Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Cycling Myths Smashed: 95% of 20min power = FTP...watch for a more accurate method.
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 08. 2024
- Since 2001 it has often been proposed that in order to find/estimate your "FTP" (often thought of as 60min best power) you should take 5% off your 20min power. This is important as it is used to define training zones. If the calculation of FTP60 is incorrect, power based training zones may be off. Since then data from thousands of cyclists suggest this is incorrect. Remember prediction is not always 100% accurate but we think we can do much better than the 95% rule. Try the spreadsheet enter your data and tell me if it works for you. If not, feedback below.
FTP Predictor Now with Training Zone Effect
goo.gl/eGpYyH
FTP APP by CyclingApps.net
bit.ly/caftp
Great video! Little old me has been saying this for years but seems to fall on deaf ears, as once people have read Coggan / Allen once they all of a sudden think they know everything and are worthy of a spot on Team Sky's data analysis team !! So, great to see somebody else backing this up.
For my own power numbers, I have been using a 7.5% reduction from CP20 to CP60, and a 15% reduction from CP8 (CTS Field Test suggests only a 10% reduction) to CP60. This seems to work well for me, and also tallies quite closely with your spreadsheet :-).
I also try not to get overly-accurate when FTP, as tests are done on a certain day, under certain conditions, with room for error in the power meter (usually +\- 1.5%), and then finally with an approximate adjustment used to estimate CP60. Therefore, I usually round to the nearest 5w, and then do +\- 5w so have a band of 10w to operate in, e.g. CP60 estimate of 347w gives an FTP of around 345w +\- 5w, i.e. an "FTP band" of 340-350watts. This band is small enough to retain good accuracy, but gives a little scope for a little movement for how you are feeling on the day (top end if feeling good, bottom end if not), a few watts of power meter error from day-to-day, etc...
Please keep up the good work. Your thinking around FTP drop off aligns with the data I capture for myself. My real world drop off is closer to 12%. It also varies depending on how I ahv focused on developing my 5s, 30,s 60sec 5min 10min and 20min power. Hence I prefer to simply ride a 60min TT and be done with predicting the drop off
rule #5 and do the full 60min. test. problem solved.
Agreed. 60min test protoocol posted. Problem solved squared! czcams.com/video/rhMKJxhsKTM/video.html
Interesting data!! I have one contemplation: what if the data means that amateurs sinply do not push out their full ftp if they do an hour test? That means the 60m-max = FTP assumption is wrong for these athletes, rather than the 95% rule. That would actually make the 20min test more accurate. Just a thought. Do you know of any research findings that shine a light on this? Thanks for your videos, they are great!
@@swenderich Correct, It's too hard to taper and pace and 60min effort effectively, there are other variables like nutrition, cooling, comfort that all need to be spot on. The author of "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" has done numerous posts saying such.
Secondly, it's easy to be untrained for a 60min test. riding at 95% is quite hard in training, but you can work at it an increase the amount of time you can spend at 95%
@@swenderich I can't remember where I got the information but it did seem to ring true for me, when during any sort of threshold testing I was conducting that my HR was at my maximum at the end. This gave me a good idea if it really was a maximum steady effort or not. During my first few attempts at the 20min FTP test I was within 5% of my 60min test result but my HR was not as high as I know it can go suggesting that I could go harder during the 20min test and keep and even effort throughout. Several tests later and that 5% difference increased to about 15% between 20min and 60min tests with my HR being maxed out at the end of both tests (the only difference being that it took longer for my HR to max out during the 60min test). I hope this makes sense.
@@garethjones3070 that's interesting! So with more training/practice, the difference between your 20 and 60 minute test actually got bigger... Seems you needed some attempts to get the pacing of the 20 minutes right, whereas you did better on the 60 minutes straight away. Food for thought. I guess it goes to shoe how important the mental aspect and pacing is in all of these test protocols.
Interesting measure to see the HR max out by the way, I don't get close to my max HR on either protocol. Doesn't mean I didn't give it my all though: at the end of the test there's so much fatigue I really can't push my system to the intensity where HR maxes out. Different bodies probably also react differently to the tests. In that case the real take away maybe is: get a lab test :D
Glad someone agrees with what I always thought! My CP20 is 334W but there is no way on this earth I could do 317W for an hour. Your calculated value of 304W is much more realistic although I'll keep my zones where they are so as not change any annual comparisons of time in zone distribution and to just push me a bit more.
Great spreadsheet and analysis. I too was suspicious of the 5% figure, though I liked to believe it was true. I compared your spreadsheet prediction with my recent CP20 and recent Zwift 60 minute or so races. They were very close, about 2% different. FFT is 258 and Zwift 253.
Thank you for the sound analysis. I'll have to play with the spreadsheet a bit more, but looking forward to setting some baseline data learning more. I wish I had this a few years ago!
Nice video, it's rare to see such detail in a video. And I always like it, because it's way better than general advice.
Do you also believe that CP60 should be the gold standard for setting zones? Is the point of a test to establish CP60 or to establish training zones?
Most interval training is done for durations < 20 mins. So, even if most riders lack the strength endurance to ride for 60 mins within 5% of their 20 minute maximum sustained power, they DO have the requisite strength endurance to sustain efforts for shorter durations. I can say with some certainty that all riders I have worked with over the last 30 years CAN achieve shorter work within the zones prescribed from the CP20*.95 shortcut (and can usually exceed them). Most of the athletes I have worked with that do 40k TTs have been able to hold watts closer to the CP20*.95 value than CP20*(.85-.90) [although I would concede that people taking 40k TTs seriously, train for them and, therefore, develop the necessary strength endurance to sustain the effort for the duration].
Since you are relying on publicly available data to support your position, how are you controlling for the fact that this data may not represent what the riders are actually capable of (hidden biases in the data)? In other words, the aggregate ride data reflects what people ACTUALLY do when they ride, it does not necessarily reflect what the are capable of doing. I would speculate that this problem will increase in magnitude as you rely on this data for longer maximal efforts (because they are uncommon efforts).
+Jeff Winkler Thank you for your considered constructive question. First I must acknowledge that a lot of people disagree on the use of the term "critical power" and rather obsessively insist it means a two point best effort protocol originally described by Monod and Sherrer. However I am not that knit picky and know exactly what you mean: the riders best effort at 60mins. Ok so there is no reason at all that the riders best effort at 60min is any kind of gold standard. It has no special relationship with any biological substrate (above say their best effort at 20,30,45 or 90 mins) and this includes OBLA, MLSS and any other lactate acronym. What we are talking about is conventions and shortcuts that have developed with time and the question is can these conventions/assumptions/protocols be improved for the benefit of riders both beginners, intermediate and advanced. At face value if a rider develops zones based on 20min test and then only rides 20min efforts then no harm done. If however a rider wishes to predict future performance based on initial early data then any developments that help the accuracy of the result should be welcome. FFT has a method to predict future power x time relationship based on one data point with reasonable accuracy (although we would welcome further validation). Of course our model will have more likelihood of error when our sample size is small (for example women, over 50, doing 60min best efforts). You raise a good point about real world rides vs best effort test. One way we attempted to minimize error here was to remove crazy outliers from the dataset. Remember that over hundreds if not thousands of rides, the power curve naturally gravitates towards best efforts....and in fact hides all the not best efforts...so this is where big data should shine through. Another issue worth considering is that worldwide there are many more beginners than advanced riders. Increasingly beginners are attracted to power based training, often to improve fitness not to race per se. The beginner will really struggle with a 20min FTP formal protocol (which has an impact factor of around 45+ TSS) and they definitely will struggle with a 60min protocol and a MAP test to exhaustion. These are all methods coaches use to test intermediate and advanced athletes. We need some simple(r) methods for beginners that are less arduous but maintain some accuracy. Using the FFT prediction model we can do this via a single 5minute all out test (or an 8minute one or 10 minute etc). As the rider develops, gradually they can try out more arduous protocols but a simple test gets them up and running with fairly accurate zones and something to aim for in the longer tests. If any individual or coach is happy with 95% or any other rule of thumb thats ok, provided you are aware these are conventions which can sometimes be incorrect. Thanks again for your great question.
@@Fastfitnesstips Well, I don't think the big data argument works that way. What you need is a big dataset of rides per person to get a power curve that resembles the rider's best efforts (or some verification of which efforts were all out). If you just have many power curves from many riders, the data will probably be biased as Jeff Winkler explained.
Let's say you have power curves from a large number of identical riders (same weight, ftp), but only 15% ever pushed themselves to their limit over 60 minutes. Then, if you try to estimate their CP60 from the whole dataset, your estimate will be quite a bit lower then the rider's actual capability. On the other hand, if you have a dataset of riders where you know that 100% pushed themselves to their limit over the 60 minute effort, your estimate will be much more accurate.
@@marcelk6514 you make a good point, if there was a systematic bias in the sample, then it would only be valid in similar circumstances, however following this video we obtained the data from trainer road for cyclists specifically undertaking 8x2 / 20mins and 60min FTP tests.
@@Fastfitnesstips Oh, okay, makes sense. So by actually knowing that those efforts were all-out for each rider, your results should be accurate. Thanks for clarifying! Another thing to consider: Because people on Trainerroad almost always do these tests indoors, you should also consider overheating. For example, my indoor 20 minutes test was 40 watts lower than my outdoor test, basically I felt like I was cooking from the inside, whereas I had sufficient cooling outside.
For me, shorter efforts are almost the same indoors and outdoors, but at extended durations, I suspect that you will get a buildup of heat, limiting your performance.
meh, .95 gives me 250, you give me 241. I'll just assume i didn't give it 100% and take 250.
Plugged numbers in and got 301 (second half of a local climb about a month back). Testing protocol I usually use is MAP Step test (due to time constraints) and I got a 303 on last test. If nothing else, it is nice to see two different methods giving such close results. And certainly not bragging on the numbers. Because once I consider watt/kg there is a good reason why my numbers are (aka have to be) fairly high. That is under 2.5 watt/kg currently.
I always like to use the testing protocol that gives "good enough" data that I will be willing and able to do more often. I found that 60 minute efforts and even FTP workouts on Zwift took a lot out of me. I'd need 1-2 days to rest before and maybe a recovery ride the next day. Since I'm more of a recreational/sportive rider that is trying to get faster and do harder rides (in other words, not racing), I'd often skip tests last year so I didn't have to deal with those down days. So workouts on Zwift would get too easy over time and my fitness/fatigue numbers on STrava or Training Peaks would eventually be useless.
After watching Shane Miller's video on the step test, downloading the workout to Zwift, and finding that the number it gives me actually works fairly well (at least for me, my wife struggles with the steps above 175w so she falls apart fairly fast), I started testing more often. It means that after the holidays when I was out of town and off the bike for a few weeks I saw the drop off to 275w. When I started getting back into shape and re-tested a few weeks later I saw it hit 290w. And my recent test gave me a 303w (my peak was last year a week before San Diego Century at 310w. May have a hard time getting there this year thanks to bronchitis and 2 sinus infections the past 6 months hurting my ability to ride hard). And I have not had to skip any group rides with friends. In fact testing more has given me an idea of how hard to push while free riding climbs on Zwift which has allowed me to ride with faster groups this year.
The goal of FTP to me is: know how hard I can go (for long climbs outside or if I feel like doing some solo TT style efforts with my wife when we get on long open stretches of road), to know how hard I have to go (how hard workouts have to be to be useful), and to be able to track fitness and fatigue on Training Peaks. So anything that makes that number easier to get and more reliable is good in my book. The main thing I've learned this past year is that sometimes you may get a number from a test and have to play with it a bit. My wife and I have both found that after testing we may have to modify that result by +/-5 or 10 to feel right. We may have had a particularly good or bad day. Her Kickr Snap may have been reading a bit high or low. I think the real trap is when people do 95% of 20 minutes and think that is the exact number. And don't actually analyze the data and attempt to use it. If I tested at 310 and put that into Zwift and started failing workouts, I'd drop it to 305. Still failing? 300? Start passing? Okay, keep it there. If I tested at 285 but workouts felt too easy, I'd start adding 5-10. I usually wait until 2 or 3 workouts before I start to add or subtract 5.
I tend to also look at Training Peaks form. When I'm riding often my form is usually about -20 to -25 by Sunday night. If it starts cracking -30 or -35, I think my ftp is too low. If I have a really hard time getting under -15 then I know my FTP is probably too high. That and the annual training plan are the best 2 parts of Training Peaks Premium, so if I'm not using those features, I'm wasting my money. So I check them every week. If I've tested recently and the numbers look off then I may tweak my ftp 5-10 points. If I haven't tested in about 2 months, I know it is time again.
Yes, I have thought along these lines for myself personally.
Riding an hour at my predicted ftp from the 20 min calculation would be excruciating. However this is trainable to an extent, and would also relate to riding needs and activities.
Recently I have been doing a lot of sweet spot due to time constraints and I am finding it easier to ride closer to calculated ftp, this is a short period of time so it is unlikely that my strength has increased but ability (mental and physical) to cope with the sustained effort has improved. This will be dragging me closer to the traditional calculation.
Had I not been doing these sessions my ftp based on 1hr v 20mins would have been massively different.
Pragmatically I just base things on the rough calculation from 20mins or 2x 8mins as for most of us it's near enough to get results.
If I were a pro rider then I'd do an hr testing ( assuming I'm doing races in excess of this generally) , as an ancient amateur 20 mins, then use the general calculation is fine .
Coaches have to treat riders as individuals and weigh up pros and cons as to whether it's worth putting someone through an hr of pain for results that may not make much difference in training zones.
Very logical. Like predicting a marathon time using a 5km race time. You fundamentally need to do longer runs and build endurance to come close to common multipliers/equivalency times.
Based on my own trials and measurements over the years, I often wondered why the 95% rule did not seem to pan out for me. Glad to know it is not just me! Many many thanks for providing the Zwift FTP test and the spreadsheet! Will give them a try and comment back.
Yes, very much welcome feedback esp on the Zwift stuff!
I think your right. I'm an experienced rider and I did my 20 min power test= 345 W and I just did today a 60 min power test= 310 W. A 10% difference. Test did on the same indoor bike and in the same contions.
I started doing 3x10min @85%, then 3x15min ramps from 85-95%, onto 3x15 & 3x20min @90%. hasn't
like a marathon, you need to train for the distance to reach your potential
Agreed that a 5% drop is not quite right (indoor 20 min FTP vs indoor 60 min FTP). I however have tried riding at the 20 min indoor FTP levels outdoors for an hour and it is accurate for me. I believe that the cooling factor of the wind and the psychological effect of going past things does play a part.
Outdoors was done on a long hill of 1-4% gradient AND
On a F1 track, requiring me to freewheel once per lap and the gradient was like -1 to 3%.
I do the 20 mins FTP quarterly indoors and ride outdoors hard weekly, 40 year old smoker here.
Hmm. Im an amateur cyclist and this is what I have been going through in the real world. I have actually pushed 300 watts on the indoor trainer for 30 minutes and when I got to 29 minutes 45 seconds I do a full 15 second sprint at the end. which was 852 watts for 15 full seconds. (That was my highest ever sprint and have not hit that since) And for me that darn near killed me. But I did it. Then I tried to see if I could do an hour on the indoor trainer. I dropped to 240 to 250 watts for an hour and the last 15 second sprint I could only manage 600 watts. Boom fail. Then this past week I went back to just doing 30 minutes on the indoor trainer. (Same exact indoor trainer from week to week by the way) I had a harrd time maintaining 230 watts for 20 minutes but for the last 10 minutes I decided to do a full out 15 second sprint every 2 minutes so at minute 20 I did a 15 second sprint of 550 watts, minute 22 I did another 550 watt sprint for 15 seconds and so on. My last sprint I didnt do at 28th minute I did it at 29: 45 and held 750 watts. I cant tell if Im getting stronger or getting worse. Did a 38 mile ride on the road bike in the real world felt great. I think my overall health is improving but not sure if Ive gotten much stronger. I am a cat 5 and will be doing my first crit in a few weeks. Ill probably get destroyed!
When I first saw that 0.95 calculation I immediately assumed that's correct only for pros, it must be less for amateurs, as you say.
a great vid and the calculator is much more in line with my power data. what a relief to know I'm normal. many thanks and keep up the quality of these videos.
Hi your data worked well for me. After completing zwift 20 min ftp I was put off doing zwift training plans as I would get disheartened at not being able to complete 100%. A drop in ego and ftp has made the whole experience more enjoyable.
Thanks for the feedback, I agree when there is a miscalculation it could adversely effect 1. zones 2. full FTP test 3. races in zwift. The last thing we want is anyone getting demoralized! Keep going!
I'm gonna agree with you. If I correct my ftp based on 15% deduction from the 20 minute power number and take 75 or 80% of that, that's pretty spot on to my "all day" pace. I always suspected that the 5% deduction was kind of off. EDIT: that wattage at 80% is my RPE
I am a 41yrs male who train hard 4-6 hours a week. I seldom go on a leisure ride. Almost every ride is a training ride.
It is important for people to know that one's 20min power at 95% does not mean FTP. Although don't lose hope, theoretically they can definitely train to ride at that power for 60min. (riding FTP should be a suffertest. The rider should fall off from the bike after the ride.)
I, like many others did indoor outdoor 8min, 20 min, 60min. There's a big drop off 20 to 60 if you are riding alone, a bit careless on nutrition and hydration, so many factors. A flat out 60min takes a lot of practices, a lot of MENTAL. Even on a seemingly perfect day it can fail miserably.
I have been determining my FTPs using blood lactate test, less painful than 60min, very accurate. The FTPs that came out of it, however, are number that I need to work on to be able to ride 60min flat out. For me it is usually 2-3 weeks of training close to that power, lengthen the blocks of training time to get closer to 60min, a few different types of intervals, to achieve that.
I agree with the argument here about 95% CP20 is not your real FTP. Really, one has to ride the full hour to know your real FTP (functional threshold power). To know how hard it is mentally, physically.
The big BUT here, is that we can take that FTP as target power and train around it. That's the core of power training. Find a number as accurate as possible, and train about it. It may not be 100% accurate, but it is an important number to train around it.
By the way, those books and theories are very old. atm, UK youth nationals, pro tour teams have very advanced cutting edge power training. The sweetspot my coach has me riding is 97% of FTP for 2 blocks of 30 minutes. Trainerroad recognizes my 90min mid-tempo wattage as sweetspot. And we do intervals of over 10 blocks, with high power stepdown warm down.
So, whatever that number is for you. train with it. It is flawed in a good way. It inflates your FTP and makes your train harder.
I have been running for 40 years and cycling for 30. Training for marathons and half marathons I could predict my time from a 6 mile run. Mostly it was withing minutes, depending on course. This 20 minute FTP test I have always thought was bollocks for the amateur athlete and you confirm that and explain it brilliantly. Thanks
It's the same with those predicitions for runners. 'If you run 5 k in x minutes, then you can run a marathon in x time'. I've always thought those numbers were way off. My 5 k times would translate to a marathon time of around 3:10-3:15, but the fact was I was no where near that - more like 3:30. This miscalculation is probably related to the FTP thing here in this video - they underestimate the factor of exhaustion.
There are many pace calculators, most are really optimistic as you said, but there are caveats:
1. All assume you have the equivalent training for the projected distance as the reference.
2. Each runner is different and has race that is his/her best race.
3. Each race is different as well. 5K is a good predictor for 10K, 10K for 21.1K and half for full. But 5K is such a different event as compared to 42.2. To have a decent marathon you should average at the very least 60km/wk, (better above 80Km/wk) in the previous 4 months and at least 3 runs over 32K. Your tuneup race would be a half 5 to 6 weeks before the marathon. There most calculators would be in the ball park depending on weather and elevation
@@jaimegu I agree about the amount of training. I only ran 60 kilometers per week once and never more than 30 kilometers per run, so I think it would be hard to break 3:15 on a marathon with that. On the other hand, if I ran 60 kilometers a week I would definitely run a fast 5 k, too.
@@Danskebjerge Re: 60 Km/wk for 5K. Sure, but you might be subject to marginal gains since the bread and butter of 5K is intervals and tempos. However volume is a key indicator for marathon performance.
On a side note, I suck at 5/10K, but used to be good at HM and somewhat acceptable at FM
it may not provide 1hr accuracy, but what it does do is provide accurate zones for training, if completing intervals which are typically 5min to 20min intervals. the lower FTP setting makes the intervals too easy
This is a year old, but I just found it so forgive me for the late post. I would be very curious to hear FFT's thoughts on the impact of differences in willingness to suffer affecting these numbers. Put another way, how much of the difference between where you fall on the curve and the 95% mark is due to the strength or weakness of your mental game? When I have read books by Friel and Coggan it has come across very clearly (to me) that the mental rigor of an outstanding 60 minute test is the most limiting factor to performance when opposed to the 20 minute test. Essentially, I read their material as saying that 20/95% is an assumption that if you were a physiological machine, without a mind that could sabotage your efforts, you could do X power for 1 hour.
Not sure if the folks at FFT noticed this, but if you agree that the mental aspect is critical, and that the difference in wear-and-tear on your mind from a 20-minute effort to a 60-minute effort is a significant contributor to decreased performance, then this presentation has an amazing hidden subtext! It means we can monitor that difference between our theoretical 20/95% effort and our actual 60-minute effort and use it to track our mental progress. FFT has pointed out the importance of this variable, given us a way to measure it, and given us a great starting point (don't fret if you're at 20%, aim for 15%, 10% and you're moving along well, 5% and you're doing amazing in the mental preparation).
The psychology of sport is a still-growing field, but in support of the idea that much of the reduction below 95% comes from mental roadblocks, not physical ones, studies have shown that even amateur or non-athletes can improve their performance without training adaptation just through the use of certain aids such as caffeine's numbing of the fatigue neurotransmitter adenosine (www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpregu.00386.2002) and listening to music (scindeks.ceon.rs/article.aspx?artid=0354-47450801067M&lang=en). Putting that into practice, if caffeine or music help your 1-hour power get closer to 95% of your 20-minute power, what was holding you back was mental, not physical. There are a lot more studies that show our perception of exertion can be changed by psychological factors, and that change in perception affects our performance, but I could not remember enough nuance about the studies to find them reasonably quickly. One involved positive images, I remember that much. Furthermore, pros get very close to 95% in tests, as mentioned in this video, and by that point in their careers they should be applying just about every trick possible to overcome any mental roadblocks holding them back. They acknowledge the pain and are ready for it, they have the positive experiences from their past performances to fall back on mentally, they aren't perseverating on the negative moments they encounter, plus many more coping strategies that they know work for them. Whether 95% is perfectly accurate or not, it seems to be a pretty good target if you take it solely with the intention that it is meant to measure physiological capacity only, not your total capacity as an athlete on one particular day (accounting for mental, physical, and environmental factors - whatever is affecting you).
Since everybody acknowledges that 20/95% produces a theoretical number (even Coggan, in the quote read late in the video), it makes me think that the big question is this: in what circumstances is that theoretical number most useful in training and in what circumstances is another theoretical number (like the FFT calculation) more useful?
I am not sure if you take investigation suggestions from the peanut gallery, but if you do here are some thoughts on follow-up ideas and what I think would be a good starting point for investigating them (along with my falsifiable hypotheses, yay science!) Or, just point me to videos you have already done, I am still catching up, love the channel!
Background: Friel and Coggan (an Olympic-level coach and one of the most widely respected exercise physiologists in the world) both acknowledge that your actual 1-hour performance can vary greatly from your 20-minute performance, but both of them continue to recommend using this 20/95% protocol to establish zones for training purposes. Also, the zones they typically recommend have some variability in recommended power and there is much larger variability is in the lower zones where you will be working out longer.
- Question 1: Regarding high-effort, short-duration training zones (thinking Coggan's zones 6, 5, and maybe even 4): What is the difference in physiological adaptation produce in training when using an FTP established by 20-min/95% vs. an FTP established by the FFT method?
- Question 2: What effect does this have on mental fatigue (perhaps can use the Mental Fatigue Scale developed to evaluate concussion patients to analyze)?
Hypothesis: For short-duration, high-intensity efforts, the higher FTP produced by the typical 20-min/95% protocol will produce improved performance without significantly increased mental fatigue when compared to the FFT protocol, regardless of rider skill.
- Questions 3 and 4: Same question but with the longer-duration training zones (thinking Coggan's zones 2 and 3 here).
Hypothesis 1: In beginner/recreational/casual riders, the lower FTP produced by the FFT protocol will produce similar performance gains with significantly reduced mental fatigue when compared to the 20/95% protocol.
Hypothesis 2: For the sportive/club/pro riders, the increased FTP produced by the 20/95% protocol will produce greater performance gains without significantly increased mental fatigue when compared to the FFT protocol.
Dear Cameron, first congrats on one of the longest posts we have ever received! Let me answer your fundamental question are functional limits like best power over 60min physiological or psychological? The answer is clearly they are both and for example muscle and cardiovascular training plays a key role as does motivation. It is true that we can all push ourselves further than we think and rarely do we push so hard we collapse physiologically like the Brownlee Brother Johnee (czcams.com/video/liCRrheKIOI/video.html). Next pro athletes have better physiological adaptation and (usually) better ability to push hard and tolerate exercise induced pain. As a result pro athletes can often exceed 95% of their 20min best at 60min. This is analysed in our calculator which adjusts for frequency of hard riding. A beginner is unlikely to achieve 90% of 20min best at 60min. The take home message is the 95% rule applied to a minority of riders and accurate prediction of FTP is not a fixed percentage but an algorithm with several input variables account for individual but somewhat predictable differences. Finally a couple of minor corrections Coggan does not subscribe to the 95% rule or even the usual FTP definition, he says he was misquoted. Next 1 hr performance is purely a convenience measure, there is nothing special about ability to ride for 1 hr flat out as opposed to 45mins or 75 mins. Your body has no built in 1 hour alarm clock it simply adapts to repeats stimuli (eg training). Finally our test protocol is not really discussed here; this video is about the calculation itself....but as a rule of thumb any test protocol measuring the limits of performance is going to be as "hard as possible" at some point. Anyway thanks for your question.
Hi, I am really impressed that you still follow up on year-old videos, that's amazing! I don't know if I should apologize for making such a long post or not, I try to be thorough but I always feel I should strive be more concise. Thanks for the clarifications, as well!
That's very, very interesting about the athletes who are able go greater than 95% of the 20min power. I wonder, if we had been able to get good metrics on Johnee Brownlee (orJulie Moss, Sian Welch, Wendy Ingraham, Paula Newby-Fraser or the other triathletes we have famously witnessed hit their limits) where they would have fallen as a percentage at the time of their collapses. It seems likely to me that these competitors have put their "race face" on and are digging their deepest, ignoring the screaming agony that has to accompany such an incredible effort.
Regarding the Coggan preference, I found a 2016 article he wrote for training peaks where he ascribes great value to using lactate threshold testing, but he acknowledges that most athletes don't have access to do this and that it tends to result in numbers that are lower than athletes and coaches would actually use in training, and so the most useful way to get your threshold is through testing and continuous monitoring with a power meter (www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/power-training-levels/). More info in another post at: www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/what-is-threshold-power/
Definitely agreed that the 1-hour mark is arbitrary, it's greatest value seems to come more from the fact that it is used so often we just have more data on it. If, somewhere back down the line, a 30-minute test had been the benchmark then we would have gotten good at creating training zones based off the results of that test. It's also pretty specific to what your goal is. If you are shooting for 40k time trials, a 1-hour evaluation is pretty good. For endurance athletes it does mean more than a 30-second test, maybe less than a 2-hour test would, though.
And I really meant calculation, when I said protocol, my bad! I completely got that you were proposing the value of a different method of calculating the data from the same protocol, I just switched back to using the term protocol out of habit when it comes to referring to getting an FTP value!
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond, I look forward to seeing more of your videos in the future!
"mental rigor of an outstanding 60 minute test is the most limiting factor to performance" So you are saying that the extra 40 mins is NOT the most limiting factor? Bullshit mate.
I totally agree about the mental aspect. I did an FTP test that had my 20 minute power at 283 watts. I did a one hour time trial on my bike set up on the same trainer the following day and averaged 278 watts. I probably "could" go over 300 watts for 20 minutes, but I'd be totally winded with jelly for legs at the end of it. I ride for touring pleasure, and I have a hard time pushing myself out of that happy zone where I can go for an hour or more. I can ride for five hours at 240 watts, but I have a hard time wanting to burn myself up over a short period of time.
If you know your anaerobic capacity, therefore, you can calculate how long you would expect to be able to sustain a certain power above FTP. Anaerobic capacity can be used in conjunction with aerobic energy (FTP power) to produce short-term power outputs. Secondly, the amount of anaerobic energy is constant but limited. Lastly, the amount of anaerobic energy available is the same across all power outputs above FTP power.if we know a rider’s FTP power and we know how large their anaerobic capacity is, we can predict how long they can sustain a certain power output. If you know the anaerobic capacity in Joules, you can divide this number by the time of the interval in seconds and add that to FTP. It's remarkably accurate and if you extrapolate 20 minute power this way to 1 hour power it does indeed approxinate the 5% rule.
p.s. You would do a CP3 test to get your anaerobic power.
Indeed you could even do maximal tests for 3,5,8,15 minutes and so on, thereby creating your custom maximum power curve which you could then extrapolate to 1 hour by following the plotted line. The fallicy of your data is that it does not present equality in tetms of maximum efforts over the data set. Riders are far more likely to produce harder efforts over shorter durations and so the data is skewed. Not having the ability to push oneself to 1 hour total exhaustion is not the same as having the capacity. The formula measures capacity. Ability cannot be quantified as it depends on the rider....and that even goes as far as the very best in the sport. It's about who wants it more, not necessarily who has the biggest capacity much of the time.
I want to say that I have the UTMOST respect for you Alex. Yourself and Dylan Johnson are the smartest and most knowledgable coaches/experts on youtube. PLEASE COME BACK!
So 53 years old. 1 hour climbs every week flat out. I estimate my FTP around 210 watts. Probably around 230 for a 20 minute effort.
I join the rare crew that can beat their 95%. Same bike, same trainer, same basement. one week apart. Similar training week (both after 5 days of running or riding).
- 71minute virtual race Avg 257W, NP 257W (ask me if it was evenly paced).
One week later
- 20 min test: CP20: 267W. (95% is 253W). As per Garmin protocol, it included 5 min in zone 4 - 30 sec in z5 - 5 sec z7 - 3 min z5 and rests in between, before starting the 20 min test.
rider is supposed to do an ALL OUT 5:00 test and ride easy for 10 minutes leading up to the 20 minute test. Nobody does the 5:00 because we want the highest number we can get on the 20 so we are skewing the 95% prediction to more like 90-92%.
I think the point of the whole FTP exercise is not so much to give you a dead accurate 60min power level, but more to provide you with a power level to base your intervals etc on. And the 5% drop might indeed be pretty close, if you acknowledge the law of specificity and train for a 60min test. I think if you based your intervals off a 15% drop from your 20min FTP, just because you have never gone hard for more than 20 mins, you might be going lighter than might be optimal. Looking for maximum lactate steady state level at various power levels might however be a more useful number to work with
I think you are right with your statement. However if you have a structured training plan based on a 20 min ftp test and retest every 4 weeks it really doesn't matter a lot.
Here's an interesting thought: It requires a little setup.
1. Typically when not using a trainer in erg mode the numbers that seem to flash by on my bike computer appear higher overall than the eventual averages of the same ride. For example If I see 250 watts, I assume that after smoothing the data will be more like 225-230.
2. Assume that the 20 minute test is easier to achieve, will be done more often and can 'set the pace' for the 60 minute ride/race. I often try to ride my cp20*.95 on hard days or up long climbs.
3. The primary side effect of this may be setting the pace at the appropriate level for a longer effort or a cp60 test. Being somewhat an aspiration rather than being "accurate". The end result then is an effort or a pace that for most people is closer to their ftp. It's the carrot dangling from the stick. ;)
Oh and btw, the one time I did both a cp20 and a cp60 the 95% was perfectly accurate, to nearly a single watt. Going off strava for 2017 data I'm running about 96% So either I'm an anomaly or I'm sandbagging the 20 minutes. ;)
You personal power curve will deviate from the exact mid-line average in certain areas depending on your strengths vs weakness eg in sprints for 5mins; or distance events for 1+hr. This is one reason why even this model cannot be 100% accurate. BTW I am not saying its impossible to have a 4-5% drop as you will see in the XLS its possible under certain conditions.
Always add a "lap power" field to your garmin screen so you can see your average power for the full interval to give you the smoothest possible number.
I've recently bought a power meter and already think the 5% suggestion is probably just good for people so that they can say they have higher FTP's that they really do, but for a beginner such as myself the only important thing at the moment seems to be that I use a consistent test so that I can gauge improvement and get some semi-accurate zones. In a 5 hour race I just did (63kg), I managed 273w for 20 minutes and 252w for 60 minutes, although there was some big climbs and long descents during the 60 minutes data so it's probably not a good indication, but that is mighty close to 15%. Considering it was a 5 hour race, I would hope that my actual FTP is a bit higher as I did this mid-race and still held on to get 3rd with the final half being a solo break after the middle climb.
I think it's a mental thing, you should be able to physically do 60min test at your power, say halfway through you feel like shit but at the end your loving it. I think il stick with 5%, it will help me push harder anyway so its a win win.
I don't agree, putting the rulers aside. You should quickly see if the 100% is off or not, by doing ss or ftp workouts. Is it repeatable? Ego aside, if you can bang out 2 or 3 20's in the sweetspot, you are estimating your ftp correctly. Hoping this doesn't turn into a right or wrong thing, glad you made this video so that people are aware of discrepancies. Listen to your body
I think that's also true for runners, I was able to run 6:30 mile, calculators are predicting 7:40, but my 1st 10k I was huffing and puffing at 8:57 pace
You cant just take that data and say its 15%. Most might not have done a 1h all out ride, so it will not show in their power curve. I can only talk about myself and doing CP20 and CP60 one week after, the 5% were pretty spot on. Of course it varies between riders.
Garmin connect + power meter measures an average FTP from my rides which is 9% less than a ramp test on zwift
Why not try a 10 mile TT at your local club, 20-25 minutes, take off 10%. Would that be close enough? I found doing this bi-monthly I could average out the errors over time and came to about -10%. Was on a proper training plan for 60-90 minute mtb xc racing so got frequent 60 minute full on sessions. I was officially tested at Westminster Uni, so the -10% was a pretty good measure. At peak it closed in on -5%. In winter dropped to -15%. It's all relative
There is no single formula that is correct for millions of riders. First you need to do the 5min all out before the 20min. Then the percentage depends on your fitness. It can range from -15 to -5%. Much better do 5min and 20min and then use CP from Monod Scherrer calc. It takes into account your personal power degradation curve and gives very good results.
FWIW Over the last twelve months, the average of my 10 best 20 min power outputs is 278.9 W, and the average of my 10 best 60 min outputs is 238.2 W. That's a drop of 14.6%.
However, only one of those 60 min outputs was a deliberate maximal power test with a 256 W result. If I use 256 W instead of 238.2 that drop is 8.2%.
I'm a 33 year old male who's been racing for around 4 years, and consistently ride around 7k miles per year.
Looking only at my best 60 min and 20 min outputs over the last twelve months (256 W and 298 W) my drop is 14.1%. Both of those were deliberate maximal effort tests.
Thank you for raising an interesting subject. I'm confident that the factor to convert from FTP20 to FTP60 is probably not 0.95 for most cyclists. But, based on your description of your data sources, it sounds like your suggested method of calculation is also flawed. Why? Because the data sources you described rarely (if ever) contain a rider's maximum continuous power for one hour. The only exception would be if the cyclist is doing a true FTP60 while riding on a trainer. But out in the real world, that data would be unusable because, with rare exceptions, the cyclist is not riding on a steady grade for one hour and probably not striving to maintain their maximum power for one hour.
So, I agree with you that the 5% FTP "rule" can't possible be accurate for all cyclists and probably not even the majority. But here's where I disagree: I don't think we have the data yet to determine what it really is for different cyclists because the public data does not give us continuous power for 60 minutes.
This is a subject that is ripe for further study under controlled conditions with a very large pool of cyclists.
D.Eldon Bingo
The argument seems irrelevant, at least for (my) training purposes. I use my 20 minutes test based FTP to set training targets, and for that it seems to work well--i.e. make intervals sufficiently hard. And for 1hr TTs I find that the 95% rule actually works quite well.
Well I have some problems with the video.
Firstly, Andy Coggan defined FTP as MLSS (Maximum Lactate Steady State), which is basically equal to the power output on lactate threshold. How long you can hold that power output is an open question, but for most of people it is somewhere between 30-60 min.
All other "definitions" are in fact derivatives or direct bastardizations (as stated by Founding Father). Even Friel's time-defined "critical powers" are bastardizations of Monod's Critical Power, which is derived, again, by simple TIMELESS function.
In fact, CP is equal to FTP.
But OK, now I am able to predict power output for one hour time trial :D
marktallonphd.com/the-myth-of-functional-threshold-power-ftp/
Yes,
FTP = Critical Power (2-parameter Monod/Skiba) = MLSS > Lactate Threshold
FTP/CP = 22,9 +/- 7,5min = 100% Power Coggan ~ 20min TT x 0.98/0.92
Lactate Threshild ~ 45/75 min ~ 90% Power Coggan ~ 60min TT ~ 20min TT x 0.86
105% CP - VO2max = 13,3 +/- 5,8min.
www.racepace.com.br/uploads/artigos/time-to-exhaustion-at-and-above-critical-power-in-trained-cyclists-the-relationship-between-heavy-and-severe-intensity-domains.pdf
I remembered a about 5 years ago I conducted my ftp (full hour) which came to be about 208 watts. today at 35 and 150 pounds I can only hold 201 for 20 minutes. This confirms my suspicion that I'm way more out of shape than lead to believe.
You stole 27 of my watts :(
Just came across this video, coincidentally shortly after looking at the Sufferfest 4DP explanation versus the FTP dogma. I'm no sports scientist, but always felt that FTP, much like using heart rate as THE training metric, was in some way an over-simplified way of measuring/quantifying effort and/or progress over time. This video makes sense to me, as it considers more than just the top performing cyclists. At 64 years old - I'm more interested in training correctly with more correct data; doing intervals or sweet spot sessions with a more realistic FTP (80-85% of T20) should reduce the risk of over-training and actually making some good progress Thanks for this video!
Thanks for the feedback, what is your take on Sufferfest's 4DP approach?
I've only read about it/watched their videos. My takeaway is that it still uses the 20 min FTP, but also tries to factor in VO2 Max (5 min sprint), as well as max sprint (1-2 min power). That's probably all good for those who want to 'train heard' (e.g. crit riders, sprinters, Xcross and maybe Enduro racers), but I don't see where it's going to benefit endurance riders, as it appears to me to be focused more on anaerobic capacity and fast-twitch muscles. I'm probably all wrong about it.
I train my 60 minute effort on a regular basis and have pushed myself to produce maximum power over this length of time. My 60 minute output is 344 watts. My approximate 20 minute max effort should be approximately 363 watts. I am unable to hit a 20 minute effort that my known 1 hour effort approximates I should be able to hit. If your theory or Coggan's theory is correct, I should be able to hit atleast 363 watts or more since the drop from 20 minutes to an hour is 5% or greater.
looked through all of the flammerouge articles... but could not find the reference you described as contributing to the invalidation of the 95%.... link?
Very interesting stuff to know now that I've finally got a power meter to work with.
I have only been cycling for 2 years and I have done maybe 5 FTP tests, last week I tried to hold my FTP for 60mins with pacing and it was attainable, yes it was very hard but I sure did it and don't think if I push past my FTP it would be too much, the .95 rule is accurate you just need to be rested and make sure you're carbed up...
My 20 min ftp is 258 and 1 hr is 230.
35yrs old, male, 1 race 60mins and 2 sprint training sesions 60mins. A week.
Peak 1125w, 980w 10 sec, 473w 1 min, 387 2min, and 310 5min. 70kgs
Logically makes sense. Thanks for posting this
I like and agree with the message here, thanks for that and the review. The video itself, with those sound effects and red x's is a little exaggerated, though
Great vid.
I've thought 5% was BS for over 10 years.
THe decrease is even more substantial for Masters cyclists.
Why so?
Part of the reason is in the club of 400 I used to belong, less than 5 guys would have did solo rides at threshold for an hour.
Competitive cyclists just don't ride at that intensity consistently for an hour.
So they never develop the self knowledge or the metabolic pathways to sustain an hour at lactate threshold.
helicart absolutely.. one major aspect of competitive cycling is about applying sharp pressure for shorter time periods in an effort to drop your competitors.. so once that drafting based connection is broken.. the question does become a summation of who wants it more and who has better fitness/freshness.
I dont think we need to be that accurate! cp 20 give you a good idea and is good enough to set your training zone....
I disagree. I tried the test myself and the wattage was calculated too low because I just couldn't sustain the effort. When I did a training ride with the lower FTP it was too easy.
Age matters -In a consultation with a sports physiologist - to my shock - I learned that there are significant physiological changes at different points in your life - I just turned 60.
Agreed but it is important to keep as active as possible ....especially with aging: so good for you that you are taking this stuff seriously.
This is why I alternate my FTP tests, one month 20 min the next 60 min and so on.
Also, the 60 minutes is just a guide. FTP should not be linked to 60 minutes but to physiology, it is your 2nd lactate threshold, the point where it rises rapidly and fatigue sets in quickly. For some people they can hold the power at that point for only 30 minutes, some maybe up to 70, 80 minutes. This is why it is important to do various tests, but then when you do do zones to listen to your body. If Zone 5 work feels too easy, just go harder, if it feels too hard, go easier.
I'm impressed. Just completed my annual , outdoor FTP (CP20) test. The numbers predicted are pretty much the numbers I see, on 2 hr. long rides, with climbing. I can't see riding an hour, at my CP20 FTP. Always though it was high. I'd make a donation. but I do not see a link on the app. KB
Glad it was helpful. We had lots of other calculators too which you might find interesting. Just follow us on strava or twitter and look at the archive
Yeah I agree that probably accurate for pros but not the weekend warrior. My basic assumption on the 5% is comparing to a run from a 10k to Marathon my speed and power doesn't drop by 5% it's a hell of a lot more. so my unscientific thought process would be that as I'm not a pro in any of these sports the effort to keep at the sustained level is to much on the body so 5% really is for those that can sustain the pace.
Except when you're taking an FTP test those 20 minutes aren't equal to your CP20. Or you're not doing the test right. Since the test requires you to do 3 sprints and then 5 minutes way above your FTP you're doing the test on tired legs. Thus you multiply that number by .95 but your CP20 is likely to be higher than that. Also getting an FTP number with a degree of precision of 1 or 2 watts is useless in itself. First because power meters aren't that precise (+/- 1% at best), second because you usually use this number to derive your training zones. And these zones are what they are: zones, with some range. The test is designed to be as simple as possible so you can figure out how much progress you've made and be able to train at the right intensity intervals.
It doesn't matter. FTP is only a number to use as a standard for improvement. It's a range anyway, not even a hard number. So no biggy.
Haven't done a CP60 or time trial, but did some full out Zwift races which of course have a bit lower power as the effort is not steady state. In my Strava Power Curve I have 239 20min power and 200 Watt 60min. The 60min effort was done at a bit worse form and of course not steady. The calculator gives me 196 - 205 watt as a result which I think is more reasonable than the 227 Watts by Coggan.
Just do the hour! So many people thinking they can hold serious watts coz they did it for 20 mins lol.
I don't race, and I don't often ride longer than 45 min, but I can say for sure that 40 min of max effort is killer. How do I know? I commute and I am always late. A very fast commute, with stops is 35 min and 16average MPH.
Interesting, I train quite a bit and my data says it's a 7% drop
Related thing: I've heard a lot of people say that power on a trainer will be lower than power on the open road. Have you analyzed data on this that suggest any trend in stationary trainer vs real-world power outputs? Thanks for another interesting video!
it's very logical that the difference is much greater with beginners; when you don't have good endurance and struggle to ride 60 mins, you will not be able to ride 60 mins at a reasonable power. But why do you think the age does matter (if one is in good shape of course...)?
The effect of age (specifically on 60min drop) is very slight as you will see from the calculator if you play around with it, but its similar to the effect of age on long distance running. btw, the age correction works from 5 years old to 100 years old!
Used the spreadsheet and almost perfect prediction with my recorded stats. Thanks!
Good to know. Some more information and video coming on the 95% rule later this month. stay tuned!
The problem with ftp is hardly any course is flat. Any hill and going above ftp into anaerobic is faster. I like taylor phinney's tt interview when he said he focuses on speed because that's all that matters
I'm within the 5% but only if I test using the 5min all test out before the 20min test. If i don't do the 5min all out I'd be like 15% according to my best 20 and 60.
Victor Schepisi new variable, true
I disagree Alex. I personally have raced for an hour on varying terrains within 2 watts normalized of my FTP for just under an hour. If there was a gun against the head, it's a good predictor. It depends on mental toughness and experience of long hard efforts as to how close they grt to their potential very best (can't go on any more) over an hour. It's a learnt pain endurance that some can stomach and others just can't. It's accurate as far as potential given the mental fortitude. Whether the rider has it it not is a different question.
From what I remember from way way back in the day, the 20 minute test was supposed to be preceded by a 5 minute hellfest of complete leg death. When I did the 20 minute test following a 5 minute pursuit style effort and a 10 minute rest, I'd get results that were fairly consistent with what my best 45 minute efforts were in training and ultimately best ~ 55 minute efforts were in race conditions when I was on great form, fully rested and very, very motivated. To me, that is the key - your FTP is what you can do for around an hour when you're on your fully rested, best form of the year and absolutely motivated to smash it - i.e. it's not the best figure you can pop off on a Wednesday night on the trainer for 60 minutes on a semi routine basis.
If you take FTP as being the absolutely best power you can put out when fully rested, fully trained and absolutely motivated for the events you're targeting during the year then the 20 minute test will be fairly accurate, in my experience. If you take the power you can routinely do on a consistent basis then the 20 minute test and 95% multiplier will absolutely overestimate but FTP was never meant to be what you could do on a consistent basis, it was about the absolute best effort when rested and fully motivated that was somewhere around 50 minutes to an hour - or if you're really quick 45 minutes plus change.
Yes the "anaerobic scrub" warm up makes a big difference which is why we put it in the calculator (goo.gl/eGpYyH)
It was always supposed to be used for the original "20 minutes for FTP" test too but many didn't do it. They just warmed up and blasted it for 20 minutes and complained their 20 minute number was too high - hence the myth that it was incorrect. If they followed the guidelines then it would have been far more accurate.The irony is that Andy Coggan that penned FTP never agreed with using 95% of 20 minutes to guesstimate ones FTP.
WKO4 has been updated to better calculate this.
Sorry I am having an issue being able to edit the FTP calcs. I can look at the example just can't edit. I gave a thank you on FB as well. Thanks.
try joining fastfitnesstips@googlegroups.com.....that should give edit rights......or make sure you are using chrome......and make sure you have changed "view access" to "edit access"
Thank you for the quick reply. I have sent an email request for the spreadsheet. Many thanks.
Indeed, as an Ambitious MAMIL :-) of 43 years old, I do both regular 20 min FTP tests and every year I do a 1h to 1h30 all out effort on an Alpes or Pyrenees Col when I am in top form. My 20 min power when I am top: typically between 330W and 340W. My 60 mins power when in top form: 300W to 310W. So that is about a 10% "loss" instead of the predicted 5% from FTP theory. I ride around 12K to 14K kms per year. A complimentary theory I have: if you regularly do 20 min FTP tests, you are "training the test" and you obviously become better at 20 min TTs. So that "skewes" your result and indeed I concur that unless you train 1 hour hard rides regularly, you will lose more then 5%. Good Video! Check out my FTP Field Test here: czcams.com/video/A4Gik9lxCek/video.html
Hi, my own figures pretty much match yours. I was racing pretty seriously a couple of years ago (although in my late 40's) doing 16,000 km per year, and managed 320-330W for 20 mins, but 295W for a full 60 minute test. All done on the same Wattbike (not all Wattbikes are equal).
The other interesting point, is the 60 min test was easy, until you get to about 40-45 mins in. Then it starts getting REALLY hard. Up to 55 mins I was dying, but for the final, I could see the light at the end of the tunnel and could push through using a bit of anaerobic capacity.
I repeated the exercise a few months ago with a bit less training, but putting out similar numbers, and literally fell apart at 55 mins.
So I think the numbers in this video make sense - for a 50 year old road racer anyway.
Great video! I always suspected there was something fishy with the 95%. I have a question. since I am training for an Ironman which is just over 5 hours timetrail for me, coaches suggest I ride at 73% of my ftp. Now I wonder, should this be 0,73*0,95*20m effort, or 0,73*60m effort? To put the question another way, how big is the average drop from 1 hour to 5 hours (looking at 10:58)?
Thanks Xa4theman; the answer depends on your actual FTP and your familiarity with long rides.....if you need an exact answer email me info@fastfitness.tips. But based on a database of approx 2000 riders assuming 300w at 20min then the drop from 20min max (CP20) to 5hr (CP300) is 62%; assuming 300w at 60m then the drop from CP60 to CP300 is 75%. Working backwards if your FTP (CP60min) was 260w then the drop to 5hrs would be 73% (190w)....so if that's roughly your FTP then you have a very good coach!
Thanks FFT! Actually, with my present CP20 of 293W and CP60 of 237W (tested today!), both my CP300 values approach 180W. If I would have taken the 95% of 293, and use the 73% rule, I would have had 203 Watts. A difference of more than 20 Watts! Next weekend I'll do a 5 hour testride averaging 180 Watts, curious to see how it goes.
So thought I could share my results with the prediction tool from Dropbox.
I enjoy cycling and do hard pushes from time to time but almost never 20-minute tests and I don't think I've ever done a 60 min test. I still put a "1" in how often I ride hard 60 minutes.
When I fill in the rest of my numbers in the spreadsheet I get FFT-predicted 60-min FTP of 267,4 watts. 95% of 309,7 watts.
When looking at my data i found that 267watts I've held for 1h 59 minutes and my best 1 hour is 294 watts and then that is just from riding, sure it was hard but it included free wheeling and such in corners (the NP was 301 watts for 1h 15 minutes according to my garmin, and weighted avg power according to coggan formulae from stravistiX-add in was 303 watts). My best 5 minutes from a test was 401 watts.
How can you get a Zone 5 (VO2max) training zones from FFT Prediction of between 283,5-320,9 watts when my 20 min max is 326 watts?
Maybe your speadsheet could include different results from different percentiles?
HI Anders Lindh your post is helpful could you have made a data entry error? You say your 20min best is 326 so its 326 that goes in "e" (cell D21). Put in 326 and that makes your 95%FTP 310 and FFT version 282 if you ride 60m+ "rarely"....assuming you did a good warm up ("f"). I think you accidentally put "309.7" in "e" which is 95% of your known 326 because only 309.7 that would generate the wrong zones you mention and the wrong prediction. I suspect also you are a "sometimes" in "d" (not rarely because do hard pushes from time to time testing isnt needed to justify this) which would actually give you an FFT predicted FTP of 296.7 and a VO2 max zone of 314-356. Also given your 5min power of 401w I can use the big unreleased FFT database to predict a 20min of 338 (vs 326 actual) 60min of 292 (vs 294 actual) and 120m of 261 (vs 267 actual)...and if you are curious your 3hr power is predicted as 243, 4hr power 230w (and 1 min power 626) (all these would be maximal efforts and all these data from the full FFT predictor....which shows a very nice fit across the board). Finally regarding percentiles, thats coming in an entirely new video soon.....for now if you re-download the XLS today you will find your coggan w/kg ranking. happy riding!
Thanks a lot for your reply, however I did put 326 in e (D21) as you can see in this picture I uploaded:
postimg.org/image/dw6hidagl/
To further predict the accuracy of the tool my measured bests are as follow:
1min : 662
2min: 489
3min: 452
5min: 401
7min: 371
20min: 326
And those are all full efforts, with various amounts of warm-up so perhaps not ideal.
ok thanks. Yes I see its "d" thats causing the problem in your case. Change it to "sometimes" (not "rarely" because do hard pushes from time to time and racing or testing 60+ isnt needed to justify "sometimes". Hopefully you will be ok then.
Really interesting (Just found this channel recently, really enjoying your work)! I have a couple of questions - how loosely would you define hard riding in the input? As an example, I train and race long distance triathlons, so whilst I'm training regularly I'll be doing 2-5 hour rides at 60-80% FTP rather than the sorts of TTs or race sessions you ask about (i.e. should this be a question of general riding fitness vs. specifically dealing with max hour efforts?). Secondly for long distance athletes who might never seriously need to compete at a 1 hour max level, is there any validity in calculating a high theoretical FTP that you might not be able to sustain (because you're not trained for specifically that kind of effort) in order to calculate back lower range power zones that you might well be able to work in for longer efforts? Or should long distance athletes forgo FTP type testing altogether for a better protocol?
Anyone racing long events even at 80% FTP will qualify as a "3" ie regular rider above 60mins. "2" is really for non-racing / recreational cyclists. Regarding long-term prediction, FFT holds the data that will allow a calculation of FTP up to and possibly beyond 12hour events (but confidence reduces with long term estimates). Further you ask about effect on training zones, that's an important point and I have now added a training zone effect to the calculator (12th March....required re-download of the XLS from same link). Thank you.
Very good video actually statistics. There's always going to be haters out there but given my background in statistics and just with common sense I can tell that you're right on the money of course well-seasoned at least that right mountains consecutively are going to have a less of a drop it just makes sense
I'm not sure how you are filtering through large data sources like Strava to support your conclusions. The only rides that are applicable would be 20-60 minute flat TTs that were perfectly paced. You also have no way of knowing that 20 minute efforts are not overinflated due to not pre-stressing the anaerobic system as you are supposed to do in an FTP test. Without a heavy analysis of every single ride, there's no way to properly correlate the real world results with deliberate test conditions.
For me, I find that the training zones defined by my calculated FTP are good enough, in that appropriately sustained efforts in the resulting power zones correlate to expected heart rate and perceived exertion levels. I guess I'll stick with the tried and true.
Tried yes...true no.
they say its not 100% accurate, thats why andrew coggan has introduced mftp in the WKO software.
Thank you for this video. I agree with your thesis that the 95% rule is not that accurate. For me, it's closer to 98%. As someone with significant testing experience focusing on time trial efforts, my best 20-minute power is 344 watts and my best 60-minute power (8 days later) is 336 watts. My age is 44.
wow thats interesting. This would imply your ability in endurance events is exceptional.
Yes, and my sprinting ability and anaerobic capacity is under-developed, which is what my new cycling coach has me focusing on now.
IMO the whole purpose is to train yourself so your 20 threshold is closer to your 60. No?
oh and love your work. clear and concise.
with the proliferation of power meter at affordable prices, there is a need to devise "proxy" FTP tests that a weekend warrior can abide to :). A 20min test alone sounds pretty painful (but do-able). The 60min test however, is out of the stratosphere of a weekend warrior. Next up, how to determine your FTP based on a 1min interval. Let's see the fancy mathematical modeling here.
Am riding 5 times a week and am 22 years old and I do 2 hard workouts a week. and my 20min FTP test is 326W and one week later I did a 60min and I got to 302W very close to 95%
Congrats. You did hear me say 5% is not impossible right? From the calculator: enter the following 1>22>3>326>1....predicted FTP 309.2 using FFT 309.7 using 95% rule. actual = 302. % error = 2%.
ok but where can i dowload the xls file, you should do a html site
www.dropbox.com/s/r4bswgn8v8jjkwx/FFT_FTP_predictor2017.xls?dl=0
thanks a lot
Another great video! How do you think this should affect training levels? I.e If pretty much everyone has been doing sweet spot and similar training at a level roughly 10% higher than the theoretical recommendation, does that mean that they should reduce the effort?, or maybe CP20 based percentages levels are better for sweetspot, over/unders than CP60?
Great question. Actually there isn't a precise sweetspot number....its a range. So if you were slightly overshooting with a slightly overestimated FTP(cp60) then it just means your duration will be lower (or interval # less) because your intensity is higher. FasCatCoaching (nothing to do with FFT) says sweetspot is 83%-97% of FTP so you should still be in that range. fascatcoaching.com/tips/how-much-sweet-spot-training/
Great use of big data here, out of curiosity just how big is the sample size used to create the distribution? All the anonymous Strava data from riders with power meters? Is there any trimming in the stratification to account for outliers or is the dataset large enough not to have a skewed result?
thanks. A few thousand. outliers removed. still sample very small with certain groups. effect of aging not totally pinned down yet.
Hi, I'm not able to make a copy of the spreadsheet. Could you change the settings so we can copy and edit? Thanks.
hi copying is reserved for coached athletes, but you can ask for edit permission and enter your values
I consider myself a "seasoned" rider and the numbers I get from years of data in Golden Cheetah are not matching the results you got from the 200 riders reference group. I would say my numbers are probably more in line with the myth you are trying to bust.
Instead of using theoretical formulas, I suggest the use of GC or a similar software and rely on real life and relevant data to calculate accurate training zones.
My numbers:
2 mins = 434w
5 mins = 390w (89.9% of 2 mins)
20 mins = 355w (91% of 5 mins / 81.8% of 2 mins)
60 mins = 340w (95.8% of 20 mins / 78.3% of 2 mins)
But if I used a 60 minute test to set my training zones for intvervals, wouldn't the intervals be way to easy then? I use the numbers to set intervals and not for show... I consider myself a beginner with a 20 minute 5 % off ftp at about 290... I guess the number would be lower if I did a full 60 minute test... But then again my intervals are never longer than 20 minutes... I can do 2x20 minute sweetspot at 90-94 percent of my ftp at the moment, but I must admit that it is absolutely brutal... Can anyone give me their thoughts? Nice video by the way!
if you did a 60min test then your zones would be correct, anything else is an estimate, some of the estimates are wrong. Did you ever ride flat out for 60mins with no interruptions, if yes, how did that power compare with your 20min efforts?
@@Fastfitnesstips Wow what a Quick answer... I never dit a full out 60 minutes test... But I suspect a very low result compared to 20 minutes minus 5 percent... And the interval zones may be too easy? I guess i'll give it a go... Not looking forward to it... 😂👍
what the purpose of FTP, why it was suggested in the first place?
I'm cycle-commuter and never wanted to know my maximum average power output in one hour ride.
The design specifications of a mechanism that transmits maximum power during a pedalling cycle at minimum load on the joints involved does have practical value for utility cyclists. Any suggestions?
A new video on the protocols and purpose of FTP is coming next saturday. Briefly, its about generating a power-time curve. To be honest about time period could have been chosen, its on a continuum. Regarding improvements in pedal action how about the discontinues ROTOR crank CAM system www.roadbikerider.com/product-reviews/stuff-that-goes-on-bikes/pedals-cranks/1065-rotor-crank-system
1. FTP is not, and never has been, defined as 60 min power. 2. The 95%-of-20 min-power rule-of-thumb is Hunter's, not my, contribution. It works reasonably well on average, but overestimates FTP in some and underestimates it in others. 3. (Directed at someone else's comment.) TTE is one of the parameters of my (not Hunters) power-duration model.
I read that if I used powercranks that I could increase FTP by as much as 3.14%. Would that be like having my cake and eating it or should I just stick with pie?
Great stuff! Subscribed.
i am an amateur rider in my 40's, and i learned that my ftp is .93 times 20 min all out effort. however, i got to train for months for a 25 mile tt and achieve the .93 multiplier
Try the calculator, put in 3 for regular rider see what it says.
Fastfitnesstips , it predicts 8.6% drop off. cool tool. closer to i get. i always thought the reason i didnt get 95% was because i have mire fast twitch muscles
That's probably because the 95% rule of thumb proposed by Hunter Allen (most certainly not by Andy Coggan) is not of your mean maximal 20-min power, but of your average power from a 20-min test right after having done a hard 5-min blowout effort just before the test. This was unfortunately left out of the video.
BTW - FTP is *not* 60-minute power - that is a myth perpetuated here and elsewhere unfortunately. Probably the best correlate for FTP (other than performance itself) is the power you can sustain at maximal lactate steady state, which has a specific test protocol, and typically represents power sustainable for anywhere from ~40-minutes to ~70-minutes depending upon the individual.
Just do some test.. and track your ability change in that test over time and as long as we don't specifically Target all our training towards that one test, it should be fine right?.. also i have a question.. are we calculating bad training zones for ourselves if we use the 95% of the 20 minute test to determine an "ftp" and then multiply by the standard published % for various zones?
If you are miscalculating your FTP and then using that ftp to work out your training zones then the zones will be wrong....this is explained in our 8x2min test video a bit more clearly. See also our calculator fft.tips/ftp
I bought my first power meter and spent more money on a lab test. The little piece of paper I got, for my money, said I could ride 10 km to 20 km tt in zone 5 and a 20 km to 40 km tt in zone 4. My FTP is in the middle of zone 4 and zone 4 spans 20 watts. So none of this is shocking or new. If you have money to buy a 10k bike and a power meter then why use bro science to find your FTP?
I guess the bigger question, why does it need to be based on 60 minutes to being with? Why not just accept that 20 minutes is a more commonly used standard and drop the whole 60 minutes thing.
thanks! The reason was because of the somewhat false belief that a 40k TT (taking about 60min) represented somekind of anaerobic threshold physiologically. We now know it doesn't work simplisitically energy stores overlap at most time periods and further there are major individual differences. Best to think of performance across the entire time-power curve.
I figured TT would be the driving factor. I liked the video and it opens my eyes to how training should be looked at in general. For example, not everyone is training for 40km TT's so is a 60min test more appropriate than a 20min test in general for those who do not train for 40km efforts. I never thought about this, my primary training is based around 40km TTs and trying to maintain consistency throughout. If I am able to obtain a consistent power output over 40km, should I use the same training programs that built around a 20min FTP test or should I adjust 5% or 10% in difference to compensate.
Hi, I’m 17 years old and just did a ftp test on zwift for 20mins. Zwift calculated I did 315W as ftp (so I guess that’s 330W for 20min as I add 5%). I don’t usually train for 20mins full gas, as I usually ride for 2hours or more. But I also don’t really do much 1hour full gas. I weigh 61kg. Could you estimate my ftp for 60mins as 60mins is pretty long so I don’t really want to try it out 😂. I guess your theory is right because after my 20mins I was completely dead so I don’t see how I could have done that for 3times more time and only loosing 5%.
Hi Alex Hazard. Assuming you did do 332w for 20min then that is an excellent performance so I have little doubt you could do 60min if motivated. However unless you are riding 60min regularly I would estimate your 60min power as 275w rather than 315w (Zwift) and 312 (Xert). My suggestion is forget an FTP test and just ride a hardish 60min route a few times first (with no stops or interruptions.).
You ar wrong !!! The problem is thet the most riders do not acuratli her ftp test. The ftp test inclus a 5 min oll out !!! before the 20 min test. You can NOT take your cp 20 to calcolate the ftp.