I am glad it’s accurate for you, but it’s not accurate for most unfortunately.
If you want to take a look at why this is a good read:
And this is an interesting look at it as well:
2 Likes
I am not familiar with it, but it doesn’t really matter in this context. The main point is that in completing the same test seven times in seven days, he got seven different results. Which one could / should he rely on to set his training zones?
1 Like
the large gap in training before the 12 week plan doesnt help either
Indeed… If they are using an FTP number from 3rd April 2024, then they had a big break, then completed a nice 16 week block (even without the illness, or as Eddie suggests, starting proper structured training Jan 2025) - I don’t see you’d necessarily expect any gain on April 2024. Obviously it depends how well trained you were in April 2024 etc., but an alternative view would be that the training block in 2025 has been a great success, because it brought you back to within 7 watts of your April 2024 fitness after a break!
I think without a FTP benchmark before the new training block, if the comparison is with an old FTP number that preceded a break, the comparison doesn’t really mean anything.
2 Likes
Sounds more like it was 4 weeks of consistent training, then a week interrupted by illness, followed by another consistent week, then a complete fall off of plan/workouts/structure…
I get that its easy to “think you’re doing the work,” but to come on this forum and insist that the product is broken while giving a picture of training that hardly reflects reality, is egregious. Not sure how you could be an active TR user for a substantial amount of time and think you can take a long break, not follow the plan for even 2 consecutive blocks – while using an FTP from a year ago before the long break – and then blame the system/product for your FTP going down 7 watts.
I dunno, maybe some of his work isn’t on his calendar, and he’s getting his FTP elsewhere. If so, then I’m wrong, but that doesn’t seem to be the most logical answer here.
These threads are getting old.
12 Likes
It would definitely be helpful if the user came back and responded to the feedback. Without it, it’s hard to see it differently.
11 Likes
I am well aware of this method as I used it for years. I don’t really need it anymore since I can just go ride for 10-15 minutes and know where I am.
Ramp test is just a shortcut for me if I need some sort of reality check. First one I did in a couple of years was last week when the “AI” gave me a number way too high, and I wanted a reality check on if I was stronger than I realized, or the “AI” is not so “I”.
You’d need to know more about his set-up, pacing and history before you could make any assessment.
On the face of it, the results indicate that the user struggled with pacing properly, but got better at it with each successive test (except for #6). There is no way you’d see a 15% improvement that quickly otherwise (assuming all his equipment and set-up was acting consistently for each test).
Connor was a beast when he was a pro and managed like 470w for 20 min back then. Getting back to decent power numbers in that kind of experiment from a detrained state isn’t that surprising if you know what he was capable of as a pro.
1 Like
Isn’t one of the things that massively picks up quicky is the blood plasma? I remember hearing If your getting back into things its important to ride for a week or two before doing an FTP test as otherwise you see this ridiculous number gains.
In a later video he did a 1 hour test, with the aim of holding 405W for the 60 minutes.
He managed to hold it for 26’30"
This is the video
2 Likes
That post was not directed at you.
1 Like
Man, it bums me out that GCN is so popular, because they end up creating lots of misconception. They have great production value and they manage to get enough things right that people trust them. But then they flub things and don’t fix them.
First of all, they screwed up the math of the 20 min test, saying that you divide your 20 min power by 95%. Incorrect, that would mean your FTP is higher than your 20 minute power, which is obviously wrong. They got both the audio and video wrong on that. And instead of fixing the video (totally possible for them to do) or the description, they made a comment. But they didn’t even put the correction in the pinned comment, just a random one that most people won’t see.
Then of course they do these n=1 poorly or uncontrolled experiments and draw universal conclusions from that. At least now they try to add some expert opinions on the topic. But they slice and dice the interviews and clearly don’t understand what’s being said. It’s just some editor plowing through the work and host not helping the viewer understand.
So the did this crummy “FTP” test in the previous video that gave him an inflated FTP. Then they tried to validate the FTP and he could only last 26 minutes riding to utter failure, collapsing on the ground in pain. It was the clearest proof you could have that this was not his actual FTP. They even showed that his heart rate was never leveled off, instead had a significant upward slope the whole time. Textbook example of incorrectly determined FTP. He should have been able to hold it at least 35 minutes and his heart rate should have been steady in the middle portion.
The expert even said that’s not correct. He obviously can’t follow the “95% of 20 min power rule” and it’s totally bunk. So what is the GCN conclusion? Nothing. They didn’t say “hey, don’t use 20 minute tests, they are not reliable”. They just wrapped up the video and in effect further perpetuate the 20 min test myth since they didn’t come out against it and they don’t disclaimer the video where they relied on the 20 min test. So frustrating.
There’s only a few valid ways to find your FTP, and both Kolie Moore and Andrew Coggan have stated similar (the 20 min test was Hunter Allen’s contribution, Coggan has disavowed the 20 min test in interviews):
- Ride fairly steady state at a given power for X minutes, where X must fall in the range of 35 to 80 minutes. If you can’t do it for 35 minutes, your FTP is lower than that! Obviously this could require a lot of trial and error, which leads to the next test.
- Do a Kolie Moore FTP test. It’s almost the same as above but does have a bit more forgiveness for not having a very close idea of your FTP before the test. But still, it could take a few tries to dial in.
- Look at your power duration (PD) curve. There’s often a slight change of slope in that 35-80min window that is a good indicator of FTP. Of course this requires good and recent power data and you having done some long near-threshold efforts to exhaustion. It also takes a bit of subjective interpretation.
- Feel it out. This is the most reliable once you’ve figured it out. But it also is impossible to have an app or website tell you. And you mostly need to figure it out from having already used one of the other methods before.
Anything else will fail due to everyone’s power profile being different.
1 Like