FTP 2015

tunney

dermabrasion wrote: »

I echo what doozerie said. FTP is great to benchmark how training is going. In a race with adrenaline pumping, and rage in your eyes, I think numbers can put out can be surprising.

If the numbers are surprising its just an indicator that your training and testing is muck.

tunney

doozerie wrote: »

I don't see any value in absolute FTP figures, a thread where people cite just that figure could all too easily just become a willy-waving contest. That view may well be based based on ignorance re power training on my part though. My willy is massive, incidentally.

Knowing your own FTP is certainly very useful when focusing your own training, and gauging your own progress, but I can't see any benefit in comparing it to other people's FTP figure. For example, my FTP is a respectable 2,200W but that is tempered slightly by my weight of 575kg - most of that is willy weight though, my willy's W/kg figure is terrible, mine is fantastic.

Agree to some extent on the willy shaking.

Absolute FTP has its merits in knowing, think contador versus cancellera.

Beasty

tunney wrote: »

Absolute FTP has its merits in knowing, think contador versus cancellera.

Even moreso the hour record, with Jens having put out 412w, and Bradley appearing capable of something north of 450w, which, all other things being equal, makes a difference of over 1.5km

I would also add that seeing how some of these figures progress over a year for others may help some appreciate and possibly realise a bit more of their own potential

fat bloke

tunney wrote: »

If the numbers are surprising its just an indicator that your training and testing is muck.

Or awesome.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

FTP is still important, not as much as my previous tri days were a lot of time was spent 70-75% for IM racing. For bike racing I think the shorter & harder efforts, 5sec through 5mins is more important along with the ability to recover from these efforts.

harringtonp

tunney wrote: »

If the numbers are surprising its just an indicator that your training and testing is muck.

Agree with this, never get near figures for a 5 or 20 min test in a race

Hi Ho

tunney wrote: »

Agree to some extent on the willy shaking.

Absolute FTP has its merits in knowing, think contador versus cancellera.

Ya, a big willy doesn't automatically mean a good performance - the same with FTP. Still, I suppose we'd all like big numbers in both depts.

doozerie

tunney wrote: »

Absolute FTP has its merits in knowing, think contador versus cancellera.

I certainly think it is interesting to know someone's FTP when you already know something about them - even if I only saw a photo of Contador and Cancellara I'd be inclined to make assumptions about how they might fare against each other on different terrains, and this would provide some context for the FTP figures.

If all they were to me were a couple of anonymous names on a page or on an online forum, then their FTP figures would mean little to me in themselves. Their respective weights would add a lot more information immediately, though again it would be easy to read too much into what is still such a very small amount of info, relatively speaking.

An FTP figure in the absence of any other info strikes me as being about as useful/useless an indicator of someone's athletic ability as a measure of their thigh circumference, their shoe size (although I vaguely recall reading something purporting to be a scientific conclusion that longer feet might give greater leverage on a bike and therefore greater power output), or the volume of dribble they typically leave behind them on the road (Tony Martin, I'm talking about you!).

Beasty

It is very useful for TT specialists (flat courses where weight is of much less importance). It can give you almost perfect info for pacing yourself on a 25m TT, and knowing how much you must improve to get a certain time. That seems to me to be one of the main reasons it is a very popular measure for triathletes

doozerie

Beasty wrote: »

It is very useful for TT specialists (flat courses where weight is of much less importance). It can give you almost perfect info for pacing yourself on a 25m TT, and knowing how much you must improve to get a certain time. That seems to me to be one of the main reasons it is a very popular measure for triathletes

Useful for the individual themselves certainly (I mentioned for training earlier but I completely agree that for something like a TT it's very useful too), but I still don't see how in itself it is of any use to anyone else, coaches aside, to know your FTP.

If you provide further info about yourself, or if they already know more about you than just your FTP number, then certainly your FTP number can prove interesting to others. Some of the posts in this thread already are interesting because people have put context around their FTP, and for me that's where it becomes a discussion worth reading.

Ken1975

tunney wrote: »

Do it on the flat. your numbers will be an awful lot less so if you got with 285-290 you are over estimating FTP.

or put it in terms or an Irish race, how often are you racing up a hill past 10mins never mind 20 mins.
FTP efforts to be done on the flat, where most of our racing is done

manwithaplan

OK, already!

pprendeville

doozerie wrote: »

Useful for the individual themselves certainly (I mentioned for training earlier but I completely agree that for something like a TT it's very useful too), but I still don't see how in itself it is of any use to anyone else, coaches aside, to know your FTP.

If you provide further info about yourself, or if they already know more about you than just your FTP number, then certainly your FTP number can prove interesting to others. Some of the posts in this thread already are interesting because people have put context around their FTP, and for me that's where it becomes a discussion worth reading.

It's very useful for setting your training intensity zones. Eg VO2 efforts and your FTP was 300W, it would pointless doing your intervals at 290W.

Also, and this is usually the case in most hilly races where you have a deciding hill maybe 5-8mins, one example I can think of is RAS Clar where there's a nice hill around the 5-8min mark. You can pace yourself better if you know your FTP. Much better to have a power meter for this.

doozerie

pprendeville wrote: »

It's very useful for setting your training intensity zones. Eg VO2 efforts and your FTP was 300W, it would pointless doing your intervals at 290W.

Also, and this is usually the case in most hilly races where you have a deciding hill maybe 5-8mins, one example I can think of is RAS Clar where there's a nice hill around the 5-8min mark. You can pace yourself better if you know your FTP. Much better to have a power meter for this.

Yes, if you are training and/or racing with power you need to know your own FTP, my point is that your FTP info is of little use or interest to anyone else in itself.

If I post here that my FTP is 220W that means nothing. It’s a relatively puny figure and you might casually assume that someone with an FTP of 440W would demolish me in a race. But if I weighed 57.5kg and they weighed 115kg then that puts things in a different light. If the race was all uphill that would put things in a very different light. And so on.

FTP is sometimes cited as if it is the defining measure of any athlete when it clearly isn’t. It can be very useful when combined with other relevant information about the athlete but, in my mind, almost useless without that context.

uphillonly

doozerie wrote: »

Yes, if you are training and/or racing with power you need to know your own FTP, my point is that your FTP info is of little use or interest to anyone else in itself.

You're right other's data is of little use for your own performance. I thinks it's more a group motivation/ weight watchers clapping/ Strava kudos kind of thing, seeing people progress.

It is of interest to many though, as most power users like looking at numbers & analysing data, not just their own. Even without job & children I probably couldn't reach A1/A2 level however much training I did. But I'm interested to see the kind of figures these guys produce.

no1murray

https://www.strava.com/activities/250765551 done an ftp for anyone intrested. 395 watts for 20 min.... gives me ftp of 375.25 @74kg gives me 5.07 w/kg...... finally over the magic 5

harringtonp

doozerie wrote: »

Yes, if you are training and/or racing with power you need to know your own FTP, my point is that your FTP info is of little use or interest to anyone else in itself.

If I post here that my FTP is 220W that means nothing. It’s a relatively puny figure and you might casually assume that someone with an FTP of 440W would demolish me in a race. But if I weighed 57.5kg and they weighed 115kg then that puts things in a different light. If the race was all uphill that would put things in a very different light. And so on.

FTP is sometimes cited as if it is the defining measure of any athlete when it clearly isn’t. It can be very useful when combined with other relevant information about the athlete but, in my mind, almost useless without that context.

That is why you often see it quoted as a W/KG figure. And if you see this along with a persons weight, you can gauge fairly well how they can potentially ride on hills and flat.

harringtonp

no1murray wrote: »

https://www.strava.com/activities/250765551 done an ftp for anyone intrested. 395 watts for 20 min.... gives me ftp of 375.25 @74kg gives me 5.07 w/kg...... finally over the magic 5

When I see figures like that feel no guilt whatsoever sucking wheels and just trying to survive in a race.

Leave the front for the Beasts !

manwithaplan

no1murray wrote: »

https://www.strava.com/activities/250765551 done an ftp for anyone intrested. 395 watts for 20 min.... gives me ftp of 375.25 @74kg gives me 5.07 w/kg...... finally over the magic 5

Couldn't resist looking up post history. Relieved to see the word 'Rás' in there.

Leroy42

on the question of FTP, to what extent is it trainable? Obviously there is a massive difference between Joe Couch Potato and say no1murray, and there then is a big difference to someone like Wiggins (456w for 1 hour TT!)

But how much of that is down to continuous and consistent training, and how much is down to genetics? Could someone who is putting out 200w (or whatever) ever hope to get to 400W?

Hi Ho

Leroy42 wrote: »

on the question of FTP, to what extent is it trainable? Obviously there is a massive difference between Joe Couch Potato and say no1murray, and there then is a big difference to someone like Wiggins (456w for 1 hour TT!)

But how much of that is down to continuous and consistent training, and how much is down to genetics? Could someone who is putting out 200w (or whatever) ever hope to get to 400W?

It's both. A key question is FTP relative to Vo2Max - that is the main indicator in well trained athletes, where there seems to be a genetic limit to the latter.
The upper limit of FTP is probably set by upper limit of Vo2Max. But that's not definitive either.

Lumen

Leroy42 wrote: »

on the question of FTP, to what extent is it trainable? Obviously there is a massive difference between Joe Couch Potato and say no1murray, and there then is a big difference to someone like Wiggins (456w for 1 hour TT!)

But how much of that is down to continuous and consistent training, and how much is down to genetics? Could someone who is putting out 200w (or whatever) ever hope to get to 400W?

Every pro tour cyclist starts by kicking the arse of everyone in their home country almost without trying.

And then they discover that there are lots of countries.

no1murray

manwithaplan wrote: »

Couldn't resist looking up post history. Relieved to see the word 'Rás' in there.

It is a great 8 days. Looking forward to it again this year.

no1murray

Leroy42 wrote: »

on the question of FTP, to what extent is it trainable? Obviously there is a massive difference between Joe Couch Potato and say no1murray, and there then is a big difference to someone like Wiggins (456w for 1 hour TT!)

But how much of that is down to continuous and consistent training, and how much is down to genetics? Could someone who is putting out 200w (or whatever) ever hope to get to 400W?

It is very trainable. I'm sure when I started out 4 years ago I would have been around 200w (that's just a guess). It's all about a small progression every year. But by training smart it is somewhat achievable. A power meter is a great way to gauge your progression. Steady state 20 min efforts are key to building threshold power @ around 85-95% of FTP. A good coach can help or like me you can read everything you find. Training and racing with power is a good place to start.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

no1murray wrote: »

Steady state 20 min efforts are key to building threshold power @ around 85-95% of FTP. A good coach can help or like me you can read everything you find. Training and racing with power is a good place to start.

Have you read up on polarized training approach? With some of the case studies out there it would suggest greater improvements to be had pulling up FTP with HIIT rather than pushing up via sub threshold work 85-95%.

harringtonp

Higher your V02 max, more trainable FTP improvements is.

Hunter/Allen talk about getting small gains in VO2 Max through training but much larger gains in terms of improving LT as a percentage of V02 Max.

So if you come into cycling from another sport (such as running) where you were at a a high level, proper training for cycling over a few years will see big gains.

But if you have a small engine, best you can do is make it as efficient as possible.

pprendeville

Eden Black Self-importance wrote: »

Have you read up on polarized training approach? With some of the case studies out there it would suggest greater improvements to be had pulling up FTP with HIIT rather than pushing up via sub threshold work 85-95%.

any good links on this?

this looks like a good place to start.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

pprendeville wrote: »

any good links on this?

this looks like a good place to start.

Thats one i would have posted, a few others i have read which i will try link to.

LCD

Eden Black Self-importance wrote: »

Thats one i would have posted, a few others i have read which i will try link to.

Or you could do a bit of work you lazy git!

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

LCD wrote: »

Or you could do a bit of work you lazy git!

4pm was my lunch break, we cannot all go for long 2hr lunch break cycles.:)

pprendeville

The bottom line here is that even though polarized training has repeatedly been shown to produce the greatest improvements, how you train throughout the year must be seen in a far broader perspective. Smart training is not an either-or proposition. You don’t just train one way or the other throughout the entire season. It always comes down to taking a long-term view relative to your races, goals and personal limiters and then designing a training program that addresses these matters.

This sums up training over the entire year quite well.

pprendeville

this thread seems to have gone off track to me a bit. could one be setup rather like the post images of beauty thread where people just list their FTP, W/kg or where they'd like to be in a few months in relation to these.

Leroy42

Just on the training (increasing) of FTP. From my reading, you should train close, but just below, your FTP for varying time, be it 2x20 (which seems to be the default) or iterations of that (4x10etc).

So if FTP is 230 you should aim to do 2x20 at 213 or so. Is that supposed to increase your FTP? How does training below your current level help you increase that level. Would the plan be that you do that for a few weeks, restest and then adjust to the new FTP?

I have read the books but I just not getting it. Does training at that (213) level not just train you to go at the level?

pprendeville

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just on the training (increasing) of FTP. From my reading, you should train close, but just below, your FTP for varying time, be it 2x20 (which seems to be the default) or iterations of that (4x10etc).

So if FTP is 230 you should aim to do 2x20 at 213 or so. Is that supposed to increase your FTP? How does training below your current level help you increase that level. Would the plan be that you do that for a few weeks, restest and then adjust to the new FTP?

I have read the books but I just not getting it. Does training at that (213) level not just train you to go at the level?

if you Google Sweetspot training you should find plenty to clarify. My understanding is that it gives you your best bang for buck. You're training at a hard enough intensity to ensure the body makes adaptations but not so hard that you won't be able to complete the intended intervals.

mossym

pprendeville wrote: »

this thread seems to have gone off track to me a bit. could one be setup rather like the post images of beauty thread where people just list their FTP, W/kg or where they'd like to be in a few months in relation to these.

to be fair it's been one of the more interesting threads on the forum in quite some time. discussion on proper cycling and how to improve rather than another thread with some lad trying to decide between a 105 equipped alu framed bike and a 105 alu framed bike.

Arthurdaly

What sort of adjustment would you guys make for a TT bike? I complete the FTP test on my roadbike and have done some threshold intervals on the TT bike down on the pads. I complete them at the target watts but they were very tough.

Since then I complete a session on road bike and it was toughish but manageable. Next session I will go back to the TT bike but probably drop the watts by 10/15.

mossym

Arthurdaly wrote: »

What sort of adjustment would you guys make for a TT bike? I complete the FTP test on my roadbike and have done some threshold intervals on the TT bike down on the pads. I complete them at the target watts but they were very tough.

Since then I complete a session on road bike and it was toughish but manageable. Next session I will go back to the TT bike but probably drop the watts by 10/15.

test on tt/tri bike. anything close to threshold work done on the tri bike.

anything easy or low intensity intervals done on the road bike

godtabh

I did an FTP test on trainer road in Jan. Came out at 236w. Did another on the first of Feb. Came in at 255w.

Was out yesterday and wanted to push myself on a few climbs/segments. Was flat out for awhile.

Checked Garmin Connect. My 20m average was 275w suggesting an FTP of 264w.

Would like to get it up to 300w plus. Not to pushed about w/kg because that is embarrassing at the moment

StevieGriff

As interesting as I find this thread it keeps reminding me that a power meter costs almost a month of my wages Sound.

no1murray

StevieGriff wrote: »

As interesting as I find this thread it keeps reminding me that a power meter costs almost a month of my wages Sound.

A power tap can be rented for around 70 euro a month. Its a good investment even if you just get it for the 3 months you want to get the best out of training. But ya it is a very expensive number for the gamin. But if you like to geek on numbers it will be money well spent.

godtabh

no1murray wrote: »

A power tap can be rented for around 70 euro a month. Its a good investment even if you just get it for the 3 months you want to get the best out of training. But ya it is a very expensive number for the gamin. But if you like to geek on numbers it will be money well spent.

IN ireland? I've never seen them for rent in Ireland

StevieGriff

no1murray wrote: »

A power tap can be rented for around 70 euro a month. Its a good investment even if you just get it for the 3 months you want to get the best out of training. But ya it is a very expensive number for the gamin. But if you like to geek on numbers it will be money well spent.

Since I got a Garmin Edge I get way too engrossed in numbers. Everything from Cadence to temperature and barometric pressure :P

godtabh wrote: »

IN ireland? I've never seen them for rent in Ireland

Like godtabh said, IN ireland? I imagine they'd some sort of 3-6 month minimum rental on that as well. With a hefty deposit too.

no1murray

godtabh wrote: »

IN ireland? I've never seen them for rent in Ireland

A1 coaching in Dublin rent them. Waterford cycle center rent them. There are English companies that will post them over. Loads of options

no1murray

StevieGriff wrote: »

Since I got a Garmin Edge I get way too engrossed in numbers. Everything from Cadence to temperature and barometric pressure :P



Like godtabh said, IN ireland? I imagine they'd some sort of 3-6 month minimum rental on that as well. With a hefty deposit too.

usually 3 months minimum and a credit card will do the trick

Gunth

Is it more beneficial to keep doing sweet spot sessions throughout the season rather than training at sweet spot for a period and progressing to training at FTP?

no1murray

Gunth wrote: »

Is it more beneficial to keep doing sweet spot sessions throughout the season rather than training at sweet spot for a period and progressing to training at FTP?

It all depends what part of the training cycle you are in. For me it all about building from the bottom starting with sweet spot and will usually end the block of training with 3×20 threshold in a 4 hour spin.
The way I look at it is like weightlifting. You find your max squat (ftp) for example. You don't go to every training session and lift your max, instead you lift a % of your max, concentrating on form and executing the lift properly. Building up from the bottom thus increasing you max lift. The power meter is perfect for measuring the weight you are lifting and tracking progress.

Alek

Does it make any sense to estimate FTP without a power meter, just from the effort?

In example, I have climbed Cruagh Road to Pine Forest peak today, 5.6km@5% avg gradient, in 19:51. No wind. My weight is 83 + 1kg clothes + 15kg bike (yes! studded MTB tyres and all) = 99kg. It was near-full-out effort for me.

Bicycle power calculator shows 319W, Strava 311W. This translates roughly to 3.7W/kg.

So, my FTP would be ~295W, right?

Is it a believable value?

godtabh

Alek wrote: »

Does it make any sense to estimate FTP without a power meter, just from the effort?

In example, I have climbed Cruagh Road to Pine Forest peak today, 5.6km@5% avg gradient, in 19:51. No wind. My weight is 83 + 1kg clothes + 15kg bike (yes! studded MTB tyres and all) = 99kg. It was near-full-out effort for me.

Bicycle power calculator shows 319W, Strava 311W. This translates roughly to 3.7W/kg.

So, my FTP would be ~295W, right?

Is it a believable value?

There is no way to tell accurately

Chips Lovell

Stuff like Strava estimates can be well off what you actually put out. If I wasn't using a power meter, I wouldn't worry about trying to find a number and instead regularly test myself by time on the same roads, taking note of the conditions.

Lumen

Without a power meter I'd just go by VAM (vertical ascent metres).

>800m/hr is decent (for an hour long effort) fast recreational pace.
>1600m/hr is ethically questionable.

^^ that was ~840 although I'm not sure I have my % gradient calculation right.

VAM is obviously subject to wind and gradient (the shallower the gradient the harder it is to hit the VAMs).