FTP too high?

secretsam

Note: also posted on indoor training, but that seems focused on equipment?

I am off to the Alps in May, and wanted to build up some (any) fitness in advance, so signed up for Zwift's "Build me up" plan.

As part of this, I did a ramp test, which identified an FTP of 170W - higher than previous FTPs identified using normal tests. I was utterly spent at the end of the test, and quite shocked (and pleased) at my score - over winter, training has been weekly Zwift sessions plus two weekend gravel rides in the woods (Chilterns).

However, the other day I did a session on Zwift, and I just couldn't do it - it was 90 mins and I bailed after 30 mins or so, couldn't get near the required power. Might my FTP be too high?

super_davo

Very possibly. Ramp tests are based on having a strong one minute power so if you are strong anaerobically you can put up a good number (accepting you're likely to have used your aerobic system to get to that point) but then struggle when you're faced with long threshold work.

One thing to remember is that FTP tests are merely ways of estimating your FTP for the purposes of training; because actually doing an FTP test and riding as hard as you can for an hour is too time consuming and physically draining. So treat them as such - if you get on better with the 20 minute use that, if you get on better with the 2*8 use that, and if you think the results come out too high for useful training, knock the number back by a few % until it feels right. If you improve, your test result will go up, even if you still need to reduce the figure you bash in to do your training,

daniel_b

Yeh could well be, some people excel at ramp tests, ie get readings higher than they are, and some people crash and burn at them.

Alternatively, it might be you just had a bad day, and your body was struggling for some reason.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Fatigue from hard or long sessions in the days before can make a workout feel too hard. Don't forget you can make Zwift workouts harder or easier on the fly by approx +/-20%.

secretsam

https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/21052495#Comment_21052495

So, it's better to do something, rather than nothing? I reckoned I needed a rest day, so took one. However, that now means that I need to do 4 sessions in 5 days!

ugo.santalucia

a few things…

ramp tests work for some, in my case they seem to give OK results, but you need to stay seated, if you stand on the pedals you do get a grossly inflated value.

If you are not satisfied with the ramp, you can either try a different method or you can let Zwift decide what your FTP is based on all the rides and races you have done. It generally comes up with a sensible figure.

Last resort is to manually use a number that allows you to get to the end of thecsessions you are doing… hich is probably the best number.

As a guide, yellow should feel like something hard, but manageable, green should be something you could keep going for as long as is required. Orange should feel hard, 3 minutes of orange should feel veeeery long… red is the kind of stuff you can hold for a minute in discomfort or two as a maximum.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

The only properly accurate way to get your FTP is to do a 1hr test, which hardly anyone actually does. My feeling is that most, if not all other tests will result in an over estimation. To be fair, as long as the ball park is thereabouts, it won't make too much difference. The only real problem is if you can't complete any hard sessions/intervals. If that is the case then it most likely is set way too high.

pangolin

I recently tried my first ramp test and am now 2 weeks into the FTP builder 6 week plan. Seems to have been close enough as it has all been manageable so far, albeit todays tempo ride was tough.

I think Zwift just lets you manually change it right? Try lowering it a couple of % at a time as people have said.

Although if you've done other sessions and they were fine maybe it was just an off day.

secretsam

So, having done a 60 minute sessions yesterday, I've decided my FTP is too high, so I've dropped it 10%. I was absolutely destroying myself riding at sweet spot, which I don't think is how it's supposed to be. I dropped the power in game and it was much more manageable.

Hopefully the move will make training more enjoyable - well, you know, as enjoyable as it can be.

wallace_and_gromit

https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/21052565#Comment_21052565

It's always amuse me that with FTP being defined as your average power output over an hour, there are so many protocols out there to determine FTP that involve something other than simply doing a race warmup and then riding as hard as you can for an hour.

That said, my "old school" FTP and my zFTP (Zwift's estimate based on the last 90 day's of Zwifting) are pretty much the same (293 vs 301) so the Zwift estimate at least is probably pretty good.

When doing power-based training sessions where the power targets are a % of FTP, then some adjustment is likely to be necessary, due to your aptitude for long or short stuff. I'm better suited to short stuff, and can cope with higher % FTP and lower recovery time than the text book suggests on short sessions. Conversely, on longer sessions, I have to go for a (much) lower than text book % FTP to be able to complete the session without fading away.

I have the same issue running. Based on what I can do for 6 * 800m on the track, I should be circa 5 minutes faster over 10k than most prediction algorithms suggest.

One question that has dogged me for year is whether I should view myself as relative good at short stuff (glass half full) or relative poor at longer stuff (glass half empty). I like to view the glass as half full in general in life, but when you're grovelling at the back of a 'cross race etc. it does tend to look a bit empty!

MidlandsGrimpeur2

https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/21052669#Comment_21052669

I think, in truth, that unless you are a pro, for most of us just having a general idea of your numbers and working within a rough set of parameters when it comes to structured training sessions is going to pretty beneficial to improving fitness.

I think the major issue is consistency. The only real way to know how to train (if that is of interest to someone), is to ride regularly and track your power numbers and exertion in relation to certain sessions. That way, if you know as per your example W&G, that you can hold a higher power for shorter intervals but struggle in comparison on longer sessions, you can plan and train accordingly. The problem comes when you simply don't know your capacity and are trying to plan training around one or two fairly arbitrary FTP (or similar) test protocols (particularly for new cyclists). The test may give you an FTP of 200 watts say, so then you plan 2 x 20 sessions, but in reality you might not have the endurance base to ride at 90-95% of FTP for 40mins in a session, so you can't complete the session and don't really understand why you can't. I think this is where a lot of people run into issues with their training.

As per the glass half full conundrum, I would always say focus on what you are good at and get the most out of that. I am small and light and even though I have decent FTP as w/kg, I am never going to compete with a 25miler who has an FTP of 375 watts. Their power, even if they weigh far more than me, is always going to mean I cannot compete. I just accept that and focus on doing the things I can.

wallace_and_gromit

There is definitely a tendency for things to get very complicated very quickly! Particularly for novices and older folk, a regime of "a few times a week, reasonably hard, but not so hard you're killing yourself" gets you a long way.

But conversely, to eek the last few % out, you need to get very specific wrt objectives and also to the individual concerned.