I feel like this quote is somehow appropriate here
”Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.”
I agree with the OP. I can hold my FTP for 120 minutes no problem. For an hour I’m able to go anaerobic the entire time.
I’d say if you can’t hold your FTP for at least an hour your FTP is overstated and you should own up to that fact, even if it hurts your ego that’s pegged to your FTP.
If FTP is approximating different physiological states in people, then FTP as a concept is silly.
FTP isn’t anything. It’s some vague concept that you can use the “7 deadly sins” to guess. Even CP testing is valid for FTP estimation. CP is wholly different than the concept of FTP.
These threads are something else. Speculation everywhere.
It’s why ISM relies on lab testing to prescribe training. Takes most of the guesswork out of it.
Everyone seems to think I am arguing for using the 60 min definition as the one that should be used. I am not….I am advocating for a clear, easily understandable definition that makes the concept accessible for the layman.
… and I’m saying that’s tricky without referring to the physiology.
“The sustained power below which you fatigue more slowly, and above which you fatigue more rapidly”, which is layman’s terms for “the inflection point in your PD curve at or around your TTE”
I think a big part of this whole dispute is there isn’t one. Anytime anyone produces a simplified definition, however generally accurate, discussions like this emerge.
I’ve always gone for this: ‘FTP is the point above which you start to fatigue much more rapidly. For most trained cyclists that’s a power they can hold for ~50 minutes, but there’s a lot of individual variation.’
Because people always want to make it more complicated than it needs to be……
Again, I am talking about this form a layman’s perspective. Give them a concept they can understand and base their training around. As they gain experience and knowledge, they will likely dig deeper into it.
Jumping in with scientific terms that are complicated and confusing just makes people roll their eyes.
No one is advocating that exercise scientists or experience athletes adhere to a simple, generalized definition……
Trying not to get caught up in the trolling and memes… Here’s a couple definitions, pick what you like.
FTP is the highest power that you can maintain in a quasi-steady state without fatiguing for approximately one hour.
FTP is your work rate (Power in Watts) at MLSS, or the inflection point in your lactate curve.
From Coggan, who came up with FTP, or at least I’m pretty sure coined the term:
“I’ve always viewed FTP as a functional surrogate for something like MLSS. In an endurance trained individual, MLSS is an intensity that can be maintained for 40-70 minutes on average. It does seem the fitter you are the longer you can maintain it. If you’re untrained, perhaps only 30 minutes. But, FTP is for competitive cyclists, trained individuals. We know we’re going to be shading toward the long end of that duration.”
This came from the concept of training with a power meter. It seems like the idea was to give someone a power they can train and pace to that is a representation of MLSS or that inflection point in the lactate curve.
I’m not a big fan of making something incorrect in a quest to make it simple.