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

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

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

T runner

Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »

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.

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

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.

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".

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

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. "

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.

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

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).

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

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!!

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

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.

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 )

EC1000

Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »

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......

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

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

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!!

Nwm2

Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »

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.

Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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+

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!

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

Nwm2

shotgunmcos wrote: »

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

twonpelota

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
twonpelota|250 watts|3.2|300watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|SRM

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

shotgunmcos wrote: »

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

Sure stick it up as it was included for everyone inclusive of turbos. Whilst it may be over inflated at least you recalibrate so there is consistency in your numbers and the repeat tests should show improvement through the season with an ultimate target in mind.

How did your T60 results compare to your T5+T20*0.95 numbers?

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20+T20*0.95|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
twonpelota|250 watts|3.2|300watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|SRM


Table amended with test type.

Not many sharers out there:) either,
A) Too shy
Not testing/training with power/turbo
C) Keeping cards close to your chest so a target is not drawn on your back:p

I will go with B and a sprinkle of C!!

By the way this is a great read and tells you all you need to know.

shotgunmcos

Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »

Sure stick it up as it was included for everyone inclusive of turbos. Whilst it may be over inflated at least you recalibrate so there is consistency in your numbers and the repeat tests should show improvement through the season with an ultimate target in mind.

How did your T60 results compare to your T5+T20*0.95 numbers?

The mad thing about the over inflated taxc numbers is that if I were to take lets say the 20% probability out it would drop my FTP to about about 250w by your PM standards. That would put me about 35w behind you. Now, considering I'm about a minute slower than this guy over a 15km hilly TT course, I see bright things in your future on the saddle

The 2*T20 was a disaster, went too hard on the first one and died a death on the second, came out with alower FTP than 2010. The T60 was approached more cautiously and although I faded in the last 10 mins I held it together for an improvement on the T5+T20 result at the end of 2010. Which was not bad considering the IM programme was all endurance for me. I barely touched FTP over 80%. Th eimprovement is entirely related to focus on power in the last 2 months

Nwm2

Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »

Not many sharers out there:) either,
A) Too shy
Not testing/training with power/turbo
C) Keeping cards close to your chest so a target is not drawn on your back:p

I will go with B and a sprinkle of C!!

By the way this is a great read and tells you all you need to know.

The numbers up so far are probably above average, which may put people with lower numbers off. MCOS is probably well over 300 when he adds it in.

People - don't be shy. I was 223W a year ago, and I would say based on what I read on various forums that there are lots of people at around 200W or lower. I'm guessing there is a big absolute power difference between males and females also.

pgibbo

Nwm2 wrote: »

The numbers up so far are probably above average, which may put people with lower numbers off. MCOS is probably well over 300 when he adds it in.

People - don't be shy. I was 223W a year ago, and I would say based on what I read on various forums that there are lots of people at around 200W or lower. I'm guessing there is a big absolute power difference between males and females also.

Roll up, roll up......I don't want to be Paddy last!

duffyshuffle

Waiting on my PT so will update when it arrives and I do some suffering

Notwitch

pgibbo wrote: »

Roll up, roll up......I don't want to be Paddy last!

Give it a bit of time. Scheduling a test plays a part too.

Also, now with the new '% movement off base' measure, rather than absolute value, the incentive is there to low ball the first number!!

Fazz

User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20+T20*0.95|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
twonpelota|250 watts|3.2|300watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|SRM
Fazz|255 watts|3.76|300 watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|Computrainer


Is it me or are some folks aiming too high for improvements?
Or else weight loss is a factor!

I think mine are gonna be hard to achieve and 4 watts per kg is my first and main milestone. The 4.4 is a top level goal of 300ftp.

I think the figures should be taken with a relative pinch of salt as calibration is a fair differential from device to device I'd say.
But the improvement tracker is the main aim and I'm going for 10-17%

Next cp20 is next week for me.

tunney

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »

Sure stick it up as it was included for everyone inclusive of turbos. Whilst it may be over inflated at least you recalibrate so there is consistency in your numbers and the repeat tests should show improvement through the season with an ultimate target in mind.

How did your T60 results compare to your T5+T20*0.95 numbers?

The mad thing about the over inflated taxc numbers is that if I were to take lets say the 20% probability out it would drop my FTP to about about 250w by your PM standards. That would put me about 35w behind you. Now, considering I'm about a minute slower than this guy over a 15km hilly TT course, I see bright things in your future on the saddle

The 2*T20 was a disaster, went too hard on the first one and died a death on the second, came out with alower FTP than 2010. The T60 was approached more cautiously and although I faded in the last 10 mins I held it together for an improvement on the T5+T20 result at the end of 2010. Which was not bad considering the IM programme was all endurance for me. I barely touched FTP over 80%. Th eimprovement is entirely related to focus on power in the last 2 months

Up to 20%, yours mightn't be. Although an ftp over 300 should mean/meant a sub five IM bike.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

@MCOS you are a stronger biker than me at the moment thats for sure but all that will change when i go into a secret training camp and come Barca time i will give you a right doing over. Right enough smack talk:)
Whilst i came across a large difference on my turbo and PM as Tunney says i would say yours is much less considering you posted a 5:05 (correct me if i am wrong) Given your race weight was probably 7-10kg heavier than me and taking an average aero position your FTP must have been around the 310-320 range on the turbo last year?

tunney wrote: »

Up to 20%, yours mightn't be. Although an ftp over 300 should mean/meant a sub five IM bike.

Not necessarily though as there are lots of variables as you well know:), weight of rider, cda, crr and the the main variable is each individual may pace differently some at 70% others at 75% or 80%.
I know personally for me an FTP of 300 would leave me pacing my IM bike split around 70% for 210watts and as MCOS reckons i weigh the same as a large pigeon:) it should get me a sub 5 bike split and still have fresh legs to run.

shotgunmcos

Fazz wrote: »

Is it me or are some folks aiming too high for improvements?
Or else weight loss is a factor!
.

I reckon WL is the defining factor actually

tunney wrote: »

Up to 20%, yours mightn't be. Although an ftp over 300 should mean/meant a sub five IM bike.

I suspected that I can't be that much off either. My heart rate corresponds generally with the zones, SS, LT, VO2 etc..

Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »

... come Barca time i will give you a right doing over. Right enough smack talk:)

I'm going to hold you to this. I now have it saved along side Tunney saying that no adult learner will ever crack 1:10/100m in a pool

Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »

Whilst i came across a large difference on my turbo and PM as Tunney says i would say yours is much less considering you posted a 5:05 (correct me if i am wrong) Given your race weight was probably 7-10kg heavier than me and taking an average aero position your FTP must have been around the 310-320 range on the turbo last year?
.

Race weight was 76kg. Bike was 5:03. I have never had a bike fit so I suspect there is more to come with a proper fit and being more aero etc..
I didn't really test FTP last winter. I was more concerned about my base fitness than power. I had done about 2 months of power work before the World AGs in Budapest and I had a flyer of a bike on the pan flat course (40kmh+ avg).

In Roth I found myself in pace groups with sub9 guys. I held them on the flats, passed them on descents and where I made my fundamental error was pushing too hard up hills. They were probably 5-6 kg less than me with several IMs under their belt. It was a rookie mistake that I believe together with a couple of other factors lead to my breakdown on the run.

FWIW my current FTP is 318w on the Taxc Flow and based on a T60. That puts me at 4.02w/kg. I have a 2*T20 test coming up this month and while I'd like to move the power in the right direction, I'd be satisfied to have the same output at 2kg less than the last test. I'd like to get my output to 4.5w/kg and realistically that requires an improvement to 330w and a drop of 6kg :eek: In reality though I need more than that. I need to spend time on the saddle cycling up hills too!

nerraw1111

So how would one go about doing an FTP test on a flow? Calib to zero, go hard for five mins, recover, hard for 20, post results and then wait for Tunney to rubbish it?

Is this how you lads and lasses measure progress?

shotgunmcos

nerraw1111 wrote: »

So how would one go about doing an FTP test on a flow? Calib to zero, go hard for five mins, recover, hard for 20, post results and then wait for Tunney to rubbish it?

Is this how you lads and lasses measure progress?

Calib to zero set brake to +1 then 3 options

1) warm up 10 mins with some 30sec bursts to raise your HR. Then 5 min TT all out. 10 min easy. 20 mins all out recording avg power and HR

2) warm up same. 20 min TT. 2 min rest. Another 20 min TT. Take average power and HR value of both to score

3) warm up same. 60 mins all out.

T runner

tunney wrote: »

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

Not even mathematics really uses numbers just for numbers sake Tunney!

No, this test can also be used as a comparison to previous tests to check progression or regression. Surely you note progression from one test to next and dont just use it solely to plot out a spectrum of general training intensities? Feedback is a vital part in guiding your training, and shouldnt be ignored.

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.

I disagree. All things otherwise being equal the cyclist whose specific event involves racing at 100% FTP will have a higher FTP than if his specific event involves racing at 75% FTP. It cant be any other way.

pgibbo

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Calib to zero set brake to +1 then 3 options

1) warm up 10 mins with some 30sec bursts to raise your HR. Then 5 min TT all out. 10 min easy. 20 mins all out recording avg power and HR

2) warm up same. 20 min TT. 2 min rest. Another 20 min TT. Take average power and HR value of both to score

3) warm up same. 60 mins all out.

I think setting the brake to +1 after calibration is key. I've found having both the output of the P2M and the flow visible that when you go to +1 on the brake that the power output figure for the flow reduces whereas it increases with the P2M. Jsut an observation and a sa result I think a brake of zero definitely gives more inflated figures.

2 & 3 above are just sadistic Mike!

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

pgibbo wrote: »

I think setting the brake to +1 after calibration is key. I've found having both the output of the P2M and the flow visible that when you go to +1 on the brake that the power output figure for the flow reduces whereas it increases with the P2M. Jsut an observation and a sa result I think a brake of zero definitely gives more inflated figures.

2 & 3 above are just sadistic Mike!

+1 on the slope setting its a more accurate reading on the turbo and the numbers go up to a level that compares with outside riding on the power meter.
Just on testing, options 2 & 3 are fine as once off tests but not repeat tests as they are too taxing on the body especially in the midst of heavy training and your sessions will suffer as a result.

@MCOS i was doing some rough calculations and you would probably need to be hitting about 220/5watts for a sub 5 bike with the 11kg weight deficit to a large pigeon like myself:).
Bringing it back to FTP's 300watts for me and 320watts for your good self and thats pacing at 70%.

Just seen my plan for next week, perfect timing with a T5+T20 coming up:)

tunney

Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »

+1 on the slope setting its a more accurate reading on the turbo and the numbers go up to a level that compares with outside riding on the power meter.
Just on testing, options 2 & 3 are fine as once off tests but not repeat tests as they are too taxing on the body especially in the midst of heavy training and your sessions will suffer as a result.

@MCOS i was doing some rough calculations and you would probably need to be hitting about 220/5watts for a sub 5 bike with the 11kg weight deficit to a large pigeon like myself:).
Bringing it back to FTP's 300watts for me and 320watts for your good self and thats pacing at 70%.

Just seen my plan for next week, perfect timing with a T5+T20 coming up:)

Sub 5 can be done on <210 watts for someone weighing around 68-70kg with a reasonable position.

tunney

T runner wrote: »

Not even mathematics really uses numbers just for numbers sake Tunney!

No, this test can also be used as a comparison to previous tests to check progression or regression. Surely you note progression from one test to next and dont just use it solely to plot out a spectrum of general training intensities? Feedback is a vital part in guiding your training, and shouldnt be ignored.

Main goal is guiding training. training with power is very different to training with HR. Progress is interesting, especially in a historical context but main goal is present training

T runner wrote: »

I disagree. All things otherwise being equal the cyclist whose specific event involves racing at 100% FTP will have a higher FTP than if his specific event involves racing at 75% FTP. It cant be any other way.

Agree to disagree.

nerraw1111

About to stick up my flow figures. Did T5 + T20 test on a flow and in doing so, I will lift Pquibbo from paddy last.

Quick question, when people say T5 + T20 * 0.95, are you adding the watts from T5 and T20 together and then multiplying that total by .95?