robbyville

I know this is a loaded question. I did my first home FTP test today on the trainer with a warm up and then 20 minutes full on. Came up with an FTP of 172. I'm an active cyclist who puts in a decent number of miles (just shy of 3k for the year so far) definitely not a masher though.

I'm just now starting to learn about training with power and will be working on a regimen. Still this seems like an incredibly low number... Is it?

KantoBoy

Post a graph of the testing. We'll tell you why you feel this way or why it's only 172.

You can test again when you're all recovered. I'm assuming you'll be using this for a structured program.

gsa103

Sounds reasonably normal for a non-racer. Mine is probably right around there, and I'm probably a similar rider profile.

hamster

The big unknown is your height. 172 is low but could make sense given that you mention riding a 52 elsewhere.

kostyap

I am not racer (sometime ride with racer friends and/or occasionally trying to chase some guy who I think going fast but not too much). So I've never done proper FTP test but since all my rides last longer then an hour I would simply have software to select continuous 1hr long part of the ride with the best average power. I've discovered that it is pretty inconsistent. It normally fluctuates in 180-220W range. My best ever in the middle of last summer was 280. My worst was about 150. I am 6', 180lb, 53yo

DaveWC

Depends on your weight. My FTP is 305, weight 180lbs and 51 years old. A low number can be good as you will see rapid improvement once you start doing some intervals.

hhnngg1

https://cyclingtips.com.au/2009/07/ju...re-these-guys/

Numbers are only valid if you're using a power device (not virtualpower from Trainerroad or other calculated power)

lsberrios1 

Agreed. It's incredible the disparity in numbers for the same ride on a group setting and solo at the same speed in the same route. Can't trust those numbers.

carpediemracing 

As others have said, more info needed, although the actual number is low for a racer.

Your weight, age (if you're 15 or 70 it's different from being 28), how you arrived at 172w, trainer info (is it a Kurt?), etc. Also your height.

Some random noise as well, like what you'd do on a fast hour-long ride (mph, only slight elevation changes if possible), or if you'd done any time trials.

canam73

One more thing, and you have considered this, but most people end up 5-10% lower on trainer tests than road tests. Provided they can find a decent stretch of road for testing.

merlinextraligh

It also only matters as it relates to you over time. It doesn't matter if it's 172 or 272 or 372.

It really only matters if your test is reliable and repeatable. Then it matters how it changes over time.

Other than as a reality check on your results, I wouldn't worry about how it compares to others, in an absolute sense.

robbyville

First, thanks to all for the replies!

As mentioned I'm just getting started on learning to train with power so this was my first attempt with testing. I didn't realize there were so many variables although I should have.

I used a trainer because the area I ride in is so hilly (small short bursts of climbs but my average short 13 mile loop still has 1300 ft of climbing). The trainer I have is a cheap performance fluid trainer although I will soon have either a Kurt or Cyclops.

Below is the link to Garmin I warmed up for 5 minutes then rode for 20. I'm 5'7" 155lbs 44 years old. As mentioned I try to ride 3-5 times each week, average between 70-120 miles during most months but I cruise more than I push. I do a few centuries each year.

My average pace on my shortest loop of 14 miles with short climbs amounting to 1400 ft is around 15.9mph. My average pace on my usual 34 mile loop is around 16.5mph and has about 2500 feet of climbing. I did a century (with many others so I was able to draft), at a ride time of 5:35 with 4700 ft of climbing.

I'm using a Stages power meter. My goal is to drop about 5 more pounds and get stronger/faster. I want to cut an hour off my overall time next year on the Alpine Loop Gran Fondo.

https://connect.garmin.com/activity/388525455

merlinextraligh

I'm getting your FTP at 160. (95% of your 20 minute power). However, that could be low, given the small break in the power data in the middle.

How did you calculate your FTP? and What happened at 14:30?

lsberrios1 

Ok, so I am going to play with this since I am no expert. Then others will chime in and probably correct me. 100'/mile is definitely a very hilly terrain. I train mostly from 60-80'/mile and it's pretty intense. That should be good for you. 5'7" 155 is very healthy but you would probably benefit from some weight loss. I've come down from 200 to 180 in the past 2 months and it makes a whole lot of difference. I am still waiting to lose another 15 by the end of this year.

The reason I think your numbers are that low may be because of the amount you ride monthly. I realized that I started improving much more when I started riding 500+ miles a month. Now my FTP (based on a 20min test with Quarq PM on road) is 260w. That is ok for a guy 180#, maybe a good cat 5 racer. 172w seems about right for the amount of riding you do. That falls into the Non-racer / recreational cyclist range. Your average speed is pretty good and you'd be able to comfortably keep up or even lead a C group club ride. 16mph is pretty respectable for a 100'/mile terrain even for a 15 mile loop.

How did you calculate the FPT? If 172w was the average power for the 20min then you should be on target. The trainer takes 5-10% off but then again you are supposed to multiply that number times .95 if you were doing it on the road. Take into account that the stages measures the power of one leg and then multiplies it times 2. This is not necessarily too accurate but it gives more of an idea. chances are that your results may vary. Also be aware that your body conditions may change and it could have been a weak day for you, but it may have not been.

So my guestimate is that if you put out 172 for those 20 minutes you should be around 165 - 185 with it probably being in the higher range.

lsberrios1 

Do mine, mine, mine!!! I'm not 100% sure on my guesstimation.

https://www.strava.com/activities/87895816/analysis

merlinextraligh

Looks like 273 x .95 = 260

lsberrios1 

Alright! I wonder how accurate a 20min test is in comparison to a true 1hr. FTP test. I have to say that at minute 18 you can see that my power is all over the place. I was swerving on the road about to lose it. I managed to pull through though and I am happy with 260!

Thanks

robbyville

I thought I just used my 20 minute weighted average... at 14:30 I had to stop and open the door to my office for more air and increase the fan since I was boiling. I guess this was pretty flawed.

revchuck 

I checked out the file. First, five minutes isn't anywhere near enough warmup. I'd do 20 minutes as a minimum.

The execution of the test itself looked about right. Power was relatively steady, HR rose slowly towards the end. Good job on that part! According to the graph (right above the power graph, click on the "20 min" box), your max average power was 168. The rule of thumb for figuring FTP from 20 minute power is to multiply it by .95, so you end up with 160 watts (159.6). From what I've read, FTPs for active recreational cyclists are in the 150 watt ballpark, so you're not doing too badly. And as noted above, it may be higher due to your having done it indoors on a trainer rather than outdoors.

The good news is that you now have a baseline. More good news is that to improve for the immediate future, all you have to do is ride more. You wrote that you average 70-120 miles, but it's unclear as to whether that's your weekly or monthly mileage. If it's weekly, you're doing fine. If it's monthly, you need to make it weekly.

There's another way to test for FTP that uses eight minutes rather than 20. You'll need to find about three miles of road that's reasonably level or slightly uphill. Do a good warmup, then hit it as hard as you can stand for eight minutes. Ride slowly back to where you started and do it again. Using the higher average watts of the two, multiply that by .90.

Since you live where it snows, you'll be on that trainer a lot shortly. I recommend that you get a book that shows you what you need to do to improve. I'd go with The Time-Crunched Cyclist, by Chris Carmichael. The explanations are clear, and it's designed for folks who have 6-8 hours/week to devote to it. Riding on a trainer can be incredibly boring, and having interval workouts makes it go faster...and they also make YOU go faster. There are other books out there (most notably by Joe Friel), but they're aimed more at racers than non-racing cyclists who want to improve.

robbyville

If I was going to redo this on the road, what are my best options for the route? Does it have to be essentially flat? I think I may have found a spot that could work for me

Bah Humbug

A slight uphill/ false flat is usually preferred as it keeps speed lower and is usually easier to keep the effort high on.

Bah Humbug

Alternately, get a GSC-10, ANT+ USB stick, and PeriPedal, TrainerRoad, or other similar software and follow their workouts. Reading the book wouldn't hurt, of course, but I find the software makes a huge difference in my ability to do trainer workouts.

lsberrios1 

I found a 1.2 mile stretch near my house that is pretty much flat and went up and down it like 6 times. power dropped to 0 for a second when making the U turn but I guess I compensated by getting on the power soon and very hard so I could pick up the speed again. I did it at 10:15pm so traffic was not an issue. Good luck and let the suffering begin !!

hhnngg1

As a relate aside as well, the FTP is only as valuable as what you're going to do with it. If you're using it to compare your wang with others, then good for you, but it then doesn't really matter much.

If you use it for training, it becomes a lot more relevant how you're getting it. While the 60min all-out test is technically the gold standard, it's very, very hard, and if you rely on that, odds are low you'll test sufficiently to track progress. I'm still trying to find the best one to use, but I'm leaning toward the 8min tests - it's not so hard that you killl yourself doing it, and thus are likely to use it a lot more. In my next cycle, this testing is supposed to happend once every 4 weeks without blowing me up.

If it's going to be for a TT or nondraft race (or even race estimation), though, you want as close to 60min all-out as possible if you're using advice of others of %FTP to race at.

Also note that your indoor power will likely be lower than outdoor power, and road conditions and temp will even affect your FTP so try and keep it consistent during testing.

Wesley36

And more to the point, the 20 minute warm-up should include one 5 minute interval, at all-out intensity. The FTP test is supposed to be a test of your aerobic system, but a 20 minute test can be skewed by initial recruitment of fast-twitch muscle fibers - this would not be a big problem in a 1 hour FTP test, but it can be for a 20 minute test. The prior 5 minute interval is to make sure that the 20 minute number is a bit more representative of your state of fitness. It hurts, but it helps.

And just a quick note lsberrios1 - the turn-around will definitely have an effect on your wattage and the kind of an effort you can put in. Indeed, making a u-turn is an important skill in out-and-back time trials. I suppose if you are consistent it will still let you set a benchmark for testing, but I do not think repeated u-turns will help you get a meaningful FTP number in terms of setting training zones - a quick break and then rapid acceleration will change your numbers compared to a continuous effort.