doesn't always marry up with actual 60min efforts for all. But then if you only do 60min efforts once in a blue moon, but usually do 20-40min efforts, your body is going to be adapted to those shorter efforts. For me, my best 60min effort this year is ~88% of my best 20min effort, but I rarely enter longer Zwift events.

Riding at your absolute limits for 20mins is more than enough pain for many, 60mins is an absolute battering, it often takes riders several attempts at these FTP test to really know where their limits are.

ugo.santalucia

The reality is that it doesn't really matter if it's real or not. The only reason you might need that number is because it is used to define training zones, if you are interested in structured training. As Maryka says, the least painful way to get to that number is the best way, as there is nothing particularly useful in the act of measuring it.
Do you actually need it? It's up to you, I worked out it is of no real use to me. I am training for the hill climb season (of which Maryka knows a thing or two about) and I am interested in how much power I can churn out in 3-6 minutes... frankly I don't give a monkey of the 60 minutes and in some respect I don't care very much about training zones either, as ultimately my intervals are along the lines of "as hard as you can for as long as you can"... I have a number of local bumps, ranging from 30 seconds to 4 minutes to use, they are all too short to start speculating about whether I was in zone 5 rather than 6... hit the buggers hard, until your body finds a new "hard" to adjust to.

fenix

Nothing is stopping you from doing a full hour test if you want.

You do need to re do the test every so often to see how you are progressing.

I think you'll understand it when you've done the first test.

cruff

Done dozens of FTP tests using the correct 20 minute protocol over the years. Done a grand total of two full hour tests, both just to see how closely they matched.

Last time I did it, the 20 minute calculation came out at 315... Two weeks later I did the full hour - it came out at 316. So pretty damn accurate for me, and enough for me to be confident that the protocol is more than accurate enough to give you your training zones.

The full hour is horrendous. Even with a 25 mile TT you've got a little bit of variety (hills, corners, roundabouts etc) and at least you're outside. Doing it in a turbo is absolutely awful - there's nowhere to hide. 20 minutes at FTP on a turbo is long enough!

fenix

I remember the first FTP test I did with the sufferfest.

I slept so soundly that night that my wife thought I was dead.

junglist_matty

Fair enough - I see your points!

Yeah, I just got a power meter as my approach to riding is pretty much "go for it", by 2 hours I'm shot.... Not a huge biggie as most of my rides are around the 1 hour mark (don't have huge amounts of time with young kids and a job). So some effective, structured training would probably make a big difference to me. Hence knowing power numbers would probably help me to stay in the right zones for the planned ride without bonking too soon.

ugo.santalucia

junglist_matty said:

Fair enough - I see your points!

Yeah, I just got a power meter as my approach to riding is pretty much "go for it", by 2 hours I'm shot.... Not a huge biggie as most of my rides are around the 1 hour mark (don't have huge amounts of time with young kids and a job). So some effective, structured training would probably make a big difference to me. Hence knowing power numbers would probably help me to stay in the right zones for the planned ride without bonking too soon.

Structured training is OK on the turbo or is OK outdoors if you plan on racing, otherwise it is a good way to spoil your hobby and make it unbearable... don't bother

fenix

I don't use a power meter outside unless I'm pacing myself in a race.
Too many variables to keep the effort within the range you want.

They are brilliant on turbos for training as Ugo says.

I'd you're blown at two hours I'd think just taking it a bit easier is a cheaper option than a power meter.

tonysj

Why not find a quiet-ish road out and back and do a 10 mile TT. I did one the other weekend, saturday morning, on a access road just off a motorway junction that goes to an industrial estate one way so the traffic was light. Its not ideal but you ride to 2 roundabouts some 3 miles apart. I managed to better my FTP, as I started the lap and ended it at 10 miles on my garmin. At the end of the day the number is yours as a base line to set zones.

junglist_matty

After reading comments on here I tried the shorter FTP workout (using zwift) this afternoon - on the turbo - it wasn't fun!

I wasn't feeling 100% rested beforehand (although yesterday was a rest day), my pre workout nutrition wasn't good, and it was done too soon after lunch... Those are my excuses haha!!!

I went out too hard over the first half, averaged 285watts and then 10-15mins was agony (was super tempted to give up at 7.5mins remaining)!!!! But I dug deep and the last 5mins had a bit of a mental breakthrough.... Managed to average 267watts over 20 mins, so my FTP was 254w, factor in my 95kg frame that's 2.67w/kg.... I'm happy enough with that figure, thought it was a pretty solid starting point!

On a better day I'm certain I could up that by 10-20watts, but I'm sticking with it for now!!!!

fenix

Well done. Now you see why the hour isn't recommended !
😀

cruff

tonysj said:

Why not find a quiet-ish road out and back and do a 10 mile TT. I did one the other weekend, saturday morning, on a access road just off a motorway junction that goes to an industrial estate one way so the traffic was light. Its not ideal but you ride to 2 roundabouts some 3 miles apart. I managed to better my FTP, as I started the lap and ended it at 10 miles on my garmin. At the end of the day the number is yours as a base line to set zones.

You should better your FTP, since FTP is what you could hold for an hour, and you rode for significantly less than that on a 10 mile TT. for reference, my best NP for a 10 is 342, off an FTP of 322 on the turbo, 332 off 316 on the road, which works out at around 105% (pretty standard for an effort of around 1/3rd of what you could hold for an hour)

slowmart

I’ve had a winter of TrainerRoad which provided an excellent springboard for this spring and summer. As long as you mange diet and rest you really can’t go wrong with structured training.

However with spring and the impact of covid I wanted to get out, enjoy my new fitness, sun and riding with mates

I didn’t want to lose my fitness and Like to the OP I generally hammer around for two rides in the week with a endurance ride in between with a long ride, 75 miles plus on a Sunday with plenty of climbing.

I’ve incorporated slow cadence drills for the last 6 weeks and went back to spinning a much higher cadence.

I’ve also bought a power meter and keeping zone compliance outside is Er rather interesting and requires more practise.

Keep it real, remember to enjoy your cycling and don’t go down the rabbit hole of chasing performance at the expense of missing out riding with mates

Oh and my PB’s continue to crumble, but as I’m an old git I need to manage quality calories and rest to ensure adaptations are maximised.

bobmcstuff

FWIW: I used to use the 2x8 mins protocol, now use the TrainerRoad ramp test protocol, and have found that for me they match up pretty well. I've done 20 minute and hour long efforts which seem to correlate well, even though I know my <1 minute power is poor (so you would think perhaps my ramp test would under-predict). The ramp test has some advantages in that it is very repeatable, the overall stress is much lower (it only really hurts for 4 or 5 minutes), and it doesn't seem to be as affected by fatigue as the longer interval protocols. I understand Zwift also has a ramp test built in but I have never used it so can't comment, I think it differs slightly (TR gets a few % harder each minute, Zwift I think a fixed wattage gets added? Not sure exactly).

If you're riding on Zwift, a TT effort up the Alpe du Zwift will give you a good idea of your true hour power... My best effort was 58:30 @ 259 watts and my next FTP test was 262, so it was pretty bang on (the FTP test was a couple of weeks afterwards). My FTP has gone up a bit since then but I've not felt the need to have another Alpe attempt... I'll ride the new Ventoux climb when it becomes available but I gather that is much longer.

cookie56

For a simple and quick way to get a reference FTP reading you could alway try the XERT widget for garmin devices. Reviewed here it seems to reflect with a reasonable accuracy on getting the figure the "hard" way
https://dcrainmaker.com/2017/07/xert-rolls-out-free-real-time-ftp-app-on-garmin-devices.html

maryka

Personally I've never got on with Xert algorithms, they completely over/underestimate me so I abandoned all hope with them a few years back. The level of analysis paralysis with Xert was more than I was willing to invest in time and effort to make it "work" for me. Maybe it's improved now?

bobmcstuff

Word of advice, the Zwift FTP auto detection is nonsense so ignore it in case anyone is looking at it.

I just did the hare and hounds race, averaged 285 for a little over an hour (power curve says 286 for 1 hour). Zwift auto detect came up and said congratulations your FTP has gone up to 282 - which seems to be impossible... No idea how it works.

My ramp test on TR yesterday was 287 so 286 for 1hr is as near as dammit. Shows again that for me, personally, the ramp test works pretty well.

junglist_matty

bobmcstuff said:

Word of advice, the Zwift FTP auto detection is nonsense so ignore it in case anyone is looking at it.

I just did the hare and hounds race, averaged 285 for a little over an hour (power curve says 286 for 1 hour). Zwift auto detect came up and said congratulations your FTP has gone up to 282 - which seems to be impossible... No idea how it works.

My ramp test on TR yesterday was 287 so 286 for 1hr is as near as dammit. Shows again that for me, personally, the ramp test works pretty well.

You're saying a 1% error margin for an FTP auto detection system is nonsense?

N0bodyOfTheGoat

bobmcstuff said:

Word of advice, the Zwift FTP auto detection is nonsense so ignore it in case anyone is looking at it.

I just did the hare and hounds race, averaged 285 for a little over an hour (power curve says 286 for 1 hour). Zwift auto detect came up and said congratulations your FTP has gone up to 282 - which seems to be impossible... No idea how it works.

My ramp test on TR yesterday was 287 so 286 for 1hr is as near as dammit. Shows again that for me, personally, the ramp test works pretty well.

I suspect you did a best 20mins of ~297W during the event, sounds perfectly plausible to me.

bobmcstuff

N0bodyOfTheGoat said:

bobmcstuff said:

Word of advice, the Zwift FTP auto detection is nonsense so ignore it in case anyone is looking at it.

I just did the hare and hounds race, averaged 285 for a little over an hour (power curve says 286 for 1 hour). Zwift auto detect came up and said congratulations your FTP has gone up to 282 - which seems to be impossible... No idea how it works.

My ramp test on TR yesterday was 287 so 286 for 1hr is as near as dammit. Shows again that for me, personally, the ramp test works pretty well.

I suspect you did a best 20mins of ~297W during the event, sounds perfectly plausible to me.

It doesn't seem to be based on 20 minute power. I don't know what it's based on, but it doesn't seem to be that. It seems to be based on something shorter - the best way to get it to bump seems to be to have a relatively easy workout with a really hard dig in it.

bobmcstuff

junglist_matty said:

bobmcstuff said:

Word of advice, the Zwift FTP auto detection is nonsense so ignore it in case anyone is looking at it.

I just did the hare and hounds race, averaged 285 for a little over an hour (power curve says 286 for 1 hour). Zwift auto detect came up and said congratulations your FTP has gone up to 282 - which seems to be impossible... No idea how it works.

My ramp test on TR yesterday was 287 so 286 for 1hr is as near as dammit. Shows again that for me, personally, the ramp test works pretty well.

You're saying a 1% error margin for an FTP auto detection system is nonsense?

OK fair enough.

It has been much worse than that before though, had me 20-30 watts below my FTP test. When I did that Alpe @ 259 it still thought my FTP was 243.