Lol. There is a zero % chance I would ever have been able to do 110% for 8 minutes…that’s an absolute pipe dream.
I’m not sure what the issue has been…but I’ve had my fill of trusting test results and following a plan. For the next year, I’m riding solely based on how hard I feel like/want to work. Wont be doing a single FTP test of any kind. Will work in some structure, but all power targets are going to be based on what I think the workout should be at.
There is an FTP test protocol which is based on two 8 minute efforts. 8min, slow pedal for 10mins and then another 8min. The average power of those two 8 min efforts are then multiplied by 0.9 to give an estimated FTP. This translates to 2x8mins @ 111%, with a long break between efforts. Like all the other short FTP tests there are flaws for certain individuals. If you have a high anaerobic capacity you can get an over inflated FTP number. Personally, I am not able to do 8 min efforts at 110%. I usually aim for 105% on 8 minute efforts, and that really hurts. 4-5x8min @ 105% is a high 9/10, or 10/10 on the last effort.
Agree completely. And after a couple KM tests you’ll be able to feel where threshold is and when you’re above it.
This is my biggest skill I have learned. Feeling threshold and corelate power to sensations on the bike. This way - no more FTP testing is needed to check for power (they are usefull for TTE checking).
Anything over FTP is very highly individual. I have quite big 5 min power in relation to FTP but quite poor FRC and horrible anaerobic power. But those efforts were borderline 9/10, that’s my assumption that for many this is how they feel their threshold, especially when it’s overestimated.
Yea. I think I just dont want to trust a computer or calculation to make this decision for me.
I’m just going to make it so threshold = constant light burn in legs and increasing fatigue but manageable, no skyrocketing heartrate.
Sweet spot a tad easier than above.
Not going to overthink it. I feel just doing this will get my workouts light years closer to where they should be than a ramp test did.
My 2 cents
Do a 20min FTP test.
After, if you haven’t done a 5min all-out yet, do it. Take this number, and do a Vo2 5x5 at 95% of this number. Asses if you found it easy.
read this How to Do Dr. Stephen Seiler's 4x8-Minute Interval Workout - Fast Talk Laboratories and try to execute those 4x8. See where your HR sits.
no overcomplication
I’m in a similar position to you, and it’s probably mostly because I’m stronger anaerobically than I am aerobically.
What has worked for me is to stop caring about FTP that much. FTP-based power-zone determinations assume everyone’s power-duration-curve has the same relation at all points to your FTP, which isn’t true. Sure it’s a reasonable starting point if you know nothing else, but that’s about it. TR tries to solve this by using progression levels.
After several years, I have some idea how my power zones typically relate to “FTP” as measured by any FTP test: ramp test gives me reasonable z2 and VO2/anaerobic targets. 20min test gives me reasonable threshold and SS targets.
If you are not that familiar with what works for yourself… just ignore AI FTP completely. Reflect on yourself and your riding and decide what you think a target power that you could complete 2x20 at is (or at least 2x15). Then go do this and see how it goes. If you can’t complete this, your target power is too high. Try it again in a few days at a lower power. If it’s too easy - you’re not getting close to or over LTHR by the last few minutes of the second interval in particular - then try again in a few days at a higher power. Once you’ve figured that out, start your threshold progression. You can just follow along with what adaptations are recommended.
I recognize that this is essentially arguing that going off of feel/HR is more accurate for threshold determination than FTP testing… and yes, this is what I’m saying. This isn’t true in everyone - some people get really good estimations of threshold off of FTP tests.
(and most people can once you have some idea about what your personal corrective factor it, but you need experience to do that)…
FTP tests all work by taking some power measurement and then multiplying it by a corrective factor (0.95 for 20min, 0.75 for ramp, etc). The issue is that this corrective factor should actually be a range (ex: ~0.88 to 0.95 for 20min, ~0.65 to 0.8x for ramp, etc) due to variation between people.
TR gets around this by using progression levels. But they run into issues if your predicted FTP is way off of what it actually is. For example, you might get prescribed a “4x5min @104%” threshold workout, which is a 1.7 PL workout… and then not even be able to complete that because it’s actually a 4x5min VO2max workout for you. Then you’re completely hooped as none of the prescribed threshold work you’re going to get is anywhere close to threshold for you.
This lack of precision is why if you are not the “average” person, you will get recommended power targets that don’t work for you. And why, if you can’t at least almost do 2x20, your threshold target is too high, and you need to look at other metrics to get a sense of where your FTP actually is.
Like you I find threshold workouts hard (really hard) but AI FTP is setting it what it thinks is good, even had a 2w bump recently, so I now plan to refuse any changes until my threshold intervals are merely uncomfortable at longer times. No more chasing short term power.
+1. The performance curve is not the same for everyone. Some are better at shorter distances, some are better at longer… and that’s ok. It is why the 100 meter champion is not a marathoner and vise versa. Cycling brings a wide range of talent together. Some come from more explosive / power sports and some more endurance. That variation is what makes it fun… and nothing to get hung up on. We are who we are.
Yes but track sprinter will not have a problem with 4x10@FTP - their FTP will be lower than time trialist but still riding at threshold has nothing to do with lack of ability to do 4x10@sst or threshold. I would even say that with so short intervals, due the big anaerobic capacity, they can even excell over more steady state inclined riders.
Yes. But they may still run into the problem that using an off-the-shelf FTP test with the default correction factor is going to give them a target power for their threshold intervals that isn’t right for them.
Agreed
Maybe… but this is not my experience as a 20+ year coach.
To clarify… you are saying that a sprinter will have no problem doing 4 x 10 min @ threshold? If so, I don’t think I have come across one true sprinter who wouldn’t struggle with one of those.
On what should the idea that x% of FTP feel equal for everyone be based?
Someone with lots of T1 fibers will have an easy time at percentages close to FTP, while someone else might struggle a ton.
With efforts north of FTP the picture will be inverse.
Thats probably why TR doesn’t have a single PL for all intensities but a different one per zone.
I feel like this topic comes up every 3-6 months. The issue is that TR’s AI FTP assumes you are within the bell curve in terms of cycling threshold power. If you’re within that curve, wonderful, you will be assigned an FTP more or less within your capabilities and threshold efforts will be challenging but doable.
If, like me, you’re way the heck outside of that curve, expect to be assigned a really inaccurate FTP. In my case, 10%-15% higher than my actual FTP. I’ve tested this a few times in the last couple of years and it’s still the case. What follows is a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering.
How did you determine what your anaerobically strong athletes threshold power was?
If it was using a normal test and the default correction factor, then it was probably over-estimated, and that’s why they couldn’t do 10min at that power.
The shortest TTE at threshold I’ve seen described in scientific determinations is in the 30min range.
and herein lies the problem.
To make sure we are on the same page… in my post I was commenting how power athletes may struggle with endurance/threshold, as endurance athletes may struggle with the sprint). I used the 100 meter track & field sprinter as an example.
But to answer your question, I never test their threshold power, it is inconsequential. It’s hard enough to get them to run a 400 
So how sure are you that you couldn’t have put on 10w more during that 40min? Suffer more but still sustain? I guess you can’t be. I couldn’t, because mentally chosing the easier route and rationalize it is way too easy for me.
But even IF you now have somehow a more true FTP or what you call “reality”, that still doesn’t say that this makes you faster. TR at least says they have the data showing that their FTP and protocols make people faster on average.
In the end, objectively, now your are doing less (and suffer less). One could argue that this is the opposite of what makes anyone progress (given you could sustain the previous protocol).
I am not saying you are doing wrong. Maybe its the best thing for you. Just wondering how you can be so sure about it.