siovene

Hi all,
I recently got a turbo trainer and a TrainerRoad account, so I'm following their plans based on the speed/watts conversion that they can do based on the known resistance curve of my turbo trainer's make and model.

I did a 2x8' test to find my FTP (https://www.strava.com/activities/83715354 ), and it's supposed to have two 8-minute all out efforts. I did it right because at the end of each of the two periods I was totally spent, and both had the same average watts: 294. That gave me an FTP of 264 W.

So I've been doing some of the Base II workouts, and they often have 10-minute intervals between 95% and 99% FTP.

If I understand correctly, FTP is the wattage you can produce steadily for an hour all out. With the experience I've gained doing TrainerRoad workouts, I can say with confidence that it's impossible for me to spend an hour at 264 W, not even if my life depended on it!

For instance today I broke down at the third 10-minute interval at near FTP effort, so I had to cut it short and take a longer resting period (8 minutes instead of 5). Then I could complete the next, but broke down few minutes short of completing the fifth and last. https://www.strava.com/activities/88400493

So I'm wondering: what's wrong? Was I having a particularly good day when I did the FTP test? Was I so motivated to get a good wattage that I went overboard (but it's supposed to be an ALL OUT effort!)?

Let me anticipate some of your questions:

Yes, I'm pumping my wheel always at 120 PSI, and turning the knob that locks the resistance unit to the wheel 3 times around, every time. So I'm consistent.
No, I'm not fatigued.

Now, I suppose I could go a bit harder if I was more motivated (lika a tiger chasing me), but I rest my case: I could not pedal for an hour at 264 W.

Can somebody please clear my doubts?

Thank you in advance!
Salva.

Carbonfiberboy 

FTP is, as you say, defined as the maximum average power a cyclist can maintain over a one-hour effort. It's not defined as the result of a short test. The problem is that we, luckily, are all differently abled, in this case w/r to our ability to produce power at varying levels. I would say that you have good anaerobic endurance, enough so that you were able to skew your test results toward the high end. You should use a smaller multiplier for the result of that particular test. Coggan has a decent discussion of FTP here:
https://home.trainingpeaks.com/articl...old-power.aspx

Coggan recommends using the normalized 1 hour average power from a mass start race, the problem being that none of us are that interested in suffering for an hour on the trainer, and would question the result of such a test anyway. Hard to get that motivated. My practice, though I use an HRM rather than a PM, is to use what I can hold on a 20 minute climb in the middle of a long competitive group ride. That seems to work well enough.

gregf83 

Don't worry about it. Your FTP is largely irrelevant for training with intervals. If you're doing 8 min intervals at a particular power and having difficulty completing the workout, lower the target until you can complete them. Conversely, if you're finding the workouts too easy, raise the target by 5-10W.

If you really want to measure test your FTP you need to be rested, so don't measure after a hard week of training.

Hermes

IMHO, the power zone and performance manager construct as defined by Coggan are geared to experienced elite 1/2 road racers. That does not mean that it does not or cannot apply to others. One has to learn how to execute the protocol of an FTP test and likewise train ones brain to maintain FTP power for one hour. Having said that, I had a coach who told me that there are two different types of cyclists - bursty and those who like torque. This was an observation and not based in science or testing. So some cyclists are good at shorter events and others are capable of sustaining and like torque in their legs for long periods of time - climbers and time trialists.

So if one does an 8 minute or 20 minute all out FTP test, the discount multiplier to arrive at actual FTP can vary from athlete to athlete especially for newer cyclists. IMO, unless one is using an actual proven power meter the results should be suspect. And FTP tests on trainers will be different than FTP tests on the road. I find the trainer harder and lower my target power numbers by 10% for a workout. I have both the Kurt and Cycleops fluid trainers and the Cycleops power changes over time. I know this since I have a power meter on the training and I hold cadence constant and the power read on my PM rises. IMO, this makes power curves from trainers at best suspect and at worst inaccurate. YMMV.

One of the best features of training with power is collecting long term data and entering it into WKO or GC and using the performance manager and maximum power calculations. The software calculates a training stress score for the workout and plots it on a graph. It keeps a 7 day and 42 day rolling average. The difference between the 42 and 7 day average is the fatigue. If the 7 day average is much higher than the long term average, then the training stress balance is negative. The more negative the score, the more tired the athlete is.

The other thing I found is that the performance manage and TSS scores do not work for track. My track TSS scores are low compared to road and I can generate a lot of fatigue doing track workouts. I think it is the higher cadence at the track as well at the large accelerations that are not captured properly in the equations.

FTP can be relevant when doing intervals. Let's say that you are to do 2 sets of 10 by 90 second anaerobic intervals. That is 20 hard efforts. If you do the first set as hard as possible, your power during the last set may not reach the proper power level. When I do that type of workout, I start by hitting the low end of the anaerobic range. As I proceed into the workout, I try to increase the power in the later intervals. Likewise if one is going to do 5 short intervals with the goal of max power for the interval, then FTP is not important.

chaadster

I think the basic problem is with the power estimate, which is exactly that, an estimate, and not actual power. It could easily be 30w off (i.e. high), and well, maybe you could do 234w for an hour, huh?