No, 20 minutes has nothing to do with it, purely a coincidence that the deflection is there. Probably because no longer intervals have been completed, or short/shorts, over-unders that affect the PDC further out.
Mine is at approximately 37 minutes, the Strava calculation isn’t based on 20 minutes in anyway (unless I am seriously wrong, and my Strava is broken 
) Although I wonder why it didn’t pick (calculate) a lower FTP and the 1hr 8 minute deflection.
Yup, Mcadie.
I wasn’t referring to any deflection. What I meant was, isn’t FTP to supposed to be your “hour power”, and isn’t one way of estimating it is to take 95% of best 20 minute power? Based on that formula, his/her FTP is only 156 W, not 164 W.
Another case of Strava just “winging it”, I guess? No wonder they have never turned a profit!
I don’t think anyone has ever suggested the 95% of best 20 minute power is ~ FTP
There are various specific 20 minute FTP test protocols than must be followed as closely as possible to get close to a good prediction of FTP, don’t forget proceeding the 20 minutes steady state effort there should be a full blow out effort, normally 5 minutes all out.
I do not think so.
My WKO, Intervals.icu, Golden Cheetah FTP estimates are all within 3 watts. Looking at the data of a few other people I have access to there training files, they are all within 6 watts but they all have done effects across the PD curve in the last 6 - 12 weeks. I think the Strava calculation is decent, depends on how you use Strava and what data you feed it though
But according to this review, at least 8 studies have done exactly that?
No they haven’t
What do you mean? Is the table listing them not right?
I would suggest your understanding of the table is not correct. The review you posted confirms what I originally said is correct.
" From the reviewed studies, the protocol proposed by Allen and Coggan has been used the most…"
Allen, H.; Coggan, A. Training and Racing with a Power Meter, 3rd ed.; Velo Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 2010; pp. 326–328
AKA the Coggan protocol, as in the review.
On a ramp test I’d say you’ll have more of a chance of bettering it than on a longer test protocol.
Let us know how you get on.
I don’t think that is correct, but when I can I will check all of the references in the table.
BTW, I miscounted. Only 7 of the studies used 95% of 20 minute power as an estimate of FTP, not 8.
ETA: Well, I found one issue already - the Bossi et al. (2017) paper listed in the table and references doesn’t contain any data or reference to FTP or a 20 minute test. The subject characteristics listed also don’t match those of the cited paper. In fact, Bossi has only published 3 first-author papers, none of which match the table. Weird.
Probably just semantics here. FTP is not based on “95% of your best 20 minute power”, it’s based on 95% percent of the average power of the 20’ steady state interval during that test (the Coggan test requires a 5 minute effort prior to the 20’ to help clear anaerobic contributions). If there are tests that just base FTP on a 20’ effort with no prior interval, I have not seen them, but I haven’t really looked either.
People seem to forget about the test protocol and just assume they can use 95% of their best 20 minutes, regardless of what led up to that 20 minute span and how that average power was generated (some even use NP). It’s probably close enough to use as a sanity check, but not a proper repeatable test. For me, it’s not about whether a test is a perfect measure of FTP (none of them are), it’s more critical that it’s highly repeatable so that one test can be measured against another. 2 of my best 20 minute efforts racing might have been executed very differently, so not a good comparison.
And yet, at least if I recall correctly, most research studies have used exactly that.
Crushing the end of one of these workouts certain suggests a possible fitness bump.
Unfortunately it’s probably not nearly as much as you might hope.
If you went into a workout under-assessed by some double digit percentage (even 10%, much less 33%), you’d know within the first few minutes. It would probably feel like your trainer or PM is malfunctioning.
Some of the studies cited in the paper you linked to above are very clear that they are using the Hunter Allen protocol (5 minute all out effort followed by 20 minute all out effort), whereas some of them appear to be quite ambiguous about the protocol used.
Here’s are a couple of examples of the protocols:
The only one I read in any great detail which did not use the Hunter Allen test found there was very poor correlation between MMP20 and MLSS.
Mike
Okay, turns out to be quite a mixed bag!
Borscz et al. (x 2), McGrath et al., and Valenzuela et al. had the subjects follow the Allen/Coggan warm-up protocol.
However, Inglis et al, Jeffries et al., and Lillo-Bevia (another recent paper not in the review) did not.
What’s interesting is that the results of the first four studies seem to be more positive than the last three.
I didn’t find any that were ambiguous.
Jeffries et al. “The FTP test was conducted after a warm-up at 100W for 10 minutes. Subjects were asked to complete 2 x 20-second maximal efforts above their anticipated FTP intensity before resting for 5 minutes.”
Lillo-Bevia et al. “After standardized warm-up (5-minute pedaling, 80 and 90% of VT1 intensities), subjects performed a TT20 test”
Inglis et al. “The test was preceded by an 8-minute baseline at 80W”
Also, the latter paper did not report the correlation between MMP20 and MLSS.
ETA: What seems to be missing from the literature is a study assessing the effects of the warm-up protocol. My best guess is that it on average it “costs” you at least 2-3%. That means that if you don’t follow the warm-up protocol, you will overestimate your FTP by at least that same amount.
I had dreams of crossing the 200 mark but alas, I’ll take the nearly 30 point increase / 20% bump after 3 weeks of structured training.
I made the fatal mistake of increasing the gear on the last interval when I should have just upped the cadence. That little bit of extra torque absolutely fried my legs.
I hope these noobs gains don’t slow down anytime soon! (they will).
Nice work! You will be glad you did this ramp test and the 30w bump. Trying 203 probably would have resulted in failed workouts. Be patient and stay consistent and you will be over the 200w mark before you know it and without burning yourself out.
