A few points here:
-
The “break even” point is actually 19:30 in the test.
- That means if you have a steady test, the 1-minute best power at that point in the test, will give you the same FTP as the setting at the start of the test.
-
I think people going into these test with expectations of particular power and/or time to completion/failure are leading to bad/unexpected results.
- This can be under-testing (via failure when seeing a particular time/power/heart rate) and making a poor assumption that you are “done”, when you might have more in there if you don’t let your head and expectations sabotage it.
- Or it can be unrealistic expectations that we will always see gains in this test, regardless of the specifics of the recent training, work & life stress, adherence & compliance to the recent training, rest & diet leading in to the test, and other influences.
-
Testing should be given the same respect and preparation as a race, IMHO.
- We should plan our nutrition and mental state in much the same way as our events & races. If we go in too lax and not expecting to hurt and give it our all, we do a disservice to the test process, and ultimately our own results from them.
This leads back to my recent preaching that I think more people should be testing “blind”, with no input of power, heart rate or time. It is easy to do for ERG testing, but harder to do for resistance mode/dumb trainers. But it is possible to reduce the data we see, and I think that is a good thing for many people.
I know the carrot of a target works for some people (maybe many?), but I firmly believe that too many people (myself included) fixate on some numbers, to our very detriment.
As the default condition is to have all that data visible, I think most people should try a reduced data test (remove as much as practical) and try a test again. It won’t work for everyone… I openly admit that. But I do think more people should be testing with less data.