Author Topic: FTP  (Read 6346 times)

Re: FTP
« Reply #100 on: February 12, 2021, 03:16:08 pm »
Basically the more aerobically fit you are, the longer you can ride at a steady sub threshold power output and the HR will remain steady.  It’s a sign of how well adapted your leg muscles are in terms of mitochondria  / capillaries for efficient oxygen take up.

Re: FTP
« Reply #101 on: February 13, 2021, 09:25:32 am »
The day before was a similar ride (2 circuits not 3) but only 1.75h so although 71% in the tempo HR zone 9% in Z3 and only 7% in Z0. That resulted in 42% Z4 and above. The shorter the ride the higher the intensity generally. Average speeds were very similar 18.32 v 18.25mph. Another 2.5h ride over exactly the same route 3 days later was 19.33mph with pretty much the same HR profile, a faster bike but no PM. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what you FTP is, all you need to know is, if you're going to ride to power, what is a suitable power that you know you'll be able to sustain for however long you're going to do it for. I find it much easier to do that via HR for anything longer the 10'. Ah, just remembered, I did ride the 2.5h to power to compare with the day before which was to HR.

Seems right to me.

I don't have a HR monitor but I did the FTP test on Zwift and got 255w.  Then having heard that Alpe du Zwift was modelled on the Alpe d'Huez I thought I must try that (at first my level 5 didn't let me in). 

After attaining level 6, I had a go via the Sky Ride route. In my ignorance I was clearly trying too hard and also being too competitive, trying to draft riders who were really too fast for me.  I gave it an hour and decided I'd better pack before I overdid it.  Later the graph of my stats looked like a seismograph reading during an earthquake.

Two days later I set off with the strategy of keeping the power down to 200w for the entire ride.  On my setup it's hard to keep a precise power output so most sections I averaged 210 to 214.  After an hour I was feeling ok so I experimented out of saddle and got a peak of 391 for a few seconds.  Then it was back to the grind, by that point there was me and two other riders who both overtook me slowly.  Near the summit I was catching them again so upped the power to 360 and overtook them before the line.  Although my time of just under 75 minutes was long way off the current leader's 43 just finishing the climb was enough for me.  I'd averaged 205 watts overall (including a few cooling off kilometres) and my performance graph was far tidier. 

Still looking forward to getting back on real roads but also upgrading to a more advanced trainer for the winter.
If your 1hour power was 210- 214 then that’s your FTP.
Most accurate, and meaningful way to measure FTP is one hour, maximum sustainable power therefore average watts. That’s what the definition is.
Realistically, as long as you are within a reasonable figure, then your work zones will be accurate enough.

Back in May it's certain the Turbo Muin was flattering me. Since getting the Wahoo Kickr my recent 1 hour averages have all been c.183-5 (all hilly rides).  I am however 10kg lighter since Jan 2020 so w/kg is better at just over 2.4.   
Sic transit and all that..

Re: FTP
« Reply #102 on: February 26, 2021, 12:26:16 pm »
Ramp Tests have given me an FTP of 285 or there abouts.
Riding climbs on the trainer for sustained efforts, my readings are at least 15% below that.
I think the ramp tests are unrealistic and over estimate the true FTP.
What they do seem to do, at least for me, is come up with a very similar reading every time. Any cunning plan to sneak up on a previous best FTP on the ramp and hang in there for one last stomping effort quickly has you blowing up, unable to turn the pedals and it spits the same result out again.
often lost.

Re: FTP
« Reply #103 on: February 26, 2021, 01:09:39 pm »
Ramp Tests have given me an FTP of 285 or there abouts.
Riding climbs on the trainer for sustained efforts, my readings are at least 15% below that.
I think the ramp tests are unrealistic and over estimate the true FTP.
What they do seem to do, at least for me, is come up with a very similar reading every time. Any cunning plan to sneak up on a previous best FTP on the ramp and hang in there for one last stomping effort quickly has you blowing up, unable to turn the pedals and it spits the same result out again.

There are various ways to game ramp tests.  One is to set your FTP at a different level (or adjust the % effort slider a bit).  Most people can generally manage only a certain amount of time after they have gone above FTP on a ramp test, I think it is about 5 minutes, but it is not so sensitive to exactly what the power level is.  So, if you were to change your FTP manually to, say, 325, I'd expect you to get a higher FTP reading.  And if you change it to 230, a lower one. 

If that is true - and I think it is based on a modest amount of my own testing - then the same issues would apply when your FTP changes by a modest amount.  Say your FTP has increased to 300 since your last test but you start the test at 285.  You would expect to get an under-reading that might be close to 285. 

Of course you could set your FTP to where you think it now is - say 300W - and see what result that gives.  But that wouldn't prove anything as a one-off test as you'd expect a higher reading based on the higher input FTP regardless of any power gains.  I suppose what you'd need to do would be a series of tests setting your input FTP at different levels, say 10W apart and measure how performance across the whole set changes.  Or just do a differenet test!

Of course, if your FTP changes by a lot, you will be able to blow your previous performance out of the water by going for several more minutes above your old FTP and get a far higher score. 

Re: FTP
« Reply #104 on: February 26, 2021, 04:19:30 pm »
Ramp Tests have given me an FTP of 285 or there abouts.
Riding climbs on the trainer for sustained efforts, my readings are at least 15% below that.
I think the ramp tests are unrealistic and over estimate the true FTP.
What they do seem to do, at least for me, is come up with a very similar reading every time. Any cunning plan to sneak up on a previous best FTP on the ramp and hang in there for one last stomping effort quickly has you blowing up, unable to turn the pedals and it spits the same result out again.

There are various ways to game ramp tests.  One is to set your FTP at a different level (or adjust the % effort slider a bit).  Most people can generally manage only a certain amount of time after they have gone above FTP on a ramp test, I think it is about 5 minutes, but it is not so sensitive to exactly what the power level is.  So, if you were to change your FTP manually to, say, 325, I'd expect you to get a higher FTP reading.  And if you change it to 230, a lower one. 

If that is true - and I think it is based on a modest amount of my own testing - then the same issues would apply when your FTP changes by a modest amount.  Say your FTP has increased to 300 since your last test but you start the test at 285.  You would expect to get an under-reading that might be close to 285. 

Of course you could set your FTP to where you think it now is - say 300W - and see what result that gives.  But that wouldn't prove anything as a one-off test as you'd expect a higher reading based on the higher input FTP regardless of any power gains.  I suppose what you'd need to do would be a series of tests setting your input FTP at different levels, say 10W apart and measure how performance across the whole set changes.  Or just do a differenet test!

Of course, if your FTP changes by a lot, you will be able to blow your previous performance out of the water by going for several more minutes above your old FTP and get a far higher score.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. My understanding is that the ftp estimate was 75% of your average power in final completed minute. How does you pre estimate of ftp affect things ? Is it because the ramp it gives you has different profile ?

jiberjaber

  • ... Fancy Pants \o/ ...
  • ACME S&M^2
Re: FTP
« Reply #105 on: February 26, 2021, 05:01:19 pm »
The Ramp gives a 5 min warm up period (at a % based on the FTP you currently have set) then starts off stepping at 1 min intervals, these steps are % of set FTP so that Step 9 is always the set around FTP. It ends up being around 26 mins long for me which includes a cool down at the end.  I think I've done it about 7 times so far (including twice this week) and all but one I have been through Step 15 and usually packed a few secs in to Step 16.  The only one I was less on was this week where I packed after step 13 but had a previous setting of 257W but revised now to 229 - I followed up the next day with that setting and made it to Step 15.

So I think Frank is right, there is only so many steps you might get through before packing if the FTP setting initially value is correct. 

If you put to high an initial FTP setting, that number will be less steps before packing and too low an FTP setting, that number of steps will be higher before packing.  When I packed on both attempts this week my HR was 94-98% of my max HR, the 98% pack being at the initial setting of 229W and was as a result of I ran out of air to breath. 

Additionally there were some irregularities in both tests this week, 1st test lost a lump of power as the trainer ERG went funny bang on FTP causing a dip in recorded power, which is why I attempted a test the following day. During the later test I had some power spikes in the last minute but they didn't effect the similar FTP rating from the second test.

I think the test serves a purpose well in order to establish some personal indoor training zones - the numbers appear similar to the estimated FTP on intervals.icu too.

Now whether my tested number is correct is subjective as it's on a different power meter to what I usually use (the one where I've been testing 250ish) but as long as I use that same meter for the workouts it shouldn't matter.

EDIT: The above refers to the TrainerRoad ramp test in it's current guise
Regards,

Joergen

Re: FTP
« Reply #106 on: February 26, 2021, 05:39:54 pm »
There are clearly a number of different ramp test protocols.  The full ramp test on Zwift starts at 100W and goes up in 20W increments; I've definitely seen 25W increments in tests too.

Re: FTP
« Reply #107 on: February 26, 2021, 05:46:28 pm »
From what I’ve read, 20W is that recommended for professionals, 25W recommended for amateur men, and 15W recommended for amateur women.  I have mine set at 25W a minute but I have it go up 5W every 12 seconds. I start it at 100 watts for first 5 mins before it ramps. My currently set FTP has no impact on starting power or the ramp rate.

jiberjaber

  • ... Fancy Pants \o/ ...
  • ACME S&M^2
Re: FTP
« Reply #108 on: February 26, 2021, 08:46:01 pm »
The one I am describing is the TrainerRoad one (which I assumed, perhaps wrongly, was the one being discussed :) )
Regards,

Joergen

Re: FTP
« Reply #109 on: February 26, 2021, 09:06:11 pm »
I was talking about the trainerroad one. On that the size of the jumps is a % of FTP. So if you set your FTP higher your jumps are bigger, and if you go for 5 mins above your initial FTP, you'll get a higher score than if you set FTP lower and can only manage 5 minutes.

You might say, of course I'll be able to go on longer if the jumps aren't as big. But in practice that is not what happens, the time above FTP wears you down even if it isn't at such a high level.

fboab

  • It's a fecking serious business, riding a bike
Re: FTP
« Reply #110 on: Today at 09:37:40 am »
I do much worse at ramp tests than I do at 20 minute efforts. Which probably means I haven't done enough VO2 max efforts in training.
TSS is not Total Sex Score, Chris!