[jackyback]

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 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

[T runner]

Originally Posted by jackyback

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 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

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.

[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.

[Nwm2]

Originally Posted by T runner

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.

[tunney]

Originally Posted by Nwm2

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".

[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.

[tunney]

Originally Posted by Nwm2

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. "

[tunney]

Originally Posted by T runner

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.

[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

[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 I've done both this winter and I actually found the 2*20 tougher than the T60!

[Nwm2]

Originally Posted by tunney

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).

[jackyback]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!!

[jackyback]

Originally Posted by Nwm2

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.

[tunney]

Originally Posted by Nwm2

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 )

[EC1000]

Originally Posted by jackyback

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......