Home› General Training Discussions

FTP Test protocol

Craig MarchandCraig Marchand
in General Training Discussions

Hey guys,

I was wondering about my cadence during the FTP test... and regular OS sessions.  For the test should I just be pushing really hard in a tough gear for the test period or should I be focusing on pushing as hard as I can with a cadence between 85-95?  I guess the same question applies to regular OS workouts.  During those Z4 intervals I'm always trying to keep my cadence and power high which I think is right.

I'm also using trainer road which is awesome!  I would like some feedback on accuracy.  I've never hit an accuracy over 65% for my intervals.  typically 30-65%.  I wonder if it's that I'm new and this will improve with accuracy.  Alos wondering if it could be my cassette.  I'm using an 11-28 that was recommended for IMMT because it;s hilly.  Someone also told me it would be hard to find a good gear to maintain a steady cadence/power with that cassette.  A combination of both??  That said should I switch my cassette out or just keep pushing on and focus on experience?

Thanks!

Comments

  • Mark MaurerMark Maurer
    @Craig, I don't use trainer road so I'll leave that question to others. My normal cadence is about 90-95 and that's what I do when I'm doing my FTP test. I think you want the test to be as close to the way you normally ride. The reason for doing slow cadence, high gear intervals is to build power by simulating a weight training session. Personally I find that I can keep higher power output with higher cadences. Part of that may be mental but it seems like the faster I soon my legs the more momentum I have even though I'm on a trainer.
  • Craig MarchandCraig Marchand

    Thanks Mark, Interestingly I get the opposite effect.  I find my power higher at lower cadence like 85.  I tend to stay in the 85 area by instinct.  Although I try to get it up to 90 because everyone says that's the right spot to be.  Since I'm coachable that's what I aim to do.  I guess until I'm more experienced I should go with the recommended cadence of 90 until I can judge for myself if i'm one of those people that should be using a lower cadence?

  • Mark MaurerMark Maurer
    Hi Craig, 85 isn't that lore of a cadence, in thinking more in the 60-70 range when I think low. I saw somewhere, not on the EN site, that one person thought that a cadence of 80-85 was better for long course triathletes and over the course of an IM my average is closer to 85 than 90. Do you do soon up drills? Those teach your legs to spin faster and after I'm fine with then it does seem easier to maintain a higher cadence. in the end though, you'll have to find what works best for you.
  • Mark MaurerMark Maurer
    Craig, the first sentence should have been 85 isn't that low of a cadence, I'm thinking...
  • Craig MarchandCraig Marchand

    Thanks Mark, I'm going to add the spin ups to my workouts.

  • Coach RichCoach Rich

    Craig, I'm moving this to the Power Forum, where you'll get more eyeballs on it 

  • morpheusmorpheus
    Craig,

    It's my understanding that you do whatever you need to do to get the biggest NP out of the 20' interval for the test. It's also my understanding that the most efficient way to get that biggest NP will come from a cadence of 75-90rpms. Everyone is different. I remember reading in some workout 'notes' that the coaches put the watts produced as the biggest priority.


    It actually varies for me. Some days, my best watts come from a cadence of 82, sometimes 90. (Note: I use the warmups/SweetSpot work/cooldowns as times that I work on hi cadence work/positioning stuff/etc, but I do whatever I gotta do during the work intervals) I pay attention to how these spins feel during the warmup. As the work intervals start, and I spin up to Goal Watts, I spend as much time paying attention to holding cadence as much as watts, trying to stay within +/- 1rpm's.


    I could be wrong, numbers guys will know better, but I don't think your cassette is getting in your way on the trainer cuz I'd be surprised if you're shifting a lot. 11-28 is a great choice. There are bigger gaps in the middle of the cassette, but the negatives of that are far outweighed by spinning the 28.

  • Joe HallatschekJoe Hallatschek
    Question: why is the 5' + 20' test better than the old 20'-2'-20' test?

    I remember that being asked and answered in some forum and I am not able to find it. When I first got my powertap in Oct I played around with both tests and they both gave me a good FTP that was almost exactly what I tested at the first week using the 5' + 20' protocol.

    I'm testing tomorrow (run focus schedule) and I just want to understand why I'm doing the 5'+20' as opposed to the old test.

    Thanks - Joe
  • Al TruscottAl Truscott

    Posted By Joe Hallatschek on 20 Dec 2013 02:47 PM


    Question: why is the 5' + 20' test better than the old 20'-2'-20' test?



    I remember that being asked and answered in some forum and I am not able to find it. When I first got my powertap in Oct I played around with both tests and they both gave me a good FTP that was almost exactly what I tested at the first week using the 5' + 20' protocol.



    I'm testing tomorrow (run focus schedule) and I just want to understand why I'm doing the 5'+20' as opposed to the old test.



    Thanks - Joe

    It's not "better" in the sense that it does not give a closer approximation to your true FTP (that being the power you can produce over a one hour time trial) than, say the 2 x 20 (2') protocol, or other methods outlined in the wiki. The reason we seem to have gravitated to it: it may be a little less taxing mentally than the 2 x 20', and therefore can be used more often. At least that's my excuse - I have always done the 5/10/20 test when I test indoors, and I still use the 20/2/20 when I test outdoors. Really, you can use any method you want, as long as it is replicable. The bottom line is, at this point in the season, you are trying to find out what power you should be using for the various bike workouts. SInce those workouts have a range - like 95-100% for FTP intervals - your test does not need to be perfect, just good enough.

    When it comes to spring/summer/early fall, when I'm racing, I start out doing the 20-2-20 test outdoors, and then adjust/modify as the season goes on via the methods described in the wiki, with a final stamp of approval coming at the last race rehearsal before an HIM or IM, to determine what I should be doing on race day.

    http://members.endurancenation.us/Resources/Wiki/tabid/91/Default.aspx?topic=Alternate+Means+of+Determining+FTP

  • Gaudir8Gaudir8

    Joe,

    Dr. Andy Coggan is the god of power and it is his protocol. The theory being that the 5 minute vo2 is it fries you enough in an attempt to simulate the full one hour test. Ultimately the best is a one hour test outside. Normally you are slower inside by 10 to 15 watts due to heat dissipation and the mental challenge of hitting it so hard. The linkbelow explains it really well

     

    http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/...-explained

  • Joe HallatschekJoe Hallatschek
    @Al - perfect! In week #7 when we had 2 X 20' (4') @ Z4, I decided at the end of the first 20' to just do the 2 x 20'(2') test. Although I began at my FTP for the first 20', I really pushed it in the second 20' and probably could not have tested better had I started out as a test and not just another hard workout.

    Tomorrow I will do the 5' + 20' protocol and compare the FTPs.

    BTW - I looked up your splits at IMAZ. I am very, very impressed. Especially the run.

    Thanks!
  • Joe HallatschekJoe Hallatschek
    @Ray - since it is in another forum thread, I looked at your last test and the VO was like 328 and your FTP was 320? Also, Stefan from the week before did: 5' Vo2 = 369W Avg and 20' FTP = 332W Avg.

    It would seem that your Vo2 is either too low or your FTP is too high? Same with Stefan. So, although I am going to do the test protocol I can't help but think the Vo2 part of the test may not be so accurate.

    So - based on the 20'-2'-20' I did in week #7 in-lieu of the 2 X 20'(4'), my FTP was 297. I'll test tomorrow and expect a Vo2 of about 360 and a FTP of 300. We'll see!
  • tim cronktim cronk
    Its not a matter of which is better.... Again both are just estimates of true FTP.... We get so wrapped up in that FTP number...I am starting to look at the 20 minute test is My 20 minute power and the 2 x 20 min test is my 40 minute power.... my 60 minute power is just that and my FTP... But more importantly to me is my 2.5hr power for HIM's and my 5hr power for IM's... I still use 95% of the 20 minute test or the NP of 42min to get my estimated FTP and use that for training .. Personally I test much better with the 2 x 20 format than I do with the 5/10/20.... My FTP to V02 ratio is around 115% so V02 is my weakness.... Testing using the 20 minute test puts us into v02 for the entire test and I come apart....Last year I resorted back to the 2 x20 format after multiple failures at the 20 minute test.... This year I am working above my FTP during the OS and I WILL do the 20 minute test to work on my weakness!!! Also FWIW I dont put too much emphasis on the 5 minute blow out at the beginning specially since its not much higher than the 20minute...
  • Gaudir8Gaudir8

    Joe

     I only do a 5 minute recovery in between the 5 minute vo2 (still hit 110% of my FTP; Vo2 goal range is 110-120%) and the 20 minute test. That is the protocol I have always used. I also have no top end on VO2 because I have always done more long stuff. When I did a vo2 max bike test this past summer MY max was only 5% higher than my sustainable power. I am more like the energizer bunny.

  • Gaudir8Gaudir8
    Tim you nailed it! Most of the time I always just follow up with a one hour outside tt. That's what I am going to try and do soon.
  • Gaudir8Gaudir8

    At the end of the day the test is just to establish a benchmark that you can then utilize for the workouts. Where it falls apart is when you change from test to test. Same thing for the 5k test. If you use a 5k race for the first one and then a 5k treadmill test for the second chances are the results are not comparable.

    It is no different than using a scale that is consistently off by 5 pounds. Say the scale showed you weighed 200 pounds at the start of your diet (but you really weigh 195 on an accurate scale). At the end of your first month on the diet the scale says you lost 10 pounds and are now 190; you still lost 10 pounds (185 on the accurate scale). It is just a basis.

    Throw all this stuff out the window the minute you start riding outside because the chances are the numbers won't be the same.

    Personally with the ego maniac roadies I ride with I have to take every bullet out of their gun when I talk of my FTP numbers because they always argue how their protocol is better and my numbers are wrong. That's why at the  end of the day  it is a one hour test or look back at the mean of your rides over a period.

    The actual results of the test even can be argued. Did you do the test at your normal cadence, was it in the aero position, was it virtual power or actual power, was it inside or outside, road bike versus tri bike and on and on.

    Lets face it the tests are tough to do. Easy to blow up, easy to under perform. That is why you see people use race results or an easier method of testing (or one more suited to their strengths). We all want to be able to strut big numbers but at the end of the day my big number doesn't mean squat if I blow up on the IM bike. I can walk with all the other walking IM marathoners and tell them how big my ftp is but don't understand why I cant run an IM marathon. 

    Personally I don't want to kid myself. Even when I get the test results I try to see if there is someplace I cheated to gain on the test. For me I am a spinner but I find myself dropping down into the 80's on the tests. That's not me on the road. So again I go with a one hour test when I hit outside.

  • Ian KurthIan Kurth
    Well said Ray! Great explanation.
  • Joe HallatschekJoe Hallatschek
    Posted By Ray Brown on 21 Dec 2013 05:31 AM

    Joe

     I only do a 5 minute recovery in between the 5 minute vo2 (still hit 110% of my FTP; Vo2 goal range is 110-120%) and the 20 minute test. That is the protocol I have always used. I also have no top end on VO2 because I have always done more long stuff. When I did a vo2 max bike test this past summer MY max was only 5% higher than my sustainable power. I am more like the energizer bunny.

    Ray - got it. I did my test with only a 5' recovery in between the Vo2 and the 20min test. I probably smoked myself on the Vo2 part since it was 1.26 above my subsequent 20' test after I calculated my FTP. Since the purpose of this is to get an idea of what a 60' TT is, I think when the OS is done, just for my own benefit, I am going to do a 60' FTP test and compare with my last test in week #14!

    @Tim - I think I just backed into the same conclusion that you did. I agree and now look at these tests the same way.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.