I didn’t say anyone was advocating for it, but it happens nonetheless. If you want layman’s terms, pick a simple definition just know it might not be 100% correct. Just don’t get bent out of shape when people point it out.
1 Like
If you want a precise definition, pick one out….there are plenty of them in this thread. just know that it might not be 100%, correct.
I’ll go with the definition from the guy who came up with FTP. You’ve made it clear already you don’t like it because it’s too complex for you…
1 Like
Thank you for confirming you have not understood anything I have posted.
Carry on.
1 Like
Enjoy
FTP is my 1hr power every February 30th!
There’s no time component to any physiological threshold other than the time it takes to get there which is very individual. Take for example puberty, It is a process that usually happens between ages 10 and 14 for girls and ages 12 and 16 for boys. Mentally, some never make it. YMMV.
The 95% of 20 minute average power estimate is part of a FTP test protocol was developed by Hunter Allen not Allen & Coggan. Hunter Allen’s estimate of FTP as 95% of 20 minute average power comes after a 5 minute blow out VO2 test not whatever a “5-minute time trial” means in the study. Without the 5 minute blow out, the estimate FTP is generally much higher for most people.
4 Likes
FTP should stand for Functional Training Power.
2 Likes
This thread is a meme factory 
2 Likes
Come on team…
We can do better than this.
So far, we’ve had numerous logical posts. Some making clear and concise points. Not a single forum ban, nobody has even compared someone to Hitler. Disappointing.
That’s not what I was aiming for.
Some of just want to see the world burn 
I’ve officially moved on from FTP based training prescriptions. It feels like an early attempt at a basic metric to simplify training for beginners. It’s proven to be good and bad at that job.
It’s 2023. The more experienced athletes and professionals generally use many different tools to prescribe training intensity nowadays. These tools need to be incredibly personalized as cookie cutter physiology models do not provide the individual variation required.
The future.
Precise individual testing. Testing that’s never based on generic percentages of percentages. Then anchored to some hypothetical human physiology population global average.
What this system is?
I suspect it’s something like what San Milan does. Precise regular testing. Highly personalized prescriptions.
I believe the first technology that will help move this forward will be real time blood lactate monitoring. Which, if the rumors are true, is actually very close to reality.
I also believe that athlete phenotype testing using the new MRI method could vastly speed up new athlete training prescriptions. Knowing the exact fiber type of the athlete before prescribing any training could save years of sub optimal training.
Finally. Powerful software combining all of these new technologies with improved recovery monitoring.
One thing is absolutely certain… it won’t be FTP based 
5 Likes
What rumors? Where can I find them?
There’s numerous companies in human trials.
Abbott are claiming they are very close to market.
Doing it non invasively seems to be the hold up. Some are already testing micro invasive units. Others, include replaceable testing pods. Which I imagine is actually to provide a sort of subscription model. Because, everything is a subscription nowadays…
San Milan has mentioned that it is close.
I suspect we’ll see units making it to market in 2024. Maybe 2025. That is just a guess. There’s absolutely a large market for the first company to succeed at it. So, the financial reward is there.
I imagine Garmin and Apple are both deep into development of blood lactate and ketone monitoring. If they’re not, they’re behind the curve.
1 Like
So how do you train? RPE?
But what does lactate really mean? Lactate is a byproduct of the Krebs cycle. All the inflection points on lactate curves are guesstimates and theories. All riders put out different levels of lactate so other than individual testing compared against O2 uptake there is no standard which says 2, 3, or 4 mmol mean anything special. We know what that 4mmol for MLSS was an average from some study. It’s just as bad of an average as 75% of MAP from a ramp test. It’s just as bad as a poorly executed FTP test.
Yay, awesome. Let’s make our sport more exclusionary and expensive 
2 Likes
The study found that subjects lasting more than 60 minutes were the rare exception. Even among the pros with VO2max values in the 70s, the average was 51 minutes (according to the abstract). Even the fat part of the Bell curve (the interquartile range with 50 % of the individuals) did not cross the 1-hour mark.
Yes, there were people who lasted longer than 1 hour, but they were the statistical exception rather than the rule, even among the best trained people in the study.
IMHO that goes to show that power at lactate threshold (as measured in a field test = FTP) and 1-hour power are clearly different from one another for almost all athletes.
Or you could conclude that TTE falls into a broad range even for well-trained individuals, and that even well-trained individuals might not last 45 minutes, much less an hour.
Even well-trained (average VO2max = 66 ml/(min kg)) and pros (average VO2max = 74 ml/(min kg)) averaged 47 and 51 minutes, which is significantly different from 60 minutes. So I don’t think FTP20 is a good estimate for an athlete’s hour power, even if they happen to be very gifted and well-trained.
But is hour-power really that easy to understand? Conceptually, I guess, but do people really know how hard it is to hold best power for one hour? I find it as conceptually easy to understand as a circuit race. Holding power close to threshold for one hour is mentally grueling, and something you have to specifically train for.
Sometimes rather than going for something easy, but overly simplistic (or perhaps wrong), you should opt for the simplest theory that can explain what you want to explain. (That’s a principle that is super common in physics …)
2 Likes
I wonder if the inherent problem with these kinds of studies is subject motivation. Personally, I’m not motivated to do an hour of power but I’ve done it in races or group rides.
Someone, anyone, please post a quote from me where I am advocating for using the hour-power definition.
I have newer said that nor am I advocating for it.
Or the concept of TTE doesn’t exist. It’s simply another point in your power curve.
1 Like
I’m certainly not advocating for that at all.
I’m very much against the ludicrous spending in modern cycling. It’s toxic.
Just commenting on how I see training evolving.
2 Likes
By definition, FTP is your one hour power. That’s why I prefer to use MLSS. However maybe neither are best for setting your zones alone? Ultimately, adherence to the 5/6/7 zone model is why the FTP number is the cornerstone training metric. In a lot of cases it is good enough, but in many cases it is flawed. There are too many rider muscle fiber compositions and testing methods to make the 5/6/7 zone model a ‘one size fits all’.
Besides…if FTP wasn’t your 1hr power, what would FTP represent?