FTP shenanagins

[mtechnica]

Does anyone else think there’s a lot of shenanagins happening with regards to FTP numbers? I’m seriously skeptical about a lot of numbers I’m seeing online especially on forums. Beyond that, it appears that people come up with an FTP number then aren’t even able to replicate their supposed full FTP for 15-30 minute efforts, based on their power numbers on strava. I know performance varies day to day and over the course of a ride, but I have to say I’m skeptical that most people I see posting an FTP number can really do it for an hour. I’ve estimated my own FTP from ride data, not by any kind of FTP test, and my numbers relative to what I see people claiming are terrible, however my strava times seem to place me on par with people I shouldn’t be able to keep up with. Are there really that many people out there that can ACTUALLY maintain 300 watts continuously for an hour? The internet seems to think so however strava indicates that’s pro level performance and if I could do that, I could have near-KOM times even in the 170lb overweight range I’m in now, on popular (2500-5000 time) segments. Is there something I’m missing here? I’m sure I’m not underestimating my power or anything but I don’t understand how I can do a 20+ average on a normal road bike averaging in the low 200’s when people on slowtwitch are claiming a 280 watt FTP and barely going faster than I can go on a fixie, when they’re on a full on tri bike.

Thoughts?

[54ny77]

For security, I'd recommend using sftp protocol.

Oh wait, wrong forum.....

:D

[MattTuck]

Lots of things you're not considering. Firstly, drive train losses. Secondly, tire related losses. Thirdly, most of those guys ride around with a drag chute behind them for extra aero resistance. Fourthly, people on the internet are prone to exaggeration.

But more seriously, if you prepped and did a true FTP test, you may find yours is quite a bit higher than you think.

[superbowlpats]

LOL. it does seem that everyone over on Slowtwitch has a FTP north of 300W. I think the number is really only important to you with respect to training with power. There are number of testing protocols but for the most part I think most people could not actually hold their FTP for a full hour. And to do that requires that either you ride on a track or on a TT course that has no stop signs, cars to avoid, is flat etc. I use the Trainerroad Ramp test because the results seem to correlate with other rides I've done and its over the quickest of any other protocol. And I just use it for my TR workouts in Erg mode.

What is probably a better metric is W/kg. or W/CdA for a TT rider.

But like a lot of things, people think size matters and in this case Watts:banana:

[ergott]

There are definitely riders that "perform to the test" (my quote). Just means they are good at taking ftp tests.

I know for me my best ftp results are from virtual mountains on Zwift (Alpe and Epic KOM) It's harder to hold a power in bigger gears riding flat terrain and I don't have mountains anywhere near me. I did replicate my performance at Bear Mtn a couple summer ago so I think climbing indoors and outdoors might as well be the same for me (100% on the smart trainer).

If you look at the ftp modeling in WKO4 it takes into account multiple efforts at different lengths of time. Not only does it spit out a very repeatable ftp, it lets you know the contribution of aerobic vs anaerobic engine to that ftp. Routinely that means that my actual ftp is around 5W lower than Zwift or others estimate.

In the end, ftp is only good for setting up training zones anyway. If someone actually trains with zones and overestimates their ftp it only hurts them. It's a recipe for burning out and training overload. I say let them. Then blow their doors off by training correctly.

[ergott]

workouts in Erg mode.


At the suggestion of coaches smarter than me I'm slowly getting away from ERG mode for a lot of workouts. It forces you to pay attention to putting out the power yourself instead of relying on a machine to provide the resistance. Makes a difference when trying to duplicate efforts IRL. ERG has it's uses, but I think it's relied on too much for most.

[benb]

Perhaps. Everything is suspect on Strava. Lots of funny math in their software I think.

My FTP is in the 260-270 range when I'm fit.. I'm 41. A long long time ago I did OK in Cat 5 and Cat 4. I had a contract gig when I was a 5 that had zero stress & restricted hours. No responsibilities in my life. Crushed that season, I won one race with a solo breakaway that was like 10 miles. Then I got a startup job that fall and never have trained like that again. Life got in the way, I didn't want to be chronically single, had some health/diet issues that were way harder to figure out than they should have been. I met my wife 18 months after that Cat 5 solo breakaway... I'd be divorced for sure if I trained like that again.

Last season on more than one occasion I successfully hit 300w for 10 minutes doing intervals. Didn't get a single successful attempt at a 20 minute interval for a test all season. I have one particular loop near my house where I can do 10 minutes without any traffic controls. It has several downhills which hurt the # but it's the best I have. But you can't do 2 loops of it for 20 minutes as there is a dangerous 4 way stop at the end of the loop. 20 minutes without a really successful loop could take me through 2 different town centers where I live. Just not easy to find good places at all.

Two things I've noticed:
- My #s are way lower on a trainer unless you stick it in a wind tunnel. I am personally pretty susceptible to overheating. I have a hard time on the hottest days of the summer too, especially on really long rides. So really high #s achieved on the trainer seem more suspicious to me. For a 1 minute or 5 minute interval no problem, for a 20 minute interval.. I'd need a really really good setup. Otherwise I can feel my core temp go up and my HR starts to skyrocket while power goes down. Something that definitely doesn't happen outside.

- In the real world you're not going to actually do an uninterrupted 1 hour interval unless you're in a closed road course flat TT with a headwind the whole way or something or you have easy access to a world class mountain road.

I find it almost impossible to even find a good stretch of road to do a 20 minute interval for an FTP test in my area. No ride I've ever done where I tried to do a test was a really high quality test. There's always at least one of:
- Stop sign or light that you can't figure out a route around
- A really tight corner you have to stop pedaling
- A downhill that you can't seem to keep your power up during
- Wind that either helps you too much to keep your power up or throws you around to the point you can't pedal steadily enough

Not sure where you are, I very rarely will average 20+ mph for 1 hour completely solo. I might attempt to do that once a season or so as an alternate workout, and I can do it when I'm fit, but my average power is meaningless for that.. there is probably no place within a hundred miles of my house where you could do that as a steady effort because of all the factors I mentioned, meanwhile you will need to hammer out 400w up some of the hills to keep your average speed up, and I'd definitely coast down some of the hills to conserve energy too.

The only places I can think any of these rides/tests can be done meaningfully for me is major mountain climbs that would probably be near "HC" in the European systems. I could get a really good # if I paid $500 for a hotel room and an entry in the Mt. Washington hillclimb. There's pretty much no break going up that and it will take an hour for basically anyone who isn't a pro level climber and/or on EPO. But I've done it 2X and both times I had to stop pedaling at one point or be blown off the road! I could also drive 1 hour + into NH and did Rt. 101 up to Pack Monadnock. The actual Pack Monadnock summit road doesn't take 20 minutes to ride up. I rode up there once last year but I had rode 55 miles into a headwind with like 3000ft of climbing by the time I got up there, I was way too cooked to do a test once I got out there to a hill big enough to do it on.

Average speed with other riders is totally meaningless obviously.

For me chasing FTP with too many intervals is pretty dangerous in terms of burnout too. I would really like to say I got to 300 but it's a stretch. It does give me a training goal and something to chase since there's no way I'm racing again married with a kid, it'd be safer to take up skydiving or buy a motorcycle and go back to the racetrack.

[crankles]

For security, I'd recommend using sftp protocol.

Oh wait, wrong forum.....

:D

damn...beat me to it ya big nerd ;-)

[Bentley]

I trained at a local VQ studio for a couple of years and took the every other month FTP test. Let’s say it was NO FUN. Generally, with hard work I could improve my FTP 3-5 watts every couple of months, but there were a couple of plateaus, I had one month I did a bit more, but it was a lot of work to get small gains. If you were losing weight, maintaining was tough.

I can say we had a few guys pushing close to 300W, big guys, and a couple of young strong guys.

I know the pros push bigger numbers, but for a person with a life, 250W is not a bad number and it’s not a sign of weakness.

Ray

[FlashUNC]

I realize some of this is the marketing schtick, but I think there's something more to what Sufferfest is pushing with their multi-variable length power profiles. Tells a fuller story than just, how many watts can you hold for x amount of time.

And yeah, it's the Internet. Just assume everyone adds 30-50watts and 3-5 inches.

[benb]

I should add I do know a couple riders who have never bought a PM who I suspect are over 300w....

Riders who I would suspect are in that category meet most of these:
- Made it to Cat 1 or 2
- Have won races that were Pro/1/2, beating all the Pros
- Probably would have easily gone Pro if they had started racing younger
- Don't do anything else in life.. though some can manage to hang onto a family
- Probably don't own a car so they get extra miles commuting 100% of the time in any weather
- Absolutely fanatical about diet
- Got their bike fit nailed down really early, no issues like assymetric stuff going on with their bodies
- Ride around 10,000 miles a year every year for many years
- Average 19-20mph on "easy days" for 50 miles solo.

Basically found a way to live & train like a Pro while not being a Pro.

[Joxster]

I know my FTP because I test every month and I have done since I got my first SRM in 1990. There's discreapancys on Zwift and they are trying to manipulate users to use their power meter (more money to them) If you are using the same PM in your training and it's not too incosistant you'll be fine. Just don't use Stages or InfoCrank, the are consistantly inconsistant. FWIW my max Power is 2414W ans yes my SRM are callabrated correctly

My average speed on a training ride was 28mph, my get me home speed after I had blown 3 times was 22mph. When I was training properly I would ride at 31mph with a HR of 178bpm

[bigbill]

I've bought a KICKR over the winter so I've been tracking my FTP as it moves up in my profile and I gain fitness. In December it was 200 and now it's 229. I used to do sustained efforts on my old computrainer in erg mode at 270-300 watts for an hour at 85-90 rpm but I was still in my 30's. I think if I could get it up north of 250 I'd be happy and know I just need to lose weight to get faster.

As far as the Zwift world and guys blowing by you at 5w/kg until they're out of sight, they're likely the same guys that are averaging 52 mph on the slight uphill sprints and 25 mph on the steep climbs.

[Mark McM]

Some years ago, before power meters became common, I calculated a "real" FTP based on a real performance. I had just completed in the Mt. Washington Hill Climb race, and I knew my officially recorded time, the weight of me and my bike, and the USGS heights of the bottom and top of the Mt. Washington Auto Road. The laws of physics said that I couldn't have climbed that high in that time without averaging at least 215 Watts applied to the road for 1 hour and 20 minutes. Estimating additional losses for rolling resistance, air resistance and drivetrain losses, the power at the pedals was probably closer to 230 - 240 Watts. I only weighed about 142 lb. at the time, and my placing in the race was only middling. I can easily believe that a bigger and more talented rider can generate 300 Watts at FTP.

In recent years, the Mt. Washington Hill Climb add a Clydesdale category for the weight challenged climbers (190 lb. or more). The winning time in this category last year was 1:19:33, in a climb of 4780 feet. If you assume that the rider + bike weight must have been at least 200 lb (probably more), then this rider must have produced over 300 Watts for over an hour. Also consider that when Pro racers have done this race, they've typically done it under an hour. So the Clydesdale winner was some big guy (190+ lb) who climbed over 30% slower than a pro, who still put out a true 300+ Watts at FTP.

[echappist]

300W for an hour is not that uncommon; been there, done that, have the cat-3 (by definition mediocre) results to prove it. Most cat-3s are there or thereabouts, at ~70kg. The 40-min plus breaks I sustained saw me averaging ~260W for the duration, though granted one race was extraordinarily hot and humid, and the other had significant coasting. I did this on FTP of ~315-320W.

Maintaining 300W for two hours. now we getting somewhere. Cat 1/2 level, and doing well.

300W for three hours, even more rarified

what almost no one talks about is how is that power applied, and can one punch with the best in the group when needed. FTP doesn't help much there

btw, most of these are quite off
I should add I do know a couple riders who have never bought a PM who I suspect are over 300w....

Riders who I would suspect are in that category meet most of these:
- Made it to Cat 1 or 2
- Have won races that were Pro/1/2, beating all the Pros

these two are very different. Making it to cat-2 is relatively easy; making it to cat-1 is a lot harder. Beating pros requires another level or two of commitment


- Probably would have easily gone Pro if they had started racing younger

not me


- Don't do anything else in life.. though some can manage to hang onto a family
- Probably don't own a car so they get extra miles commuting 100% of the time in any weather

also don't apply to me


- Absolutely fanatical about diet


you should see how much sweets i ate back then; though i will say, i burned enough calories that it didn't matter that much

- Got their bike fit nailed down really early, no issues like assymetric stuff going on with their bodies

perhaps; though my old position now bothers me


- Ride around 10,000 miles a year every year for many years


most i did was 7,500 miles one year; otherwise averaged ~6-6.5k/year

- Average 19-20mph on "easy days" for 50 miles solo.

Easy would be putting around at 60% FTP; i could do 19-20 mph on relatively flat loops at 70% (when it's nice out), but no way 60%

[mtechnica]

LOL. it does seem that everyone over on Slowtwitch has a FTP north of 300W. I think the number is really only important to you with respect to training with power. There are number of testing protocols but for the most part I think most people could not actually hold their FTP for a full hour. And to do that requires that either you ride on a track or on a TT course that has no stop signs, cars to avoid, is flat etc. I use the Trainerroad Ramp test because the results seem to correlate with other rides I've done and its over the quickest of any other protocol. And I just use it for my TR workouts in Erg mode.

What is probably a better metric is W/kg. or W/CdA for a TT rider.

But like a lot of things, people think size matters and in this case Watts:banana:

I agree that w/kg and w/cda combined in some way is the best metric because ftp doesn’t account for weight or aero. The question is how many watts are you able to sustain, even the famous w/kg chart we’ve all seen seems pretty optimistic IMHO unless those numbers are representative of that riders best ever performance of their life that they can’t replicate on a regular basis. Kind of like the ftp tests, like I said everyone claims to have a 300 watt ftp and even on the chart that might not be exceptional but when you look at strava leaderboards with the power meter next to their performances 300 watts is borderline elite on many segments. Granted most of the top guys are in the 140-160lb range.

[laupsi]

I agree w/the OP; I've done TR ramp tests and 20' TP tests which puts my FTP at a level that is higher than what I think I could do for a solid hour. I also know that at an age of over 50 I will never have the courage or stamina to ride for an hour to find out what that number actually is. This said, I am confident that my FTP is lower than what a segmented test would interpret.

[Joxster]

I've bought a KICKR over the winter so I've been tracking my FTP as it moves up in my profile and I gain fitness. In December it was 200 and now it's 229. I used to do sustained efforts on my old computrainer in erg mode at 270-300 watts for an hour at 85-90 rpm but I was still in my 30's. I think if I could get it up north of 250 I'd be happy and know I just need to lose weight to get faster.

As far as the Zwift world and guys blowing by you at 5w/kg until they're out of sight, they're likely the same guys that are averaging 52 mph on the slight uphill sprints and 25 mph on the steep climbs.

These guys lie about their weight and can't ride in the real world because of head/side winds. Much like the morons on websites that tell you what's best for your bike because a 10yr old on another website told them it's the best thing in the world to have

[mtechnica]

I know my FTP because I test every month and I have done since I got my first SRM in 1990. There's discreapancys on Zwift and they are trying to manipulate users to use their power meter (more money to them) If you are using the same PM in your training and it's not too incosistant you'll be fine. Just don't use Stages or InfoCrank, the are consistantly inconsistant. FWIW my max Power is 2414W ans yes my SRM are callabrated correctly

My average speed on a training ride was 28mph, my get me home speed after I had blown 3 times was 22mph. When I was training properly I would ride at 31mph with a HR of 178bpm

Good grief lol :banana:

[Joxster]

Good grief lol :banana:

Pro Tour and Olympics rider

[laupsi]

300W for an hour is not that uncommon;

I disagree. there may riders/ametuer racers who can put out this kind of power; it is however an uncommon trait among most cyclists or to normalize things, it is highly doubtful there are lots of non-pros, young and old, who could ride at or above 4 w/kg for an hour long effort.

[zap]

Does anyone else think there’s a lot of shenanagins happening with regards to FTP numbers? I’m seriously skeptical about a lot of numbers I’m seeing online especially on forums.

The internet is not the real world so sack of salt.

Now, I will tell you that my ftp is south of 300 and am happy to go on a ride with any formite to prove it :banana:

[nooneline]

I agree w/the OP; I've done TR ramp tests and 20' TP tests which puts my FTP at a level that is higher than what I think I could do for a solid hour.

This is not uncommon. Defining FTP as "your max output for an hour" is an extremely flawed estimate of the aerobic threshold. How long you can hold your FTP for is a whole different measure...

[mtechnica]

This is not uncommon. Defining FTP as "your max output for an hour" is an extremely flawed estimate of the aerobic threshold. How long you can hold your FTP for is a whole different measure...

I was under the impression that by definition 1hr power is = FTP, if you can’t hold the power for an hour it isn’t your FTP? Like the above poster claimed he had a 300+ watt ftp yet averaged 260 watts in a 40 minute breakaway due to “factors”... this is what I’m talking about.

[laupsi]

I was under the impression that by definition 1hr power is = FTP, if you can’t hold the power for an hour it isn’t your FTP? Like the above poster claimed he had a 300+ watt ftp yet averaged 260 watts in a 40 minute breakaway due to “factors”... this is what I’m talking about.

to add more to the argument; there is a big difference between 295 watts and 300 watts, even for 20'.

[unterhausen]

FTP is not one hour power. That's just a convenient way to think about it.

There is a trainerroad forum where they are running an unofficial ftp challenge - ride your ftp for an hour. There is a workout that is just one interval at ftp for an hour. Many people have done it. Who knows if they are sandbagging on the ftp number or not?

https://forum.trainerroad.com/t/the-ftp-challenge/12430/113

[adub]

"Comparison is the thief of joy"

[echappist]

I disagree. there may riders/ametuer racers who can put out this kind of power; it is however an uncommon trait among most cyclists or to normalize things, it is highly doubtful there are lots of non-pros, young and old, who could ride at or above 4 w/kg for an hour long effort.

true, but it's usually achievable for close to half (that's what Dr. Coggan estimated)

This is not uncommon. Defining FTP as "your max output for an hour" is an extremely flawed estimate of the aerobic threshold. How long you can hold your FTP for is a whole different measure...

FTP is the max one could hold for an hour. That's the definition

aerobic threshold, otoh, doesn't have a precise definition. There's the power for 4.0 mmol steady state, ventilatory threshold, MLSS, etc. All slightly different. But the duration is baked into FTP

I was under the impression that by definition 1hr power is = FTP, if you can’t hold the power for an hour it isn’t your FTP? Like the above poster claimed he had a 300+ watt ftp yet averaged 260 watts in a 40 minute breakaway due to “factors”... this is what I’m talking about.

last 40 minutes of 2 hr 20 to 2 hr 40 minute race :)

if i were to test solely for max hour power, i might get something else, but that effort per se won't help me do well in races (another thing focusing on FTP per se would miss)

to add more to the argument; there is a big difference between 295 watts and 300 watts, even for 20'.

this is the part that few appreciates. Cost of marginal energy is not scaled linearly, b/c riding over threshold tips things out of a finely balanced steady state.

[nate2351]

FTP fluctuates with fitness.

Here's an example from a year of racing in my late 20s. I did a test in November after a few weeks off that put me at 240w, I did a test in the spring before racing that said 280w, and from a 1hr crit in July was 320w.

80 watts from peak off season to peak racing season.

[laupsi]

true, but it's usually achievable for close to half (that's what Dr. Coggan estimated)

I’ll just say I disagree w/the good doctor. achievable equals not achieve. for various reasons, but the biggie; most could not endure the pain/suffering of getting them to this level of fitness and this is the big rub!

[makoti]

At the suggestion of coaches smarter than me I'm slowly getting away from ERG mode for a lot of workouts. It forces you to pay attention to putting out the power yourself instead of relying on a machine to provide the resistance. Makes a difference when trying to duplicate efforts IRL. ERG has it's uses, but I think it's relied on too much for most.

Lately, I've been doing one non-erg workout a week for just this reason. There's a mental aspect to workouts & hard riding that needs to be trained, as well. For just holding a wattage for X long, erg is great. For training to adjust to hold that wattage when it will drop if you don't pay attention (IE: real life), it is lacking.

[nooneline]

I was under the impression that by definition 1hr power is = FTP, if you can’t hold the power for an hour it isn’t your FTP? Like the above poster claimed he had a 300+ watt ftp yet averaged 260 watts in a 40 minute breakaway due to “factors”... this is what I’m talking about.

No. That's a very rough shorthand that people use, and it's extremely misleading. Coggan, who developed the term/analysis FTP, defines it as “the highest power a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state without fatiguing.”

Your FTP (functional threshold power) is the power output at which you are at your aerobic threshold - the max output of your body's ability to fuel your muscles aerobically - that is, with oxygen, without dipping into other fuel sources.

Wouldn't it be a little strangely coincidental for this threshold to be able to last for the amount of time we use to divide up a day? Or for it to be the same for everybody?

TTE is the other part of the equation: time to exhaustion - how long you can ride at your threshold.

[ergott]

I disagree. there may riders/ametuer racers who can put out this kind of power; it is however an uncommon trait among most cyclists or to normalize things, it is highly doubtful there are lots of non-pros, young and old, who could ride at or above 4 w/kg for an hour long effort.

I'm almost there. I can do 4w/kg for 20+ minutes, but best hour so far is 3.7w/kg. I still think I can get closer this season. Still barely out of winter right now.

wasn't even my PR up Alpe, I ramped up effort then ran out of mountain
https://www.strava.com/activities/2193965623/overview

[dem]

I think a lot of this is where you live and how many strong riders there are.

At 4.2/wkg, I usually land in the top 5 or 10% of >20 minute climbs around here, which for me is right around 305W threshold (or 325ish for 20 minutes)

So on a climb with 2000 people attempting, 200 of them are north of those kind of numbers. So I wouldn't call that unusual or rare.

Get into the 1% and .1% and that's crazy bananas fast, especially for multiple hours.

[echappist]

deleted

[nate2351]

This always boils down to the fact that there are more factors to racing than just your watts/kilo. Unless we’re talking Strava, race craft is much more important if you just race local.

I know from experience 5 wkg looks great on paper but you have to race smart or it’s usless.

[nooneline]

This always boils down to the fact that there are more factors to racing than just your watts/kilo. Unless we’re talking Strava, race craft is much more important if you just race local.

I know from experience 5 wkg looks great on paper but you have to race smart or it’s usless.

very true. for a while i was coaching a rider who, in w/kg (and raw w) could do more for 5-20 minutes than i could... but i was 3 categories higher than he was. he could ride me off his wheel when we rode together, but he wasn't great at making speed in races or finishing them off.

[bitpuddle]

Why would one care about such a thing?

[laupsi]

I'm almost there. I can do 4w/kg for 20+ minutes, but best hour so far is 3.7w/kg. I still think I can get closer this season. Still barely out of winter right now.

wasn't even my PR up Alpe, I ramped up effort then ran out of mountain
https://www.strava.com/activities/2193965623/overview

keep at it and best of luck. the additional .3 w/kg will take a lot of focus, but you won't know till you put in the effort. my last 20' test brought me to 3.9, so close, but that additional .10 is a daunting no.

[tctyres]

No. That's a very rough shorthand that people use, and it's extremely misleading. Coggan, who developed the term/analysis FTP, defines it as “the highest power a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state without fatiguing.”

Your FTP (functional threshold power) is the power output at which you are at your aerobic threshold - the max output of your body's ability to fuel your muscles aerobically - that is, with oxygen, without dipping into other fuel sources.
...

TTE is the other part of the equation: time to exhaustion - how long you can ride at your threshold.

^ This.

The fatigue profile is different for different riders. If a rider trains for getting max power over 20 mins, then it is unlikely they will be able to hold 95% of their 20 minute power for an hour.

To ride 95% of max 20 minute power for an hour, a rider needs to train.

[echappist]

keep at it and best of luck. the additional .3 w/kg will take a lot of focus, but you won't know till you put in the effort. my last 20' test brought me to 3.9, so close, but that additional .10 is a daunting no.

I'm almost there. I can do 4w/kg for 20+ minutes, but best hour so far is 3.7w/kg. I still think I can get closer this season. Still barely out of winter right now.

wasn't even my PR up Alpe, I ramped up effort then ran out of mountain
https://www.strava.com/activities/2193965623/overview

good luck to you both

[nooneline]

^ This.

The fatigue profile is different for different riders. If a rider trains for getting max power over 20 mins, then it is unlikely they will be able to hold 95% of their 20 minute power for an hour.

To ride 95% of max 20 minute power for an hour, a rider needs to train.

my experience with this is training a lot of 20 minute power for a little while - steady, dynamic, you name it. got to a point where i could absolutely destroy a 20-minute test, but i was really stressed by races that went longer than 50 minuted, and i think i'd have struggled to do 80% of my 20-min max for 60 minutes. i've shifted my training - my 60-120minute power is a lot better than it was before, but i've had to give my 20-min power a haircut!

[Clean39T]

I think a lot of this is where you live and how many strong riders there are.



At 4.2/wkg, I usually land in the top 5 or 10% of >20 minute climbs around here, which for me is right around 305W threshold (or 325ish for 20 minutes)



So on a climb with 2000 people attempting, 200 of them are north of those kind of numbers. So I wouldn't call that unusual or rare.



Get into the 1% and .1% and that's crazy bananas fast, especially for multiple hours.Tailwinds, leadouts - there's a big portion of that gap...



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[echappist]

my experience with this is training a lot of 20 minute power for a little while - steady, dynamic, you name it. got to a point where i could absolutely destroy a 20-minute test, but i was really stressed by races that went longer than 50 minuted, and i think i'd have struggled to do 80% of my 20-min max for 60 minutes. i've shifted my training - my 60-120minute power is a lot better than it was before, but i've had to give my 20-min power a haircut!

my coach started discounting my 20-min power and haircutting my FTP ever since we started working together

First year I worked with him, I did a climb at 330W for slightly more than 20 minutes (Bear Mt); his remarks? Seems like your FTP is right around 305-310.

A few years later, I did 315W for 30 minutes at the tail end of a ~1hr 45 min race (in a 2-man break). His remark? 290W for FTP seems reasonable for now (this after doing a hard race the previous day).

I think there was a psychological component to why he dismisses it, b/c people too often get focused on that one number (kinda like how NFL fans focus mostly on that flashy 40-yd dash time while paying less attention to other indicators). What i'm trying to say is that long-duration aerobic power have a lot of qualitative use, but themselves don't mean much, unless there's a 20 min long hill to climb (which is almost never). However, that doesn't stop many from aiming for higher 20 or 30-min steady state power, at the expense of power that really matters in most road racing around the country (repeatable 3-8 min efforts).

So despite being a cat-4 the year i first started working with my coach and doing successful cat-3 breakaways in my last year of mass start racing, my in-form FTP didn't increase that much at all (305W first year to 315W-320W in that last year), and my peak 20 min probably didn't go up that much either (330W to perhaps 340W). The difference, however, was that I was able to punch to get a gap and then hold it (while still going above FTP) for another 5-10 minutes, so that I was able to weather the flurry of actions in the pack. By the time I had to drop below threshold (have to, or else i'd blow), the strong riders in the pack played their cards, but I still had a gap. That's when you let psychology take over, and those remaining realize that the break isn't coming back for a good while (or ever).

This is what allowed me to be at the table with people who probably got at least 5% on me.

now, different story, if we are talking ITT

[smctigue1]

I agree w/the OP; I've done TR ramp tests and 20' TP tests which puts my FTP at a level that is higher than what I think I could do for a solid hour. I also know that at an age of over 50 I will never have the courage or stamina to ride for an hour to find out what that number actually is. This said, I am confident that my FTP is lower than what a segmented test would interpret.

Yeah, same here. Although I do believe the TR ramp test gives me a number that works well for the TR training I don't believe for a second that I could hold that power for an hour.

[bigbill]

Last night I did Zwift on the Richmond course which is about 10 miles with just under 500 feet of climbing, all in the last few miles. I turned and burned on the first lap setting a new PR at around 27 minutes. I flopped and flailed the second lap at 30 minutes but Zwift moved my FTP up to 237w from 229w based on the effort. My average for the hour including warmup and cooldown was 215w. I may try a flat course for an hour just to see.

[mt2u77]

Like the OP, I'm skeptical-- and I don't think it's just people inflating their FTP online. There is big money to be made on indoor cycling, and part of capturing that market is making people feel good about themselves. If you're marketing an erg trainer, do you think a customer is going to feel better about your product if they think they just crushed a PB and it spits out an impressive FTP, or if on the other hand it reads low and they leave feeling weak and deflated? Advantage: calibrate a little high. I'm not claiming a gross error, just that over a few product cycles, in a competitive landscape, I can see how power values could creep up a few %.

Then there's the test methodologies going the way of 6 minute abs. The result is it's easier to train for the test-- the shorter the test, the more you can train for it anaerobically (cue recent cycling magazine articles about improving FTP by lifting weights). A bike at the gym even has a built in 5-minute FTP test--LOL.

The two factors above can be plausibly denied by the consumer-- "I'm just doing what it told me to do/reporting what it says." Add in the social media factor, and it's pretty easy to see how people would cut the corners on these tests or just straight up inflate the number.

So yeah, I think the typical reported value is high, whether intentional or not.

That said, I don't think 290-300W is all that crazy for an 80+ kg guy who trains for steady state. I might even be able to relate.:eek: That same guy will get smoked in any type of bike race that doesn't involve a flat TT effort.

[tctyres]

Last night I did Zwift on the Richmond course which is about 10 miles with just under 500 feet of climbing, all in the last few miles. I turned and burned on the first lap setting a new PR at around 27 minutes. I flopped and flailed the second lap at 30 minutes but Zwift moved my FTP up to 237w from 229w based on the effort. My average for the hour including warmup and cooldown was 215w. I may try a flat course for an hour just to see.

For something like this, Zwift is probably taking your best effort power with time and fitting a curve to it. I know that is what Golden Cheetah does. In Golden Cheetah, you can actually select the type of curve fit you want as well as the duration of data (from the last 7 days to all time). Short term movements in your power curve can indicate that you are getting stronger but just beware that any calculation is just that -- a calculation.

[benb]

Heh.. I forgot to mention I tried Zwift on some fancy pants trainer at an LBS recently.

The bike was a 54cm, 1-2 sizes too small for me. Wrong size cranks, wrong seat height, I was wearing jeans and the bike had flat pedals and I had sneakers on. I.e. everything setup for me to make less power than normal. I'm really out of shape right now.

Get on and immediately it's saying 300+ watts giving a moderate effort not warmed up... really suspicious. It was probably a lot closer to 200.

It'd be REALLY easy to be clueless about calibration. Who knows. It was a direct drive trainer so it shouldn't be off that much.

[echappist]

Like the OP, I'm skeptical-- and I don't think it's just people inflating their FTP online. There is big money to be made on indoor cycling, and part of capturing that market is making people feel good about themselves. If you're marketing an erg trainer, do you think a customer is going to feel better about your product if they think they just crushed a PB and it spits out an impressive FTP, or if on the other hand it reads low and they leave feeling weak and deflated? Advantage: calibrate a little high. I'm not claiming a gross error, just that over a few product cycles, in a competitive landscape, I can see how power values could creep up a few %.

Then there's the test methodologies going the way of 6 minute abs. The result is it's easier to train for the test-- the shorter the test, the more you can train for it anaerobically (cue recent cycling magazine articles about improving FTP by lifting weights). A bike at the gym even has a built in 5-minute FTP test--LOL.

The two factors above can be plausibly denied by the consumer-- "I'm just doing what it told me to do/reporting what it says." Add in the social media factor, and it's pretty easy to see how people would cut the corners on these tests or just straight up inflate the number.

So yeah, I think the typical reported value is high, whether intentional or not.

That said, I don't think 290-300W is all that crazy for an 80+ kg guy who trains for steady state. I might even be able to relate.:eek: That same guy will get smoked in any type of bike race that doesn't involve a flat TT effort.

imagine people's disappointment when they invariably plateau (or even experience decline)

[tctyres]

imagine people's disappointment when they invariably plateau (or even experience decline)

I just descend.

(rimshot)

[bigbill]

Heh.. I forgot to mention I tried Zwift on some fancy pants trainer at an LBS recently.

The bike was a 54cm, 1-2 sizes too small for me. Wrong size cranks, wrong seat height, I was wearing jeans and the bike had flat pedals and I had sneakers on. I.e. everything setup for me to make less power than normal. I'm really out of shape right now.

Get on and immediately it's saying 300+ watts giving a moderate effort not warmed up... really suspicious. It was probably a lot closer to 200.

It'd be REALLY easy to be clueless about calibration. Who knows. It was a direct drive trainer so it shouldn't be off that much.

When I immediately start, my wattage is over 300w as well. It's torque. Most trainers, I have a KICKR are sensitive to changes in torque and if I'm in a group or moving through one, my wattage will be all over the place while I'm moving up or back. I'll cruise at 190-200 watts unless I'm doing some special effort or climbing. It doesn't take that much of a change in the torque I'm applying to go over 300 until I steady out again. I do the calibration cycle on my Wahoo about once a week at the end of a ride when everything is warm.

[wallymann]

a guy i ride with, well we start rides with along with others in a big group at the same time, has logged +320W average power rides of 90 minutes on strava using a powermeter to capture data. it's not a proper FTP test, but he's doing this power for longer than 60 minutes so it's legit.

some people did a nice job of picking their parents *and* training to do something with their gifts.

Does anyone else think there’s a lot of shenanagins happening with regards to FTP numbers? I’m seriously skeptical about a lot of numbers I’m seeing online especially on forums. Beyond that, it appears that people come up with an FTP number then aren’t even able to replicate their supposed full FTP for 15-30 minute efforts, based on their power numbers on strava. I know performance varies day to day and over the course of a ride, but I have to say I’m skeptical that most people I see posting an FTP number can really do it for an hour. I’ve estimated my own FTP from ride data, not by any kind of FTP test, and my numbers relative to what I see people claiming are terrible, however my strava times seem to place me on par with people I shouldn’t be able to keep up with. Are there really that many people out there that can ACTUALLY maintain 300 watts continuously for an hour? The internet seems to think so however strava indicates that’s pro level performance and if I could do that, I could have near-KOM times even in the 170lb overweight range I’m in now, on popular (2500-5000 time) segments. Is there something I’m missing here? I’m sure I’m not underestimating my power or anything but I don’t understand how I can do a 20+ average on a normal road bike averaging in the low 200’s when people on slowtwitch are claiming a 280 watt FTP and barely going faster than I can go on a fixie, when they’re on a full on tri bike.

Thoughts?

[benb]

When I immediately start, my wattage is over 300w as well. It's torque. Most trainers, I have a KICKR are sensitive to changes in torque and if I'm in a group or moving through one, my wattage will be all over the place while I'm moving up or back. I'll cruise at 190-200 watts unless I'm doing some special effort or climbing. It doesn't take that much of a change in the torque I'm applying to go over 300 until I steady out again. I do the calibration cycle on my Wahoo about once a week at the end of a ride when everything is warm.

99% sure this wasn't a Wahoo.. can't remember the brand but it wasn't Wahoo.

But I wasn't talking about the initial spike.. my Stages does that outside for sure, so does my Tacx IIRC.

This was like a few minutes, long enough to stabilize. I rode it long enough to get to try the video game. I was definitely riding it, I was starting to warm up, the readings just seemed high. Just made sure to quit before I started to sweat.

[Heisenberg]

everything is a lie

https://i.imgur.com/bx48Pjd.png

https://i.imgur.com/MKBtQR4.png

[echappist]

everything is a lie

https://i.imgur.com/bx48Pjd.png

https://i.imgur.com/MKBtQR4.png

coming from you, i've gotta doubt the certainty of your pronouncement

[Heisenberg]

coming from you, i've gotta doubt the certainty of your pronouncement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxnqHvEbGnc

[mtechnica]

I never said I don’t think anyone can do it, I just think it seems like less people have a 1hr power in excess of 300 watts than many sources would lead one to believe.

[Heisenberg]

I never said I don’t think anyone can do it, I just think it seems like less people have a 1hr power in excess of 300 watts than many sources would lead one to believe.

it is impressive to log onto zwift and discover a laundry list of people with FTPs well over 5.5 w/kg

so much undiscovered talent! if only there was money in bicycle racing.

[bigbill]

it is impressive to log onto zwift and discover a laundry list of people with FTPs well over 5.5 w/kg

so much undiscovered talent! if only there was money in bicycle racing.

I quickly discovered this too. My rides go into my Strava and for fun I'll look and see how my 28,346 ranked sprint stacked up against the top 10 and see that they are all tied at 52 mph. Then there's the guy who did the 5.6 mile hilly loop in 12 minutes. My best sprint on Zwift was at 990 watts but some guy still went by like I was standing still. I compete against myself and so far I'm winning.

[BikeNY]

A brief browse of this thread makes me glad I have no idea what FTP is...

[Wayne77]

I'm almost there. I can do 4w/kg for 20+ minutes, but best hour so far is 3.7w/kg. I still think I can get closer this season. Still barely out of winter right now.

wasn't even my PR up Alpe, I ramped up effort then ran out of mountain
https://www.strava.com/activities/2193965623/overview

Similar experience here...I hit an FTP PR going up Alpe du Zwift. 309 Watts. I wasn’t trying to PR, I was just super amped, felt good, and once I hit the base of the climb I was really warmed up and some magic happened and that little voice in my head just kept yelling at me to go harder. For some reason I was able to. Maybe it was the music I was listening to, the burrito I had the night before, good sleep, I have no idea. I do a structured FTP test 3-4x a year and I’ve never been able to hit above 297W. I’ve had a handful of Training Peaks ‘new FTP threshold detected’ 20 min efforts during short intense races north of 300W however.

My problem is consistency. I can never get those once in a while ‘ready to kill it and keep killing it’ days to coincide with a race. They always seem to occur during rides where I went into the ride not specifically expecting some monster effort.

I’ve also done everything by the book leading up to a race...nutrition, proper taper, sleep, scripted to the nth degree race morning routines, then started the race feeling like something special was going to happen only to have the race turn into a run of the mill meat n’ taters Cat4 mid pack effort. Meh.

So my takeaway from all that is that there are so many variables layered on top of by-the-book-training that I haven’t figured out yet. So this year I’m going to stop overthinking it, obsess much less about numbers, and just try to have fun. We’ll see if that nets out to overall better racing...but regardless...at least I’ll be having more fun.

[Wayne77]

I quickly discovered this too. My rides go into my Strava and for fun I'll look and see how my 28,346 ranked sprint stacked up against the top 10 and see that they are all tied at 52 mph. Then there's the guy who did the 5.6 mile hilly loop in 12 minutes. My best sprint on Zwift was at 990 watts but some guy still went by like I was standing still. I compete against myself and so far I'm winning.

I don’t pay attention to W/kg on Zwift. It takes all of 5 seconds for someone to go into their profile and bump their weight down. Weight doping. If that gets people off, that’s their deal. All I know is when I do the occasional Zwift race, my personal numbers are real and there’s a good chance a lot of the other guys at the front are racing legitimately as well...at least their HR seems to support that. I walk away from a Zwift race feeling every bit as destroyed as I do after a real race. The way I look at it is some of the best race training is to race. So Zwift offers that and I find it immensely beneficial relative to standard interval sessions. Others may feel differently but it’s been a good way to incrementally improve my race fitness beyond just focusing on FTP.

[joosttx]

Have you tried Whoop to dail in your recovery? It maybe worth a shot.

Similar experience here...I hit an FTP PR going up Alpe du Zwift. 309 Watts. I wasn’t trying to PR, I was just super amped, felt good, and once I hit the base of the climb I was really warmed up and some magic happened and that little voice in my head just kept yelling at me to go harder. For some reason I was able to. Maybe it was the music I was listening to, the burrito I had the night before, good sleep, I have no idea. I do a structured FTP test 3-4x a year and I’ve never been able to hit above 297W. I’ve had a handful of Training Peaks ‘new FTP threshold detected’ 20 min efforts during short intense races north of 300W however.

My problem is consistency. I can never get those once in a while ‘ready to kill it and keep killing it’ days to coincide with a race. They always seem to occur during rides where I went into the ride not specifically expecting some monster effort.

I’ve also done everything by the book leading up to a race...nutrition, proper taper, sleep, scripted to the nth degree race morning routines, then started the race feeling like something special was going to happen only to have the race turn into a run of the mill meat n’ taters Cat4 mid pack effort. Meh.

So my takeaway from all that is that there are so many variables layered on top of by-the-book-training that I haven’t figured out yet. So this year I’m going to stop overthinking it, obsess much less about numbers, and just try to have fun. We’ll see if that nets out to overall better racing...but regardless...at least I’ll be having more fun.

[benb]

Have you tried Whoop to dail in your recovery? It maybe worth a shot.

Had to look at what this was... $18/month and up for a proprietary HRM wrist band and software that claims to predict your recovery state mostly based on Heart Rate Variability.

Doesn't sound like the best deal knowing what we all know about wrist HRM monitors and motion based sleep monitoring.

I would feel way more confident trying something like that without the fairly hefty monthly fee and knowing the data/algorithms were public and had been vetted by top coaches.

I'd never do that over paying for an actual coach.

[Wayne77]

Have you tried Whoop to dail in your recovery? It maybe worth a shot.

Interesting. Thanks for the heads up. I’m a sucker for this sort of thing. It actually seems like a pretty sound concept. I do agree that there are downsides to wrist based HR monitors, but they apply to accurate HR tracking during intensity workouts. However, they are very accurate during sleep and normal daily activity. The use case here appears to apply much more to those metrics than what is going on during a workout.

In any case, I went ahead and signed up more out of curiosity than anything. There is a good upside if it works out and at a minimum the sleep tracking / activity monitor aspect will provide some value regardless of whether it nets out to improved recovery and performance gains. Tracking of resting HR has many overall general health benefits beyond just athletic performance. My general feeling on tools like this is that there are many ways to skin the cat, ie there are undoubtedly other ways to get similar metrics, but the mechanism itself (in this case a device with an app) can also be a driver. For some people, this delivery approach may add zero value...for tech nerds like me, maybe it’s a good way to get one in the right mindset (being more mindful of sleep, resting HR, etc)

I’ll likely post another thread on experiences after I’ve had it for awhile.

FWIW, I also wouldn’t do this over paying for coaching services or even investing in a good power meter.

[redir]

A few months ago when I started Zwift winter training I did their FTP test and pulled a 3.9kg/w. It is a 20 minute test ride and they take your average wattage and multiply it by a fudge factor to estimate what you could do for an hour. I honestly doubt I could hold 3.9 for an hour. So yeah, it seems a bit off to me too.

Besides that I wonder what the value for FTP is in road racing anyway. I can see it being important in TT's or of course something like the hour record. Probably important in cyclocross too. But in road racing there is a lot more to it. I think in road racing 5 minute and 20 minute efforts are more important for things like bridging gaps and breaking away.

[benb]

I don't know why they'd be applying a fudge factor instead of the standard value, isn't it 20 minute power * 0.95 according to Coggan, etc.. ?

This is the same thing I don't get with Strava not using the established formulas and instead coming up with their own thing that approximates the standards.

One other thing about funky #s. I had my PM break in 2016 and the ride it broke on I was immediately suspicious, but if you didn't notice right away or the failure was more subtle you could think your FTP/#s were creeping up. Mine broke in a way that made it look like I was making about a 30 watt gain. 30 watts is not particularly subtle to me but I could see someone missing it I guess.

[R3awak3n]

/\ yeah I don't think their FTP test is any different than any other ftp tests

[redir]

I just didn't remember what the number was so I called it a fudge factor. I still think I can KILL myself for 20 minutes, get an FTP value and not be able to ride that for an hour. I've not tried it though and I would not look forward to trying it either :D

[ergott]

Besides that I wonder what the value for FTP is in road racing anyway.

It's only real value is in creating workout zones for training. If you aren't training intervals in designated zones there's no reason to bother.

[Joxster]

A brief browse of this thread makes me glad I have no idea what FTP is...

Its the level of hurt you put yourself in for an hour, just before you puke and fall off the turbo. A good test is 6kg and 20mins before you can see again

[redir]

It's only real value is in creating workout zones for training. If you aren't training intervals in designated zones there's no reason to bother.

Ok I see. I guess I could also see it as a tool in say an hour long CX race. If you know you can pull off 300 whats for one hour then you can watch that number as you race and make sure you keep to it. Of course my guess is that people would produce more then their FTP under the stress of a race and so it could actually be a hindrance too.

[ergott]

Problem is you can't look at your computer in a race like cyclocross. You can only analyze after.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[mtechnica]

Ok I see. I guess I could also see it as a tool in say an hour long CX race. If you know you can pull off 300 whats for one hour then you can watch that number as you race and make sure you keep to it. Of course my guess is that people would produce more then their FTP under the stress of a race and so it could actually be a hindrance too.

What I had in mind while making the thread was that it seems like people rarely if ever hit their supposed FTP for an hour, so I’d agree it’s not a good idea to bank on being able to ride your FTP for an hour if it was derived from an effort lasting less than an hour. I agree with what other people have said though about shorter efforts being potentially more useful to quantify, I guess to me being able to see your full power curve would be the most helpful, however once again people often seem to base their power abilities on their best performance which could be more or less than what they’re capable but almost certainly less since in a race you probably won’t be completely fresh.

I agree also that the power profile and FTP are mostly useful for training, and useful to a much lesser degree for monitoring your performance while riding.

[redir]

Why not? What I am saying is that for example if your FTP is 300 wats then when you are in a CX race or a TT you can watch that 'dial' and make sure you are holding 300 watts plus or minus 10-20 for the whole race. Does that make sense? I may be misunderstanding the concept of FTP.

[benb]

Why not? What I am saying is that for example if your FTP is 300 wats then when you are in a CX race or a TT you can watch that 'dial' and make sure you are holding 300 watts plus or minus 10-20 for the whole race. Does that make sense? I may be misunderstanding the concept of FTP.

That kind of make sense except for those times when you gotta outsprint everyone else or run up a hill or stop pedaling to go around a 180 degree hairpin turn in the mud or wet grass.

Cross power profiles don't look anything like a steady effort. Lower efforts in between lots of maximum efforts.

[mtechnica]

Why not? What I am saying is that for example if your FTP is 300 wats then when you are in a CX race or a TT you can watch that 'dial' and make sure you are holding 300 watts plus or minus 10-20 for the whole race. Does that make sense? I may be misunderstanding the concept of FTP.

It makes sense assuming you can maintain what you think is your FTP for an hour.

[Wayne77]

Ok I see. I guess I could also see it as a tool in say an hour long CX race. If you know you can pull off 300 whats for one hour then you can watch that number as you race and make sure you keep to it. Of course my guess is that people would produce more then their FTP under the stress of a race and so it could actually be a hindrance too.

My 2 cents:

Values like Intensity Factor and Normalized Power are the only FTP derived metrics that mater to me in a race...and they matter more as the length of the effort goes up. In a crit or cx event, I’m either hanging or not hanging...tracking the NP I can maintain based on past efforts has little value partly because the intensity is so high my ability to process information is significantly degraded.

NP and IF do account for the intensity of an effort. FTP is just a baseline number used to derive many other things. I think that is what you’re referring to above. Measured FTP is measured FTP. If you race and there is an extended effort long enough to show that ‘you produced more than your FTP under the stress of a race’, then the FTP you thought was correct going into the race is outdated. Of course some people don’t “test” well and their ride derived FTP could be higher. (TrainingPeaks Will alert you when you’ve reached a new FTP bench mark, as will most bike computers from Garmin, Wahoo, etc)

In any case the last thing I think about during a race is what my FTP is or even what % of FTP zone I am in. % of FTP is only meaningful to me for interval training. I have known people that will express concern about going too hard during rides or races always in relation to their FTP. I agree that shortchanges their ability to do far more than they think they can if the situation calls for it. I always tell them ‘wow I’m not smart enough during a race to pay much attention to my power meter...I can either bridge up or hang with the group or I cannot. I don’t need my PM to tell me whether I can or cannot.”

[redir]

^ NOw that makes sense to me.

[sparky33]

There are definitely riders that "perform to the test" (my quote). Just means they are good at taking ftp tests.

^This was absolutely what happened to me.
TrainerRoad would give me a fantastic FTP figure based on the 2x8 minute test, but that figure wasn't right because I routinely fell well short on training programs using that benchmark. I started to dial down the FTP benchmark to get to more useful workouts.
I bet a 20+ minute test would give more appropriate results for my physical disposition, but FTP training is in the rear view these days.

[ergott]

If anyone is interested, this is a great resource for "testing"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8K77jSf3Fs

There is a linked handout as well.

[jimoots]

Not much discussion of weight. When you’re 80kg 300w is not much. When you’re 65kg it’s a decent slab of watts.

I have pals who can do 400w+ for 20 minutes. It’s 5wkg for them at 80kg.

I’m 63-64kg and can hit 4.9 wkg for 20 mins (310w) and did 4.4wkg (280w) recently up a 50 minute climb.

I train my 20 min efforts a lot more than 50-60 min so it makes sense. Nowhere to do 60 minute climbs where I live, for starters.

Disclaimer: not a lifelong athlete or gifted or anything. I just like riding a lot and I really enjoy the work.

[Alaska Mike]

When I was younger, fitter, and had the drive, I trained to improve my FTP (among other things) with a coach. As others have mentioned, if you focus on FTP, 300W is not some magical number. Even a few injuries/lifestyle altering events later, I'm still not too far off that- and I am by no means an elite athlete.

Zwift and the resulting boom of smart trainers has transformed how people train, but it has also unfortunately resulted in a lot of "my FTP is bigger than yours" conversations. Even more so than when Quarq (and then Stages) brought down power meter prices. The fixation on a couple metrics has completely deluded a generation of riders about the real nature of cycling fitness and skill.

And seriously, if Zwift sprints had any bearing on reality, I would have more career wins than Cavendish. It's a game. One that makes trainer time more bearable, but still a game.

[benb]

My 2 cents:

Values like Intensity Factor and Normalized Power are the only FTP derived metrics that mater to me in a race...and they matter more as the length of the effort goes up. In a crit or cx event, I’m either hanging or not hanging...tracking the NP I can maintain based on past efforts has little value partly because the intensity is so high my ability to process information is significantly degraded.

NP and IF do account for the intensity of an effort. FTP is just a baseline number used to derive many other things. I think that is what you’re referring to above. Measured FTP is measured FTP. If you race and there is an extended effort long enough to show that ‘you produced more than your FTP under the stress of a race’, then the FTP you thought was correct going into the race is outdated. Of course some people don’t “test” well and their ride derived FTP could be higher. (TrainingPeaks Will alert you when you’ve reached a new FTP bench mark, as will most bike computers from Garmin, Wahoo, etc)

In any case the last thing I think about during a race is what my FTP is or even what % of FTP zone I am in. % of FTP is only meaningful to me for interval training. I have known people that will express concern about going too hard during rides or races always in relation to their FTP. I agree that shortchanges their ability to do far more than they think they can if the situation calls for it. I always tell them ‘wow I’m not smart enough during a race to pay much attention to my power meter...I can either bridge up or hang with the group or I cannot. I don’t need my PM to tell me whether I can or cannot.”

These #s can matter in a long ride that's not even a race too if you're doing something long and tough enough.

E.x. knowing what TSS #s you have experience with, if you're stacking TSS up like a house of cards and you know you have hours and hours left maybe you slow down. Recognizing when you're riding with a group and you're expending enough effort for it to not be sustainable in the long run.

Crits and CX and MTB if you look at the computer too much you probably crash out anyway.

[nate2351]

Why not? What I am saying is that for example if your FTP is 300 wats then when you are in a CX race or a TT you can watch that 'dial' and make sure you are holding 300 watts plus or minus 10-20 for the whole race. Does that make sense? I may be misunderstanding the concept of FTP.

It's a good idea for a TT but thats about it. In any race mass start race its out the window.