[Closed] Is normalised power over an hour roughly similar to ftp?

Yes, in theory of you worked as hard as you could for an hour, then your normalised power = your FTP

P.s. if you could have gone harder then your FTP is higher.

In my mind normalised power is more like a smoothing of your output than FTP.  It's a different measure i.e. if you ride a steady pace for an hour then your normalised power would be very close you your average power.

If you to lots of high power sprints/climbs etc with breaks in between then your average power might be low but your normalised power would be higher to represent the increased effort put in.

I'd disagree, normalised power is going to be significantly affected by gradient changes, especially if you're not pedalling much or very hard on declining gradients.

If you really struggle to find a consistent flattish gradient for an hour's effort, you can always do a hard 20 mins effort and take 5% off to give FTP.  I find this is pretty close to my 1 hour power.

You can always do the 1 hour effort on a trainer as an alternative.

Stupid formatting 🤐

Normalised Power looks like it can give wild numbers compared to FTP, apparently my ~38min hill rep session on Monday had a new best for me of 309W, but my 20min FTP is ~290W at best and my 60min FTP on the road is ~247W.

https://www.strava.com/activities/1602415370

I was freewheeling down Woodmill Lane pretty much every time iirc.

Still quite new to using power meter outdoors, after seeing the benefits of training to power on Zwift with Direto Jan-Mar inclusive.

I have a trainer but my ftp is Nothing like 230 when using it.. Take my power reading off my crank so its not that it under reads.. But I find it a struggle to do 20 min at 200 Watts on it.. Where as my highest 20 min average Watts (not normalised) during a regular ride usually exceeds that. I can easy put out 250 Watts on the flat, but 250 on the turbo feels more like 350 outdoors. And yes I have a big fan..

P.s. if you could have gone harder then your FTP is higher.

That's encouraging as I'm not falling to pieces at the end of my rides.

I’d disagree, normalised power is going to be significantly affected by gradient changes, especially if you’re not pedalling much or very hard on declining gradients

Thats the whole point of normalised power.  It is the power you would have to put out at a constant rate to have the same physiological impact. I.e. the point of it is to take into account hills / variable efforts etc .

I can easy put out 250 Watts on the flat, but 250 on the turbo feels more like 350 outdoors.

Using the same power meter, or using the turbo power reading?

Depends what you're doing. An hour of minute on at 400W, minute off at 0W will be a lot harder than an hour at 200W. An hour of measured steady sustained effort to exhaustion should be fairly close if I understand correctly. As above though, I have a big difference between tested ftp indoors (lower) vs outdoors (around 10-15% higher) so manage my efforts and ftp depending on whether I'm mostly training inside or out. As soon as hills are in there my 20 min and 60 min power massively different again!

Yes it should be pretty close.  I race XC with a power meter and my NP over a short 1 hour race is pretty much my FTP (normally a tad under it) and that accounts for the erratic bursts of power.  Average power for the same race is significantly lower.  When I do longer steady intervals, like a 20 min all out effort my NP and Average power are the same

Using the same power meter, or using the turbo power reading?

Same power meter.. The power reading from my turbo is so out as to not be worth using so just use an ant connection from crank to pc when indoors

I know that indoor power is usually less.. But I find it so far off outdoor power that it's actually a bit frustrating.

I need to find a stretch of road that I can do a full ftp test. The hills on my usual routes mean if I stuck to 250 Watts throughout I'd grind to a halt getting up them! Maybe I need lower gears.. Im not that fat!

It’s better. One hour circuit race, 25 mile TT, both are better real world numbers than 95% of what you can do for 20 minutes.

Mine agree to within 3%, but NP after a race is the one I use.

Thanks for the input folks. I find it encouraging that I'm not a million miles off my 250 target. Won't be winning any races either way.. But I said to myself that if I can hit a 250 ftp I'd enter a tt with an aim of sub 25 min.. That's the goal .

Be aware that FTP in a TT position will typically be lower than road. I struggle to put out 280 on the TT bike, but am 295-300 on the road bike. I’ve also just confirmed the road FTP with a lactate threshold test.

If I were you, I’d enter a 25. See how you get on and aim for the hour.  Then whatever you do, that’s your FTP.

Good point about less power on a tt bike. I read somewhere I need around 240 to do sub 25 on a flat course with the right equipment ... No idea if that's correct. It's certainly doable on Road bike but I was planning on scouring the Internet for a second hand cheap tt frame and building up a proper bike.

Riding on flat is about the only thing I'm good at.. Uphill I'm rubbish . Despite not being particularly overweight

I tend to use it as a guide for when I need to retest, local circuit to us has a couple of tight hairpins which generally result in NP readings higher than my FTP.

The efforts are usually 45 to 50 minutes though so that’s probably expected.

Over the last couple of years I’ve found if i’m getting IF values consistently over 1.05 then it’s a fair indication my threshold is up. Can retest or calculate it back if I’m struggling to schedule one.