FTP shenanagins

[mtechnica]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Good grief lol

[Joxster]

Originally Posted by mtechnica

Good grief lol

Pro Tour and Olympics rider

[laupsi]

Originally Posted by echappist

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[nooneline]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by nooneline

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]

Originally Posted by mtechnica

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-...enge/12430/113

[adub]

"Comparison is the thief of joy"

[echappist]

Originally Posted by laupsi

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)

Originally Posted by nooneline

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

Originally Posted by mtechnica

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)

Originally Posted by laupsi

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]

Originally Posted by echappist

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!