[Closed] FTP question

Pretty common, I think. I don't think many people could ride for an hour 'at FTP'.

I'd imagine you could if being chased by something nasty.

It theoretical, which is not the same theatrical.

I rode mine (280w) for a an hour and a bit climbing alp du Zwift.

Would I like to do it again?
Nope.

Did I have to take about three days before I wanted to go back on the bike again?
Yeap.

Though that was after 5 weeks of training and my FTP was set at the start of those 5 weeks

Nobody can sustain the same power output for 60 minutes that they can for 20 minutes.

Nobody can sustain the same power output for 60 minutes that they can for 20 minutes.

Isn't your ftp a percentage of what you can do over those 20min. I use the ramp test for my ftp so couldn't comment on the 20 min version

Nobody can sustain the same power output for 60 minutes that they can for 20 minutes.

The reason they extrapolate from a 20min test to the 60min FTP is that outside of a proper race scenario, most people can't push themselves hard enough to get a 60min FTP reading that is close to 100%. Whereas they probably can motivate themselves for 20mins. If you know that backing off will get you dropped from the break and you'll be out the race, there's a lot more motivation to bury yourself etc.

I know what my Wattbike FTP is, I did the 20 min test a couple of days ago. Maintaining that indoors for me would be a non starter.

The best test for 1 hour of power is a 25 mile time trial. With a number on your back you should me motivated to give a good effort right to the end.

Funnily enough my power is higher on an alpine climb for an hour. The lower cadence and grunt required on a gradient is very different to the higher cadence flat 25 mile time trial.

On a home trainer it’s different again as you tend to use a higher cadence and the constant effort (no freewheeling) pushes your average higher.

So FTP can be very different depending on the circumstances. You could have quite a few different FTPs depending on how you carried out your test. Then you also have different power numbers depending on whether you have used your trainer watts, a crank based power meter or a pedal based power meter.

Aren't you supposed to do a 5 minute flat out effort before 20 minute test so that you are getting a more reliable measure of your aerobic system?

Anyone else read the thread title and think of FileZilla! 🤣🤣

Definition of FTP is what you can do in an hour on an aerobic basis, it isn't even going flat out for an hour as through that you can draw on anaerobic systems to boost the number. There are shit tonnes of variable that impact what you can do anyhow (temp, cadence, position etc.) - however if you can't do a number for an hour it cannot by definition be your FTP (and as said even if you can it might not be).

For an hour 'test' you need to know the answer before you start, go off too hard and you can over score or blow up and under achieve - set off too low and you under achieve.

Typically to reduce impact of variables someone does a 20 min, 8 min or ramp test to estimate FTP using an adjustment %. So take the number for what it is - a convenient baseline for setting training at and for measuring improvements.

Zwift is the worst culprit for this from what I have seen where is happy taking a random 20 minute best and using that. It is ok to use if you recognise it for what it is - pub numbers

Anyone else read the thread title and think of FileZilla! 🤣🤣

It's not what I was expecting either. I came here to say "use SCP instead."

When you do the 20min test the result is multiplied by 9%%
When you do the ramp test the result is the average of the last minute multiplied by 75%

So these are supposed to equate to what you should do for an hour. But I reckon those % are quite wrong for me. Anyone ese actually tried to ride at FTP for an hour then ?

So basically then - I just need to suffer for an hour and see what I can crank out 🙁

Aren’t you supposed to do a 5 minute flat out effort before 20 minute test so that you are getting a more reliable measure of your aerobic system?

Yeah, the five minute flat out effort throws a real curve ball that I still haven't figured out, but I read in a Trainerroad article (or perhaps trainingpeaks) that it is more accurate to use 100% of the 20 minute power, after a 5 minute flat out effort.

Something do to with the proportion of the effort which draws on anaerobic capacity vs. aerobic capacity.

But on the flipside, what point is there in using a 'post 5 minute flat out effort' FTP unless you're doing a 5 minute flat out effort before every workout? (sort of genuine question, I base all my workouts on my FTP without the 5 min effort, they seem to work, tough but completable).

FTP is steady state - people often quote the hour but I think it’s open to interpretation and not set in stone. So your FTP may reflect your steady state power output somewhere between 30 - 60 mins. Whether you can do the hour might rely upon other factors such as muscular endurance etc

So basically then – I just need to suffer for an hour and see what I can crank out

All that tells you is how much power you can put out on an indoor bike for an hour, with a not very high motivation level.

It will come in below you real (highly motivated) FTP, so pretty useless piece of info IMO.

Yes, there is a massive difference in what you can do when motivated.

I was doing some CX racing before Covid - on my mountain bike in the summer (I'm not that daft).

For the whole 45 min race I had my mate on my tail - I was able to ride with a HR of 165, whereas normally when it gets that high I have to get off for a rest.

I would struggle to replicate that HR for that time on a spin bike, or even riding on my own.

Nicely explained on gcn here

The whole concept of FTP has become a murky mess in recent years, as ownership of power meters on bikes and integrated into turbos has become all the rage.

It used to be a horrid "hour of power." For me that is currently 264W from the last six weeks.

Then it became an ambiguously hard 5min effort* followed by a shortish recovery period followed by 95% of what you then held for 20mins. Not used this method for 2+ years and I've only had power meters for just over three years.

Then it became plain old 95% of your best 20mins without the ambiguously hard 5min effort beforehand, to then give you a figure to use for ERG workouts and decide what Zwiftpower category you were assigned regardless of the duration of the race. In the last six weeks, for me that is 291W.

Then you have Zwift and other app using ramp tests, with the Zwift one being 75% of the best 1min you can manage while in theory remaining seated and spinning at 70rpm+. I've not done one of these for over a year, but with fresh legs I'd usually be disappointed if I wasn't at least attempting the 400W interval, but I've never had a 300W estimate from 95% of 20mins (it's still one of my silly aims, not sure if I'll ever do it now after Covid, but I shall see).

* What decides how hard that 5min effort is? https://www.strava.com/activities/4658505618/analysis/59/356 346W absolutely killed me even though I'd not long joined the ride late, flogging myself to the event finish banner, doing ~180W was more than enough for the following ~18mins before I called it a day.

I've been riding with my bars in maximum aero brick mode through winter with all spacers below the stem, so I'm half-expecting my unspectacular numbers to drop a bit when I move the spacers back above the stem in preparation for the outdoor season hopefully starting next month.

The common misconception being made here is equating FTP with your 'hour power'. FTP is simply a number used to base training zones off and depending on how you are training and your genetic predisposition towards slow or fast twitch fibres determines your TTE (Time to Exhaustion) for any given power.

FTP is an indication towards your power at MLSS (Maximal Lactate Steady Stress). This theoretically is the point at which your muscles can deal with the lactate being created without being overloaded.

With appropriate training it is possible to extend time at MLSS, but it is not something that something you should just expect to be able to do 🙂

I regularly hit ftp for 1 hour. As I used to race crits it was pretty much 1 hour plus 5 laps, over the course of the hour and x minutes I’d be at ftp. There would be sections under ftp but generally I’d be incredibly close to it.
Even now I do a lot of my training for 1 hour 10 minutes. Zwift races with the guys here are pretty much at ftp or over for varying amounts of time, between 40 mins to an hour.
Zwift climbs solo (alpe for example) I struggle to get close to ftp. Ftp is 285, I think I averaged about 264 last week when doing that climb (50 mins).
Outdoor on a long climb I’m fine at ftp for an hour, so long as the gradient stays reasonably consistent. Big surges (steep inclines) are what kill me.

It will come in below you real (highly motivated) FTP, so pretty useless piece of info IMO.

Weeell... if you're doing all your workouts indoors whilst similarly not motivated then arguably it's the correct benchmark?

In fact, when is your motivated + outdoors FTP really useful? Racing to a powermeter?

FTP is an indication towards your power at MLSS (Maximal Lactate Steady Stress). This theoretically is the point at which your muscles can deal with the lactate being created without being overloaded.

When I was buying coaching from a well-known coach he was of the opinion that the best way to determine this MLSS power was to ride up a 20 minute hill as fast as you can, on the basis that it was achievable and being a hill it psychologically made you ride harder. I'm inclined to agree, at least for those who aren't experienced TTers. It might be theoretically possible to hold it for longer than 20 mins but there wasn't any value in it. So the 20 minute power was what we used for threshold in our training zones.

To do a 25 mile TT at max effort / motivation means doing it in position which will be less powerful by a fair bit if you're not used to it (compared to sat up on the turbo), and usually a bit lower even if you are. But yeah it is reasonably close to my ftp number from testing protocols indoor.

No way could I hit that just going out and riding my bike hard, though, a 25 is different gravy (I don't mean you need to be good, I mean the motivation to refuse to drop your pace needs to be there and you're not getting this from just riding along).

molgrips

When I was buying coaching from a well-known coach he was of the opinion that the best way to determine this MLSS power was to ride up a 20 minute hill as fast as you can

Not in the East of England, it isn't?! 🙂

I can beat ftp of 250ish for half an hour, but only uphill, cant get near it for an hour.
Month and a half post covid and I can't manage 250w for more than 3 mins, suppose I should re do ftp but can't be arsed, its just a number to look at for me and help pacing. I don't train. All this is on home trainer, don't have power metre for bike.

Do you think riding up hill is easier at FTP because you are at a lower cadence, or perhaps its because you can see the top getting closer ? I wonder how much is in your head.

As my cadence goes up Im fine till about 100-110 then for anything over that I soon end up with my HR way too high to last long. There must be a magic cadence where the balance of power vs HR is just perfect.

What stops you holding your FTP - is it the burn in your legs due to lactate overload, or is it because your HR it just too high ?

Basically I think I will stick to mountain biking, at least then I can blame the terrain, tyres, rebound, loam moisture etc for my lack of form 🙂

As above, it's only really a measure for training zones. Other factors come into play in real life.

I only use the zwift one. It does have a moderately hard effort in before the 20 minutes.

0.95 x [the number I can hold for 20minutes] is about 10% higher than the 1h power figure on my power curve. My ramp test number sits slightly lower than the 20min test value.

You become accustomed to doing the 20minute test. As a tester it is a fairly familiar experience being a couple of minutes shy of my 10mile TT time. To hit the hour number would be unpleasant - not just in the legs and lungs but also holding a position for so long working at that intensity. Its a massive struggle for the hour record - not just hitting the numbers but maintaining a good aero position.

There are plenty of other things I'd also be thinking about to gauge mountain bike fitness.

For a 20min effort estimate, I find the frequent Tempus Fugit TTs on Zwift work best for me. Did my first one since before the most recent STW MTB Series just before dinner last night, got an all-time best result from the final 20mins of the ~25min course, further increasing the chasm between what I've done over 20mins vs 60mins to ~20%.

OP, you make a good point about mountain biking and being able go put out a lot of power on short climbs. I'm the same. I really struggle with threshold intervals of 15 mins for example, but fine with the short 2 min bursts. I entered a few road events and just can't put out above zone 3 for an hour. Zone 2 with lots of sprints however is easy.

What stops you holding your FTP – is it the burn in your legs due to lactate overload, or is it because your HR it just too high

I would guess motivation.

In a real life scenario eg a race etc, you've got lots going in around you eg other riders to keep up with, or a huge investment in driving somewhere to enter an event etc.

On a stationary bike in a garage, it's going to be hard to really give 100% when basically it doesn't matter in the slightest.

If you're racing the last NPS of the season, chasing promotion etc, you'll bury yourself as the next season rests on the next 90mins etc.

I feel a lot of people are obsessed with FTP and concentrate on that value when in fact it's often estimated from a 20min effort. I always based a lot of my training on 20 minute power as that was repeatable. Also FTP obviously doesn't tell you the whole picture.

I found this article a long time ago which spured me on to look at my training

https://biketechreview.com/performance/supply/53-stripped-down

and this one

https://biketechreview.com/index.php/performance/supply/47-base-a-new-definition

Surely the only thing that matters is that you use a consistent test approach to compare against your own results. I have no idea how my FTP compares to others but I am currently doing an 5 week FTP plan on Zwift. I know that when I retest in a few weeks I will be using the same test (20min) as I did at the start so I can accurately compare.

I think a lot of people are obsessed with FTP as a goal, when it's just a tool or in my case just something to have a crack at out of general interest. 2 min, 5min and hour + endurance are as important.

The whole FTP = "hour power" thing is a bit of a misconception. It's the value you should (if trained to do it) hold for anywhere from 45 - 75mins.

FTP came about as that power level is very close to the anaerobic threshold, i.e. above that point you are using mostly anaerobic energy systems and as stated above your body isn't fully processing lactate, this point is also called Lactate Threshold 2. Since testing the latter requires blood sampling it's somewhat easier to use power via some non-invasive device.

Then it was noticed that 8min and 20min power durations equated to 1/0.9 and 1/0.95 of FTP respectfully so these became the "easier" testing protocols. The disadvantage is that you need to have a good idea of your FTP to begin with to actually be able to pace them correctly to get an accurate figure. Also if you are aiming to "improve" your FTP figure then you need to ride harder but that only means you can ride harder for that duration. That leads to ...

The Ramp Test. This is based on steadily increasing power that requires no pacing or prior knowledge of what your FTP might be, you just go until you can't. The theory is that you fail at Maximum Aerobic Power or MAP which is conventionally set at 120% of FTP so your minute of maximum average power is multiplied by 0.75 to get your FTP. The problem here is that word "conventionally", not everyone sits at that figure - sprinters will sit at a lower value, endurance riders at a higher one.

So ...

Use whatever test you prefer but keep the same protocol each time and adjust based on experience. Then throw that figure away when you ride outside, on a different bike, etc.

It's unlikely that everyone has the same shaped power curve so just adjust the intensity as required for different types of workouts: if you struggle with VO2max (who doesn't?) then dial things back a couple of percent so you can complete the workout. All these zones are discrete but overlap to quite a degree so doing an interval at 108% instead of 110% isn't going to make that much of a difference, in fact being able to complete it is better than not doing so.

Do you think riding up hill is easier at FTP because you are at a lower cadence, or perhaps its because you can see the top getting closer ? I wonder how much is in your head.

I think it's in your head. I used to ride at constant z2 power with a power meter. The exact same power felt comfortable on the flat, ludicrously slow on climbs and really hard on the descents. I had to dawdle up every climb and smash the daylights out of every descent to maintain the same power.

Training for FTP only demonstrates one aspect of cycling. I have a mate who has a high FTP for his weight, but that's all he has - no sprint of any kind. If I had the same FTP I'd be a much faster rider overall, not least because most climbs aren't 20 minutes long. I have a good sprint so on rolling terrain I'm very comfortable putting in repeated shorter higher efforts and I'd leave him for dead. On the flat, or an Alpine climb, not so much.