Yeah, not less than 40 minutes, there is a lot of BS around, i.e oh, if new to training or amatures, <30 minutes is normal. Or ONLY PROs can hold their FTP for about an hour. All these people arguing that have vanity FTPs.
Also the plan builder, AI and PLs will take care of the rest, works for a few but also not for an equal amount. It gives you shorter and shorter intervals at more watts that you are targeting, that is not optimal IMO.
TR have backed themselves in to a corner and they know it, hence the invention of PLs. Bring back TR circa 2015, flawed but better than the marketing ‘stuff’ now.
No, you weren’t. Approximately 1 h as a descriptor is not defining FTP as precisely 1 h.
In exercise physiology, fatigue has historically been defined as “failure to maintain the expected or required force or power output”. IOW, it’s a square-wave phenomenon, and has nothing to do with the perception of effort.
Ok. If FTP is “the highest power that a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state for approximately one hour without fatigue“ AND fatigue “has nothing to do with the perception of effort” then FTP cannot be determined from any type of graded exercise test where perception of effort determines the test result ie ramp test, 20 min test, etc?
I’d also say for training…I would MUCH rather under estimate FTP by 5-10 watts than over estimate and as a wise man once said…if your FTP doesn’t end with a 0 or a 5, your kidding yourself about accuracy!
Fatigue (as in, failure to maintain the expected or required force of power output) during volitional exercise occurs when you can no longer increase central command sufficiently to drive the failing muscles hard enough to keep going. Part of the reason for that is noxious feedback from group III/IV afferent nerves, which monitor the metabolic state of the muscle. Said feedback also contributes to the perception of effort (as do feedforward mechanisms). So, the perception of effort does enter into things…my point was that I didn’t use “fatigue” in the lay sense, i.e., as referring solely to the perception of effort.
ETA for those who want to go down the rabbit hole:
This thread is so funny. People arguing with the scientist who came up with a term/concept like they are experts. Then getting thoughtful rebuttals form said scientist with sources - and they’re still in denial.
I hope the library of congress saves this so it can accurately mark what a cycling forum is.
I don’t even care what FTP is anymore - this is TRUE ENTERTAINMENT
…er, ways of determining your functional threshold power (roughly in order of increasing certainty):
from inspection of a ride file.
from power distribution profile from multiple rides.
from blood lactate measurements (better or worse, depending on how it is done).
based on normalized power from a hard ~1 h race.
using critical power testing and analysis.
from the power that you can routinely generate during long intervals done in training.
from the average power during a ~1 h TT (the best predictor of performance is performance itself).
Another method that could be added to this list would be to do an incremental exercise test to determine ‘MAP’, then estimate functional threshold power as being ~75% (range 72-77%, using Ric Stern’s guidelines) of this value. You could then use this estimate as is, or if necessary/desired, further refine it using one of the methods described above (e.g., by doing a TT).
BTW, the reason this approach works is because in trained cyclists, LT falls within a fairly narrow range as a percentage of VO2max, and there is tendency for those with the highest LTs to have the lowest anaerobic capacities (and therefore a slightly lower MAP relative to power at VO2max), and vice-versa. In any case, at the very least knowing your MAP will help ‘bracket’ what could be considered a reasonable range into which you expect your threshold power to fall."
Nothing has really changed since then, except that you could generalize sin #5 to “via mathematical modeling” to incorporate the more sophisticated models that have been developed in recent years (e.g., the model I devised for WKO4…which in fact is what WKO4 - and now WKO5 - even exists in the first place).