Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

FTP - Functional Threshold Power....how big is yours!!

  • 04-01-2012 10:49pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,454 ✭✭✭ Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity


    There has been a fair bit of discussion on some of the tri logs regarding recent power/ftp testing and general banter that comes with it:rolleyes: Now rather than this become a divk measuring contest which is not the intention i thought it would act as a good benchmark measurement for everyone to follow. After all these testing sessions can be tough when you do them and who knows this may drive you on to achieve that extra 1 or 2%:)
    Its all about setting a target and trying to achieve it through the season. Its not all about the wattage number either as the watts per kg is just as important as both lead to faster bike splits which is what we all want to achieve in the year.
    It may bring about some helpful discussion as well for those new to FTP testing and the merits of training with power and within power zones.
    Not everyone needs a power meter either as most trainers have some form of power measurement on them.
    I will kick things off:)
    User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20|Power2Max PM


«13456713

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    There has been a fair bit of discussion on some of the tri logs regarding recent power/ftp testing and general banter that comes with it:rolleyes: Now rather than this become a divk measuring contest which is not the intention i thought it would act as a good benchmark measurement for everyone to follow. After all these testing sessions can be tough when you do them and who knows this may drive you on to achieve that extra 1 or 2%:)
    Its all about setting a target and trying to achieve it through the season. Its not all about the wattage number either as the watts per kg is just as important as both lead to faster bike splits which is what we all want to achieve in the year.
    It may bring about some helpful discussion as well for those new to FTP testing and the merits of training with power and within power zones.
    Not everyone needs a power meter either as most trainers have some form of power measurement on them.
    I will kick things off:)
    User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20|Power2Max PM

    Hi Jacky. Great idea. Have a few quick questions.

    What would be the methods of getting the FTP down? I guess lowering weight without losing strenght might be one. Also, is it distance dependent? Obviously your power output would reduce as the test increases. An ironman might have a lower output over a short test than an olympic distance triathlete but a larger average one over a longer test?

    Im actually coming at this from a hillrunning point of view as a lot of hillrunners use turbos/cycling for climbing strenght. Also FTP i think was mentioned by Fionnuala Brittons coach as an area that was improved for her running(vote Fionnuala Britton European athlete of the year BTW on that thread everyone).


    And lastly while i have you, can a power reading device be bought independently of a trainer? My turbo doesnt have one.
    Thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Cue Tacx Flow owners with huge FTPs who cannot understand why they don't perform "as expected".......... :)

    Jackyback. If I'm not mistaken your testing protocol is a T5+T20 in one sitting.

    A straight T20 WILL NOT GIVE YOUR FTP. it will give you a figure that makes you feel better about yourself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Nwm2


    T runner wrote: »
    Hi Jacky. Great idea. Have a few quick questions.

    What would be the methods of getting the FTP down? I guess lowering weight without losing strenght might be one. Also, is it distance dependent? Obviously your power output would reduce as the test increases. An ironman might have a lower output over a short test than an olympic distance triathlete but a larger average one over a longer test?

    Without my copy of Training and Racing with a Powermeter to hand to quote the exact conversion factors, if you do a 20 min test your average power for that 20 mins is your CP20 (critical power for 20 min) and you multiply that by 0.95 to estimate your FTP. If you did a 12 min test, then the multiplication factor is 0.9 say. A 60 min test has a multiplication factor of 1.0 (your FTP is your CP60).

    All of the above by memory, so I have no problem being corrected.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Nwm2 wrote: »
    Without my copy of Training and Racing with a Powermeter to hand to quote the exact conversion factors, if you do a 20 min test your average power for that 20 mins is your CP20 (critical power for 20 min) and you multiply that by 0.95 to estimate your FTP. If you did a 12 min test, then the multiplication factor is 0.9 say. A 60 min test has a multiplication factor of 1.0 (your FTP is your CP60).

    All of the above by memory, so I have no problem being corrected.

    you've forgotten the 5 minute all out TT that they talk about, and explain why its necessary. Its also made quite clear by Coggan in the book (and on wattage board, great board). that the shorter the testing period the less accurate the result.

    Its also made quite clear that for some its 90% of 20 minute test that is FTP, others 95%. Its not an absolute. However for this purpose here, unless someone knows otherwise, probably best to go with 95% of a T20.

    I think those that use 95% of T20 rather than 95% of T20 in T5+T20 should view their numbers as suspect. And while the T5+T20s can look down on the T20s we can all look down on the Cycling board where they view 100% of T20 as valid as "you'd work harder in a race than in a test".


  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Nwm2


    User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20|Power2Max PM
    NWM2|295watts|3.5|315watts|3.85|15k TT * 0.95 (~23min) |Powertap SL2+


    My goals are less challenging than yours JB! But it's more of a case of doing the training and seeing where the results fall - if I get more than the 5-10% I'm looking for then great.

    Just a bit about my testing protocol - this is purely personal. I have a 15km weekly TT that I do during the summer, I do a warm up which includes some hard efforts, and then start. My FTP estimate is 95% of the average power I hold for the 23 mins or so of the TT. To Tunney's point above, I don't quite to an all-out T5 before the TT, but it comes close enough that I'm happy with it.

    Currently all my training/testing is on the turbo and I won't get a retest on that circuit until the summer, but that is the goal for the year as regards FTP.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Nwm2 wrote: »
    User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20|Power2Max PM
    NWM2|295watts|3.5|315watts|3.85|15k TT * 0.95 (~23min) |Powertap SL2+


    My goals are less challenging than yours JB! But it's more of a case of doing the training and seeing where the results fall - if I get more than the 5-10% I'm looking for then great.

    Just a bit about my testing protocol - this is purely personal. I have a 15km weekly TT that I do during the summer, I do a warm up which includes some hard efforts, and then start. My FTP estimate is 95% of the average power I hold for the 23 mins or so of the TT. To Tunney's point above, I don't quite to an all-out T5 before the TT, but it comes close enough that I'm happy with it.

    Currently all my training/testing is on the turbo and I won't get a retest on that circuit until the summer, but that is the goal for the year as regards FTP.

    So your test data is a few months out of date? i.e. since the summer

    regarding the lack of the 5 minute testing, some snippets from wattage

    "The idea of pre-exhausting with the 5 minute test and the others is to
    try and exhaust the anaerobic contribution of the 20 minute test done
    without the preceding all out tests. Yes, you can get a higher MMP
    for 20 minutes, but a portion of that is anaerobic which we are less
    concerned about. "

    "The 5 minute all out effort churns through some of the anaerobic
    energy stores available and gets your aerobic enzymes & recovery
    system working in order to aerobically clear the lactate that was
    produced.
    The purpose isn't to create lactate. The purpose is to dampen some of
    the power output that would otherwise come from anaerobic energy
    sources before the aerobic system gets cranked up most of the way, and
    to start with a relatively higher input from fatty acids at the start
    of your test. Otherwise you'd be spending too much of the 20 minute
    time getting the aerobic enzyme system revved up.
    You'll have a lower 20 minute power out put than if you did the warmup
    without the 5 minute all out effort...but it will be closer to what
    you could sustain for 60 minutes.
    Remember that these are all estimates...anything shorter than a 1 hour
    time trial effort is just an estimate.
    You could do a different warmup that doesn't leave you gassed, but
    then your 20 minute power out put would be even higher...and thus
    you'd have to take a smaller %age to get closer to a threshold number
    you want to use. "


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    T runner wrote: »
    What would be the methods of getting the FTP down? I guess lowering weight without losing strenght might be one. Also, is it distance dependent? Obviously your power output would reduce as the test increases. An ironman might have a lower output over a short test than an olympic distance triathlete but a larger average one over a longer test?

    its not distance dependant thats the thing - its time dependant.

    its max average power for a 60 minute time trial, it can be approximated using a 5 minute time trial followed by a 20 minute time trial and then using 95% of the 20 minute average power.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭mloc123


    I will back up the 5max +T20 over T20 on its own.

    Having used the inflated T20 numbers last year I rarely ever hit the high end of power zones.

    T20 has it uses tho, its great for throwing out their as a nicer looking FTP number :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭shotgunmcos


    I agree that a straight T20 is not an accurate measure of your 95% FTP

    Why? Basically its because of the T5 that Tunney eludes to...


    The 5 mins all out is called a hole opener. It does 2 primary things that are relevant to an endurance test.

    1)
    It depletes the recruitment of fast twitch fibres. The fast twitch fibres are the ones that allow you to bang out a huge stat at the beginning of a test due to being so quickly accessed for power. You are accessing your anaeorobic system early. You can only sustain this for a short period of time before you have to settle back to the aeorobic system that gets you through the vast majority of the test. You naturally then plough back into whatever reserves you have in the anaerobic system at the end to max out your effort.

    The problem with the big start is that it recruits the fibres that would burn you off if you extended the effort to a full hour which is what FTP is inherently about. Effectively a fresh T20 gives you a 'headstart' of sorts and as such your reading for the fresh T20 will obviously be a few watts higher.

    If you were to go and do a T60 you just could not afford to give yourself a 'headstart' like that or you just wouldn't last :) Hence why a fresh T20 in inaccurate.

    We used to do the same thing for rowing tests back in the day over 5km in the winter on a Concept 2 Machine. The test would invariably last between 16-18 mins and it was used as the benchmark process for power training. We would do several short burst at test pace in our warm up for the actual test. I don't miss them one single bit.

    2)
    It makes sure you warm up properly. You are about to do an all out endurance test. Even Marathon runners warm up before their race and may do some strides at their race pace. When you start the test proper you are more likely to recruit the muscle memory to hit your target output sooner. The steadier the test the more likely you will score better and have something for a finish at the end. You are aso not starting from a resting state of heart rate and giving your heart a shock by launching it into the red zone.

    Other variations on the T5+T20 are a 2*T20 with 2 mins rest between or you could just go the whole hog and do a T60 :D I've done both this winter and I actually found the 2*20 tougher than the T60!


  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Nwm2


    tunney wrote: »
    So your test data is a few months out of date? i.e. since the summer

    Yes, that test data is a few months out of date - it was the best I achieved last season. So to express my goal another way, I want to start this season at 10% higher power than where I peaked last season.

    I prefer looking at it this way than to compare an indoor FTP test at the start of the off-season with an indoor FTP test after lots of training (or worse, comparing an indoor FTP test in December with an outdoor one in May or something). I'm showing good improvement on the turbo, but for me the ultimate benchmark is how I perform on a TT (because who knows what level I began my offseason at relative to my peak, and what the delta between outdoors an indoors numbers are).


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,454 ✭✭✭ Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity


    tunney wrote: »
    Cue Tacx Flow owners with huge FTPs who cannot understand why they don't perform "as expected".......... :)

    Jackyback. If I'm not mistaken your testing protocol is a T5+T20 in one sitting.

    A straight T20 WILL NOT GIVE YOUR FTP. it will give you a figure that makes you feel better about yourself.

    Yes but for the FTP shown it was based on the second of a 2x20min over FTP effort at the time as my FTP values from 8 weeks ago were out of date. Fully agree anyone not doing a T5+T20 are fooling themselves for the reasons outlined by Tunney & MCOS.

    The reason most use a T5+T20 over a T60 as its simply too taxing on the body to regularly test and recover from doing a T60. 95% of a T20 seems to be the average used by most.

    An interesting point, has anyone seen both wattage and watts per kg improve as they lose weight? I am noticing it at the moment but that might be down to the fact that i am making some quick gains early in the season which maybe harder to find as the weeks go by!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,454 ✭✭✭ Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity


    Nwm2 wrote: »
    Yes, that test data is a few months out of date - it was the best I achieved last season. So to express my goal another way, I want to start this season at 10% higher power than where I peaked last season.

    I prefer looking at it this way than to compare an indoor FTP test at the start of the off-season with an indoor FTP test after lots of training (or worse, comparing an indoor FTP test in December with an outdoor one in May or something). I'm showing good improvement on the turbo, but for me the ultimate benchmark is how I perform on a TT (because who knows what level I began my offseason at relative to my peak, and what the delta between outdoors an indoors numbers are).

    I would have said using FTP data from last year to be pretty useless as a lot may have changed since then, either you have improved or had a lazy off season:)
    Maybe i am reading your post wrong but are you saying you do no testing on the turbo at the start of season and as you progress through? The great thing about the T5+T20 is that it allows you to test regularly, keep your FTP numbers fresh and thus get the most out of your training which will leave you in the best shape possible for when that TT comes around.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Nwm2 wrote: »
    Yes, that test data is a few months out of date - it was the best I achieved last season. So to express my goal another way, I want to start this season at 10% higher power than where I peaked last season.

    Ah right - I'll just stick up my numbers that were great from a few years ago then?

    Thought the point of the thread was where you ARE and were you want to BE. not where you once were when you were great ??

    (Note the word CURRENT in the table header, not previous best :) )


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭EC1000


    Its not all about the wattage number either as the watts per kg is just as important

    I've never trained with power but its definitely something I want to do in the future.
    I'm curious about your post above - surely watts per Kg is the ONLY figure that should be considered when measuring power. What is the purpose of quoting absolute wattage figures? I'm thinking back to my leaving cert physics days (long time ago) and power is defined as the rate at which work is done - ie work per unit time - and work is directly proportional to mass. Therefore, wattage is meaningless unless mass (weight) is accounted for. To me it begs the question of what is the point in quoting absolute wattage figures as your FTP instead of watts per kg??

    Just curious......


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    EC1000 wrote: »
    I've never trained with power but its definitely something I want to do in the future.
    I'm curious about your post above - surely watts per Kg is the ONLY figure that should be considered when measuring power. What is the purpose of quoting absolute wattage figures? I'm thinking back to my leaving cert physics days (long time ago) and power is defined as the rate at which work is done - ie work per unit time - and work is directly proportional to mass. Therefore, wattage is meaningless unless mass (weight) is accounted for. To me it begs the question of what is the point in quoting absolute wattage figures as your FTP instead of watts per kg??

    Just curious......

    Power to weight is hugely relevant however for triathlon its more useful to have power to drag, assuming its mainly flat courses that you race on. Power to weight is relevant when climbing. Power to aeroness when flat TTing.
    However given the difficulty people have in measuring that the power to weight AND absolute numbers are relevant


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,454 ✭✭✭ Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity


    T runner wrote: »
    Hi Jacky. Great idea. Have a few quick questions.

    What would be the methods of getting the FTP down? I guess lowering weight without losing strenght might be one. Also, is it distance dependent? Obviously your power output would reduce as the test increases. An ironman might have a lower output over a short test than an olympic distance triathlete but a larger average one over a longer test?

    Im actually coming at this from a hillrunning point of view as a lot of hillrunners use turbos/cycling for climbing strenght. Also FTP i think was mentioned by Fionnuala Brittons coach as an area that was improved for her running(vote Fionnuala Britton European athlete of the year BTW on that thread everyone).

    And lastly while i have you, can a power reading device be bought independently of a trainer? My turbo doesnt have one.
    Thanks.

    Hey Trunner first off its about getting the FTP up and not down:) In relation to your question the T5+T20 95% value will give you an FTP score for example using my numbers 284watts. Now there is no way you would hold that number in an OLY, HIM or IM, for illustrative purposes only you may pace the different races as such (everyone is different)
    Sprint - 95% of 284watts - race pace of 269watts
    OLY - 85% of 284watts - race pace of 241watts
    HIM - 80% of 284watts - race pace of 227watts
    IM- 70% of 284watts - race pace of 199watts

    The upshot is (and its similiar to your LTrun pace) is that the test gives you something to pace off in a race, thats of course if you are using power in a race scenario.

    There is plenty of options out there, google powertap, quarg, power2max, srms and garmin have a new one coming out. The cheapest out in the market is a hub based system, powertap!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Nwm2


    I would have said using FTP data from last year to be pretty useless as a lot may have changed since then, either you have improved or had a lazy off season:)

    That FTP number was relevant to when I ended the season in September. Messed around for a few weeks before starting the offseason in October. Had a run focus for a lot of the offseason as I had a half marathon to do.
    Maybe i am reading your post wrong but are you saying you do no testing on the turbo at the start of season and as you progress through? The great thing about the T5+T20 is that it allows you to test regularly, keep your FTP numbers fresh and thus get the most out of your training which will leave you in the best shape possible for when that TT comes around.

    No, of course I do indoor testing, but when I write my goals for the upcoming year the key FTP goal is based on what I can achieve outdoors in a 'standard' test, not what I can improve on the turbo vs an initial test at the start of the offseason.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Nwm2 wrote: »
    That FTP number was relevant to when I ended the season in September. Messed around for a few weeks before starting the offseason in October. Had a run focus for a lot of the offseason as I had a half marathon to do.



    No, of course I do indoor testing, but when I write my goals for the upcoming year the key FTP goal is based on what I can achieve outdoors in a 'standard' test, not what I can improve on the turbo vs an initial test at the start of the offseason.

    So you obviously train by power what number do you use to determine your training zones for right now?


  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Nwm2


    tunney wrote: »
    So you obviously train by power what number do you use to determine your training zones for right now?

    Currently based off T5 + T20 indoors holding 300W, giving FTP of 285. Yeah I could put up that number, and a target based off it, but i don't are about my absolute turbo number, but my outdoors number - that is my written goal for the year to come.


  • Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭Notwitch


    Just to confirm the recommended protocol - what's the recommended min warm up/rest period between 5 & 20 (clearly enough time to log on to boards and give us a running commentary!)/are spin ups relevant in warm up etc.

    Generally testing takes place every 6 weeks?

    Any schedule of upcoming tests days that we can line up with - so we can all look forward - say all aim for one by end of next week and go from there?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Notwitch wrote: »
    Just to confirm the recommended protocol - what's the recommended min warm up/rest period between 5 & 20 (clearly enough time to log on to boards and give us a running commentary!)/are spin ups relevant in warm up etc.

    Generally testing takes place every 6 weeks?

    Any schedule of upcoming tests days that we can line up with - so we can all look forward - say all aim for one by end of next week and go from there?

    What I do is

    10 minutes easy
    5x30sec build, 30sec easy (where build means start each rep easy but finish hard)
    5 min TT
    10 minutes easy / posting /tweeting
    20 min TT
    cool down


  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Nwm2


    tunney wrote: »
    So you put up the less relevant but higher number. Whatever you want

    I see what you are getting at now, you think I'm inflating where I am for whatever reason. If I was doing that I would have added 20W to my indoors number to account for the differences I see indoors vs outdoors!

    Anyway, here is the original table again, and people can add from there:

    EDIT: Taking Mr T's advice, I have used the most recent indoor number (Dec 2011):

    User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20|Power2Max PM
    NWM2|285watts|3.32|310watts|3.7|T5+T20*0.95|Powertap SL2+


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,377 Mod ✭✭✭✭pgibbo


    User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20|Power2Max PM
    NWM2|285watts|3.32|310watts|3.7|T5+T20*0.95|Powertap SL2+
    pgibbo|232watts|3.18|300watts|4.35|T5+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM


    Some interesting reading above. Man my figure is low. As Yazz once sang - The only way is up! :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭shotgunmcos


    I'll let you PM guys have this challenge as Im one of the Taxc Flow owners with an overinflated FTP :rolleyes:

    But at least I did mine off a T60 :P Damn near saw the pearly gates too


  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Nwm2


    I'll let you PM guys have this challenge as Im one of the Taxc Flow owners with an overinflated FTP :rolleyes:

    But at least I did mine off a T60 :P Damn near saw the pearly gates too

    I would put it in, the key thing is the % increase anyway. You can state you have a Tacx and we can all mentally reduce it below our own figures accordingly. I think you mentioned your figure in your ARTist of the week thread anyway?

    In fact, if we all normalised our values to Current = 100, then no p*ssing contests or d*ck measuring would be possible. Until the final results came in anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    tunney wrote: »
    its not distance dependant thats the thing - its time dependant.

    its max average power for a 60 minute time trial, it can be approximated using a 5 minute time trial followed by a 20 minute time trial and then using 95% of the 20 minute average power.

    I was thinking about the various distances that people would race and how their specialities would affect how they do in this test?

    A person specialising in 60 minute time trials would do better in this test than the same person who specialised in Long stage races, assuming his potential ability in both was similar.

    If the test can be applied to correlate to hill running climbing potential is probably a question for a hill running forum although the 1 hour basis is average for hill races here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭ocnoc


    1 hr up AND down maybe... Closer to a 30-40mins hard climbing in most races. You'd rarely be going up for an hour


  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Nwm2


    T runner wrote: »
    I was thinking about the various distances that people would race and how their specialities would affect how they do in this test?

    A person specialising in 60 minute time trials would do better in this test than the same person who specialised in Long stage races, assuming his potential ability in both was similar.

    This might help.

    Here is a graph I put together based on Coggan's power profile information - you can get more info in the book, or here.

    This is watts/kg for different test durations for two extremes of specialities - a Time Trialist who needs a lot of power for a long time (ie a high FTP), and a Sprinter who needs huge amounts of power for short durations.

    10fngwo.gif


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Nwm2 wrote: »
    I would put it in, the key thing is the % increase anyway. You can state you have a Tacx and we can all mentally reduce it below our own figures accordingly. I think you mentioned your figure in your ARTist of the week thread anyway?

    In fact, if we all normalised our values to Current = 100, then no p*ssing contests or d*ck measuring would be possible. Until the final results came in anyway.

    Yeah - as long as the message is out there that they are inaccurate thats good enough. I know of two cases were people have thought "my FTP is higher than yours, you rode sub five, I can ride 4:45." Then find out the hard way that their tacx was reading 20% high.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    T runner wrote: »
    I was thinking about the various distances that people would race and how their specialities would affect how they do in this test?

    A person specialising in 60 minute time trials would do better in this test than the same person who specialised in Long stage races, assuming his potential ability in both was similar.

    If the test can be applied to correlate to hill running climbing potential is probably a question for a hill running forum although the 1 hour basis is average for hill races here.

    The purpose of the test is not to get the best number for the numbers sake but to use that number to guide your training best. unlike HR training there are much more rigid bands of effort versus reward and quantification of what the rewards are, see table 2 here

    What you are getting at is more the power profile of a rider which is done by testing 5 s, 1 min, 5 min, and at functional threshold power (see here for more details.

    However its not so much 1hr versus longer. A 1 hr time trial will predict performances rather well at longer event. 1 hr is long in bike testing.

    Consider a 180km IM bike leg, people typically race it at 75% of FTP, a 20km sprint bike leg would be at or over 100%FTP. So a five hour IM biker versus a 30 minute sprint biker, which one would do better at this test? The one with the higher FTP. FTP is a measure of aerobic not anerobic hence the 5min TT to burn out the legs.


Advertisement