FTP test protocol
 

I would've posted this in the power questions thread but this isn't really a question about power.

I've been working pretty steadily on my FTP for a a couple months now. Started with SST, getting up to an hour at 90-95% or so. Then I moved to 2x15s, 2x20s, 3x18s, 3x20s, then 2x20s with bursts, etc. All went as planned.

I took a rest week at which point my TSB was -0.6 the day before the test. I go to do "the test" (meaning the testing protocol specified by Allen/Coggan in their book). 5 minutes all out, then rest 10 minutes, then 20 minutes FTP test.

5-minute effort was pretty good. Within 2 watts of my all time high. Went so hard I couldn't see straight. Then easy at 50W for the 10 minutes. Then went for the FTP. Started easier than I thought I should, then started ramping up slowly to what felt like FTPish levels. But I started noticing early that my legs were really heavy and near cramping.

So I did what Allen recommends and bailed on the test, rode easy for 20 minutes and attempted a second time. Same thing. 7 minutes in I cracked. Both tests, it turned out, were just barely at my current FTP. One that I've now held on multiple occasions, quite "easily", for 3x20s. Same bike, same PM, same road, and I calibrated right before the test.

So the question is, anyone else have trouble with this testing protocol? Do you go "all out" for the 5 minutes or just use it as a warm-up? And lastly, what about the rest-week aspect? I always feel like complete crap after a traditional rest week and it takes days to get back. I did do some leg openers 2 days before and then moderate the day before, but I still had "the crud".


Thoughts/comments are greatly appreciated.

I use the 5' as a warm-up and run it at my previous 20' test wattage.

Here's the deal. You can test your 20 minute power however you want.

As long as you do the test in similar conditions, similarly rested, and in a similar protocol, your numbers will be fine. We're concerned about the trend here.

If you can't do workouts in zones as prescribed by your FTP, then you might be better off not testing that way.

I'd do them the way that kensuf just said after a day off. If you have a trainer, you might want to MAP test as well so you have two different setups going.

Good luck!

depends on my previous workload, but typically i test on Tuesday's after an off day on Monday. i do a 15 min warm up. say i start around 200w and increase power 10w every 2 minutes. at 12 to 14 i do FTP wattage, then rest for 1 minute, then hit the gas for the 20 min test. this is my "trainer" protocol. later.

I both of these “primers” make more sense than a 5min all-out effort. Even the often given explanation of “using up your anaerobic energy” is bogus, as your high energy phosphates will be fully recovered after 10min of rest (as demonstrated by 31P NMRI). All you’re really doing is pre-damaging your muscles and using up some motivation that could be used during the 20’.

oh no, not nukular magnetic resonance

actually, that's pretty damned cool. do you have link to the paper?

:beer:

At least a few people can understand my annoyance with them* dropping the N when it comes to "MRIs" (although I posted wrong, in this case it's spectroscopy not imagery).

*Radiologists and techs got sick of explaining how there is nothing radioactive involved; so they changed the wording instead of educating patients.

I'll post some stuff including that reference sometime soon.

This is exactly what I was considering. I never subscribed to the "using up anaerobic energy" line but have traditionally thought that an all out 5-minute before the 20-minute test would more closely approximate an hour at FTP. Since 95% of a 20-minute is an approximation already, I didn't want to "do it wrong". But having done an hour at FTP, I can empirically say that its much much worse (on me).

Might be a question to post on the wattage forum also but I think in my n=1 study, I'll start ding 5-minutes at my current FTP as a warm up.

Thanks everyone.

ftp = 60min

anything less than that will always just be a guess.

i've done both. the 20MMP *0.95 approximation is close enough (for me and i suspect for most) to use for design of a training program.

Agreed. But given real world constraints like a lunch hour ride and no course that allows for 60 minutes uninterrupted, I do what I can.

For the record, I took a rest day yesterday and then went out today and chose to repeat. New 20-minute PR. So I'll use .95 of today's number and start doing intervals based on that. If I can't hold it, I'll reevaluate my test results.

Again, thanks everyone for the consideration and input. I might still dig around on the wattage forum and see if I can get the same feedback. If so, I'll post it back here.

It's also a victim of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. You can't measure your 60' power without impacting your 60' power. It would require a taper, where you lose CTL, and a recovery, where you again lose CTL. And all of this would impact any races that were in the two surrounding weeks. When it's all over, you FTP won't be the same as what your test result shows.

On the other hand, if you don't taper properly, then you're coming in lower than your real threshold.

What's really important is setting your training zones and tracking changes. Many of the other deadly sins are perfectly valid for this use. If you want to go throwing around an e-wang, that might be a different story, but for training, something like MAP or Monod are really quite good, and pretty consistent in my experience.

I guess I would add that when we speak of FTP = CP20x 0.95, it's really plus or minus a few percent. So it could really be 93%, which is where I think I fall in. A 30min test (which IIRC Friel recommends) is more like .95 for me.