Google “functional threshold power definition” and you’ll see a multitude of sources stating basically the same thing. I could also argue that just because 95% of a 20 minute effort is commonly accepted doesn’t make it correct, and then the burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate why. So the better question is can YOU prove that a 60 minute effort doesn’t give accurate FTP?
Why would I have to prove anything? FTP doesn’t equal 60min max power. It’s as simple as that. If you are really interested, maybe that’s an interesting read for you. Including the original definition of FTP from the guy who made it up.
https://wattmatters.blog/home/2018/6/5/wtf-is-ftp
But I guess copy and pasting the first google result and quoting bike radar is also one way…
4 Likes
"FTP is the highest power that a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state without fatiguing for approximately one hour.”
I can’t think of a better way to estimate the power one can maintain for approximately one hour, than to actually ride for approximately one hour. So what is “approximately” one hour? Is it the duration of a ramp test? Is it a 20 minute test? Reality is there are just too many variables that can occur over 60 minutes to make the test repeatable, hence common test protocols are shorter, leaving people arguing whether 75 or 72% of MAP in a ramp test is “correct” when the answer is really “it depends” and the only true way to know is to put in the ~60 min effort.
I’ve done it, 60 minute effort followed by 30 minutes of tempo riding so not riding an hour to total fatigue. My hour power average was 72.25% of my ramp test MAP, so I guess 72.25% is the correct ramp test protocol, case closed
It’s amazing that a guy makes a blog explaining why that’s the wrong definition and you pull a quote out of context to still latch onto that definition.
The maximal power one can sustain for exactly one-hour would of course be a very good estimate of FTP, but it is not FTP itself. FTP has never been defined that way, and for good reason.
Lead a horse to water.
4 Likes
“ Let’s go back to the original definition by Andy Coggan, since he came up with the concept of Functional Threshold Power (as it appears in Training and Racing with a Power Meter, page 44 in first edition and page 41 in the second edition):
“FTP is the highest power that a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state without fatiguing for approximately one hour. When power exceeds FTP, fatigue will occur much sooner, whereas power just below FTP can be maintained considerably longer”.
Straight from the horse’s mouth, I guess the horse drank too much…if we can’t even figure out just what the hell FTP is and what it represents, what are we even testing for?
2 Likes
I guess there is quite some overthinking here. I also guess some nee to just take a step back and calm down a little.
Dont you feel that all of these approaches - as professional as we might think it is - are still very amateur, very dependent on variables, not relying on precise data or technology, dependent on how our days go, what we eat, how we sleep, how much stress we actually have in life, work, family (and mostly dont even feel it) and so many other things.
How can any of those test give us precise results at all? These are somehow rounded results, maybe somehow close to what we may be able to achieve, but then again could only be comparable if we would really have absolute consistency on all other variables between two tests. How can we possibly achieve that? I think we cant.
I have a constant glucose monitor on my body and get data every 3-5 minutes. All things kept constant as much as possible between two days you would be surprised how different the data is just sleeping one hour less. You might not actively feeling it, but our energy lever is so much different just by little things changing.
The body and mind are too complex to be precisely measured by our means.
I dont take any of these tests serious, too many variables influence our potential all the time. I guess only a doctor with proper technology can get the real precise results out if us.
1 Like
Not that the ‘hour part’ has been moved to a parenthetical in the third edition. Because of this exact discussion.
2 Likes
FTP doesn’t matter because no race or group ride (not even a TT) is a steady state effort.
In a race, you are competing against others in your CAT. Cycling is a game. Just like any other sport. Most often a team sport. A race is not a guy with a 100 watt ftp against a guy with a 400 watt ftp. It’s going to be between reasonably similar levels of skill and natural talent, and the differences in skill and natural talent will dictate the strategies used. FTP is not going to determine the winner. I have never heard a pro even talk or give a shit about it.
But that’s really beside the point. Because at ALL levels of cycling, success is determined by the individual based on HIS/HER definition.
The most important determinant of “success” in cycling, no matter your definition of success is not FTP.
It is PURPOSE. I have thought about this for several days.
I argue that the old man who cycles across the country pushing his paralyzed son has a purpose as great as a Tour de France champion.
I would argue that Gino Bartali (a multi-tour de France and Giro D’Italia winner) had a greater purpose when he risked his life during WW2 saving the lives of 900 Jews.
And I would argue that when a room full of those surviving Jews’ children surprised him with a standing ovation, his success as a cyclist in that moment was as great as winning the tour and the giro.
There are those who focus their success (or lack of) on FTP and there are people who like to cycle, point out why this guy is a “real” cyclist, this guy “isn’t”, this guys socks are too low, this guys socks are too high…and then there are those who are true champions, those who may have never raced, those who bring a cyclist is WHO THEY ARE.
And that is why I would 100x’s over rather WIN MY RIDE than WIN MY RACE. Because, for me, cycling has literally saved my life, trading 24 years of heroin addiction for 6 years of the best years of my life . And I never want to “arrive” because I never want this journey to end.
5 Likes
I’m not really interested in part taking in the whole debate of which protocol is the right protocol to estimate a number which cannot be defined and is fluid person to person, but kudos to you on getting your life on track 
3 Likes
Hmmm, I guess you might hate taking classes in probability, statistics, and stochastic processes? 
Embrace the imprecision, random variables and distribution functions are your friend 
Then you can wrap the mind around FTP and improve your blackjack and poker! Play the odds!
4 Likes
I would just like to congratulate everyone on this turning into possibly the worst thread on the TR forum!
8 Likes
I like your perspective. That makes me feel so much better about how I function within TR.
2 Likes
More!
Well my FTP sucks but I know I can hold it for an hour. I used TR 8 min, outside 20 min, TR ramp and Xert along with Golden Cheetah and the good old Max Power Curve with some modeling. Guess what? For me, they all fall within 5%. With Xert and Golden Cheetah as long as you do some max efforts at a couple of durations its gonna get ya really close. If you can pace 8 min, 20 min or the TR ramp, you should get a decent result. Caveat here is people that dont have the fatigue resistance might get a higher FTP number but cant hold it for the hour. I know some people who can get a high 20 min but Ive never seen them get close to holding it for an hour. If you are struggling with workouts, adjust that intensity!
I wonder if the people opposed to calling FTP the biggest determinant of cycling success are also the people that say IQ does not matter to predict all sorts of accomplishments in life.
What this means is that if you have a large population of cyclists and are allowed only one variable to base your prediction for everyone’s success in cycling, then FTP is the best variable. The correlation between succes and FTP will also differ depending on how you define succes. Weight can become more important if there is climbing involved and technical skills also kick in if you need to jump over stuff and plough through uneven terrain.
This is not to say that:
- A higher FTP always means more success and no person can be successful with a lower FTP.
- There are no other variables that can also have predictive power.
- Everyone with a high FTP will be successful in cycling.
- A lower FTP makes you a worse person.
1 Like
The biggest difference between the two is that IQ is a relative score, not an absolute one like FTP. Secondly, you dont get the same testing environment with FTP, which also makes it less useful as a number for comparison. Thirdly, FTP doesnt describe maximal capacity like IQ testing does.
However, I would tend to agree that people who reject IQ would reject any objective measure such as FTP, because they dont like to feel defined or constrained by numbers, or numbers they dont understand.
Personally I think the real underlying issue is a general obsession with precision over efficacy.
seriously, I actually love the ramp. I’ll tell you I’m sure as hell not doing a 20min every four weeks lol
1 Like
Well, the biggest difference is that IQ measures intellectual capacity while FTP measures physical performance. But that’s not the point, I am just hearing the same arguments as with IQ. That it does not matter because someone was very accomplished and still had a low IQ or someone with an high IQ stil was getting nowhere in life.
Indeed it is a combination of aversion for numbers, not wanting to be defined by one, and not understanding the statistical statements.
1 Like
“FTP is hour power”
“No it isn’t”
“Yes it is”
Feels like I walked in on this
11 Likes
I think some on here have missed the point and descended down a rabit hole.
The point of the ramp test, 4dp, 8 min, 20 min, 60min test is to provide a value to scale the workouts in training. As we all have different backgrounds and physiologies not one test will suit all.
It doesn’t mean one test is right or wrong. 
2 Likes