Agreed, in fact I think that’s a pretty good way to go about it for new athletes who probably can’t pace a longer effort properly. But once you have some training in them, the utility of the ramp test is almost completely lost IMO. If it makes us feel better, maybe don’t call the ramp test result FTP… call it “Training Setting”. 
1 Like
I think I understand why we have been talking past one another: there is overlap between the sweet spot and threshold power zones. And in the context of training that includes sweet spot the common usage of threshold is above sweet spot (88–95 % FTP), i. e. 96–105 % FTP. Even though you are right that in a 7-zone model, most of sweet spot and threshold are in the same zone.
In any case, I don’t want to take away anything from your ability to spend 1 hour at sweet spot or threshold regularly, that’s quite an achievement 
2 Likes
IME, mFTP works really well if I’ve done a long form KM ftp test!
1 Like
Right, which means riding at FTP for a long period of time. I agree - that’s the best way to determine it. 
I’d say it is better to use the CP model to estimate power for 1 hour. And validate in races or relevant events.
1 Like
The thing you should be drawing from my posts is that I believe performance is the most important thing, and any mathematical model is a secondary indicator… doesn’t matter which one in particular. All IMO.
And more importantly I think you fundamentally believe it is too costly, both mentally and physically, to do long threshold. But yeah, Coggan reluctantly included sweet spot in iLevels:
Source: Individualized Training: The What, Why, and How Of the New WKO4 iLevels | TrainingPeaks
The zone discussion is a distraction to the main point.
My evidence based counter argument to “its too costly” is that like anything, it can be trained by folks with average genetics and limited endurance training history. I can’t give you the anec-data of others, but I’m not the only one in our local cycling scene to have done it.
I dunno.
“CP is the power output that you’ll trend towards when riding at a high intensity, as exercise duration is increased ‘indefinitely’. ‘Indefinitely’ is a mathematical construct, and not actually true in practice, which is why this power-duration model fails to hold at or below CP. In practice, people can typically only sustain power outputs at CP for around 30-minutes (Vanhatalo et al., 2011).”
1 Like
If you’re using FTP as a stand-in for MLSS, it’s not X power (* X ratio) for X minutes, it’s a physiological state that can vary greatly between athletes… but agreed with:
After having done tons of ramp tests and 20m efforts that result in overzealous FTP estimates, I’ve swapped over to the KM test of basically feeling out that physiological state & holding it as long as I can. Definitely an ego deflater, but workouts feel a lot more achievable and I don’t fail as many workouts anymore.
2 Likes
Seems like you’re disagreeing with something I didn’t say… since I specifically said FTP is not Power*X ratio, but is instead what you can actually manage for closer to 1 hour?
The formula is field tests are estimates of threshold power. Threshold power itself is based on performance and what you can actually do, as you agreed with.
I never understand this reluctance to going hard for an hour. I tought we are a group of rough, hardened men.
Maybe I should post this into what makes u angry thread.
4 Likes
I don’t think so, I know so from experience. I am pretty good at sweet spot and “proper” threshold (= Z4 - sweet spot) efforts, I really like those. My favorite races are hill climb TTs. So I know my body needs more recovery afterward proper threshold efforts than sweet spot efforts. E. g. during outdoor climbs, I can do sweet spot efforts without much fatigue, and I have gas left in the tank for e. g. VO2max climbs.
When I do a longer (= 30+ minutes) climb outdoors at threshold, I have to be slow and conserve energy before getting to that climb and I have to be kind on the way back. (I’m thinking of one particular climb where I am currently #2, and it is about 50 km away one-way.)
On the trainer I treat sweet spot and threshold efforts very differently. I use resistance mode for efforts in sweet spot zone and up, and usually I try to keep my oscillations even around the target power. For efforts at FTP, I “approach from below”, because if my FTP is set properly, I can feel when I am 2 W over my FTP during a 16-minute effort. With sweet spot intervals I can overshoot, no biggie. With efforts close to FTP, overshooting usually has a negative impact on subsequent intervals. Even during shorter efforts, the sensations change, and approaching from below significantly increases my chances to finish workouts as prescribed. I also need to more mental energy to hit my power targets during those efforts, especially in the beginning of later threshold intervals my power tends to be a little below target power.
Also recovery is quite different, sweet spot is much easier on my legs and body. I did a threshold workout yesterday (and a gym session), and my legs are tingly. (I like that feeling.)
I’m not sure exactly what you are arguing for. “Proper” threshold work should be part of proper training plans. I’m currently doing a polarized block so I have a lot of threshold work scheduled for the next few weeks. It’s gonna be fun. But this thread was about 1x60 minutes at “proper” threshold, which is what my argument was about. 1x60 minutes at sweet spot is a different animal. You incur more fatigue, both mental and physical, which impacts your training later. Those workouts where you are at the knife’s edge are also prone to you failing them. Riding at slightly lower efforts increases your chances to be consistent and give you close to the same physiological adaptations.
Lastly, even if you have “average genetics”, you will still have a particular power profile with specific aptitudes. Average means that you are within the fat part of the bell curve, but that doesn’t mean your abilities are all average. In fact, that’s quite unlikely. (Reminds me of a 99 % Invisible story on fighter cockpit design. Hard to fathom that seats and controls in planes apparently weren’t adjustable during that WW2.)
Guys with sprint profile that blow up after 10 minutes taking it out to 2 hours. Clearly aptitude. Peace out.
Random thought…
How is an hour at FTP any different to attempting the hour record?
Isn’t a better question: “Is 1xTTE at FTP pointless?” I happen to think the answer is “No,” but I’m not sure it is something you need to do frequently. As I think others have mentioned, FTP is a stand-in for MLSS, and TTE (time to exhaustion) @ MLSS varies for most people. So, while frequently doing 1xTTE @ MLSS/FTP may not be normal, working toward total TTE @ MLSS/FTP over the course of a workout through intervals is very useful. In order to raise FTP and increase TTE, you have to push the envelope of TTE @ MLSS/FTP. So, if your TTE @ FTP is 45 minutes, you could start at 3x15, 2x23, and progress to 1x45, etc.
1 Like
A few years after I did my progression, watched a WKO webinar and its essentially the strategy suggested by Coach Tim Cusick in this webinar: Building Fatigue Resistance Strategy Into Training - YouTube and in that video he emphasizes its a philosophy/strategy and not an exact prescription. The YouTube video has a link to download slides as PDF.