The 5 minute effort prior to the 20 minute test has a very real purpose. It dulls the anaerobic element of the 20min test leading to a 20min result which is mostly aerobic. This reduces the chance of the test over estimating your FTP and making sweetspot feel like threshold as is often the case in riders with a more anaerobic engine. The 10min rest is because you should need it provided you have gone deep enough in the 5 min. The point of the FTP test is not to produce your best fresh 20min power.
I was thinking the same thing and you explained it perfectly. I think this ftp test is far better than the ramp test, and don't forget that FTP is the power you can output in 1 hour, so also the 20 minute test can't be perfect. The FTP test is not something you have to "compete" with your friends to have the higher data, but gives an important data to train well. It's useless and counterproductive making an FTP test to get the best wattage possible, instead of a real approximation of the power you canproduce for an hour long
you're right on the 100 watts beginning being rediculous. however, a 110% ftp 5 min block is standard. what it intends to do is build up lactic acid and fatigue so you won't overshoot your 20 min effort and get a false result.. it's just the protocol, nothing more, if you want a result that is higher, don't follow the protocol, but your ftp will be overestimated
Thanks for the excellent info and feedback. While I do think there is value in minimizing anaerobic capacity during the FTP test, I personally don't feel this is the way to do it. It assumes that all people have a similar level of capability above their lactic threshold. I feel that this leaves riders that are outside the norms out of the equation. Being around 140 lbs, I feel that I fall outside the norm. However, your point is still valid.
It worries me that a coach is putting this out on the internet. And questioning the workings of Tim Cusick, one of the most knowledgeable people in cycling coaching. That pre FTP 5 minute block is pivotal. And if you don’t know why it’s there, then im worried for the people you train. Everyone is so concerned with getting their FTP ego up, they miss the entire point. It is simply there, for you, to set up your power zones to train in. And if you didn’t do that 5 minute hard effort beforehand, your zones would be too high, and you’d have a very real chance of overtraining. Can’t actually believe that your questioning the guy that invented training zones and FTP tests. Stop chasing big numbers to brag about at the races, do it this way. How it was intended, the right way.
As many others have said, that 5 minute block is entirely there to blow out your VO2 max so that the 20 minute test is purely an aerobic test. A fresh 20 minute test then multiplied by x0.95 will give false training zones (the whole point of doing an FTP test). Most people will actually have a ‘fresh’ 20 minute effort translated by x 0.9-0.92 to a realistic hour plus FTP number. Let’s not kid ourselves here 🤪 P.s. I am not a ‘certified’ cycling coach but my PhD in biomechanics for endurance sports helps inform my opinions 🤓
Totally understand and get it. But for someone who does not test frequently, it's wrong to assume that 110 percent is accurate enough. There are other ways to exhaust the anaerobic capacity that don't depend on that.
@@TacomaCyclist yep, accept that. For reference, the British cycling administered warm up and FTP testing protocol use the same 5 + 20 minute formats. Their track team seems to do pretty well out of it 😇
@@mental9mikey oh, I agree that, for well trained athletes that test regularly, it works great. But if someone tests once or twice a year, the difference between 110 percent anaerobic and 105 percent ftp 20 minute block is too narrow and likely to skew results. Personally, I like 5x30 second blocks at 150 estimated ftp with 30 to 60 second rests in between a better way to eliminate anaerobic reserves without inducing fatigue and still allows an accurate 20 minute block
@@mental9mikey and, by the way, I say all this with compete respect and deference to the educational experience you bring to this discussion and appreciate your taking time to engage.
ERG helps me to train my zones more accurately as I struggle to keep a consistent power output without paying very close attention. Longer term I might get better but for now I'm focusing on training power more accurately.
I would encourage you to try it without ERG and see just how accurate you can be. I've found that, with a little practice, I'm actually WAY more accurate without ERG, though it takes concentration.
There were studies done on FTP tests and 5min 110% followed by a 20 min all out or ramp test was I believe universal for time constrain testing (most preferred being a full hour) . I forgot why but the point of an FTP is to determine where your fitness sits currently. If I did a 20 minute all out without that 5min 110% it would overinflate my FTP and my training would suffer because I would never be able to complete it. It’s the same reason why I don’t drink excess caffeine or sodium bicarbonate before these tests because I wouldn’t do that every day for every workout. Just my .02
Yup. There are flaws in this though. Big ones. You have to basically know your ftp in this case to know that 110 percent of it would put you into anaerobic. But since 110% is only marginally over what you're supposed to hold for 20 minutes which is aerobic, it presupposes that you really know your ftp. For people who aren't testing this regularly, that's a big ask. There are other ways to exhaust your anaerobic capacity first. Cheers!
I just reviewed TrainerRoads 20 minute ftp test. They have 3 efforts w 1 minute recovery between at 100%, 105%, and 110%. Then 5 minutes recovery. Then the 5 minutes at 110% followed by 5 minutes recovery and then the 20 minute test period. Is this very different? Better or worse?
@@cyclingboss469 I think the issue is, like my comment above, is that it presupposes that you already know what your ftp is. Mine varies enough through the year that I wouldn't presume to know that 110 percent and 105 percent were even remotely accurate.
Buddy, the idea of the 5min block is to drain the anaerobic contribution so that the 20min test is a true aerobic effort. It’s been around for decades. A straight 20min and taking 95% of that just isn’t an accurate measure of 1 hour power in many cases
Hey Mark - yes, I'm definitely aware. My point, which I've made in the comments here, is that, if you know your 105% block then you already know your FTP. 110%, for example, will drive you past exhaustion and far exceeds the anaerobic exhaustion rate. It would be FAR better to exhaust the anaerobic capacity by instead doing 5x20s blocks at roughly 150% followed by 100s of recovery. This will still exhaust the anaerobic tank, but won't require you to basically already know your ftp. Since a person's ftp can vary greatly from week to week, 5% is a razor thin margin of error.
In my opinion and interpretation, higher capillary density i.e. more efficient gas exchange, plays a role on the rate of intensity increase in your warmup. I think part of the reason why this warmup feels goofy to you has got to do with your aerobic adaptation. Possibly faster uptake kinetics, could mean faster warmups for well trained aerobically trained athletes. By chance, do you know what your endurance index is (W'/CP)?
It's not so much that it feels goofy, as I don't really have an issue doing it. It's more that the repeated steps make little to no sense as a warmup as they are. I haven't calculated my endurance index. I am looking to get some testing done in general but you're familiar with the only place in town that offers that and they don't let you use your own bike. Maybe once you get setup with all the testing equipment that I know you're eventually going to get, I can be a Guinea pig for you. :-)
I gave a thumbs up to this video. Not because I agree with everything TacomaCyclist has to say but it is always interesting to hear peoples views and the comment section turned out really interesting.
Thanks! This should be the attitude on the internet - thank you! And also thanks for making it through the comments. I definitely don't want everyone to agree with me, but appreciate your willingness to engage!
Maybe someone who knows about this stuff can enlighten me. I've done the Zwift FTP test some time ago in the past and the ramp test i.e. not the current training round. However, if I ride really hard for 20 minutes plus and exceed what Zwift has set for my current FTP, it increases it. I did a ride a few weeks ago up the Innsbruck KOM and went harder than I thought I was capable of and Zwift increased my FTP by 11W. Will the FTP that Zwift is now telling me be too hard for basing my training and intervals on? I am an experienced rider (not so much with power) but the intervals I am now doing feel about right to me and my heart rate in the various training zones also seems consistent. I'm not interested in bragging rights but get the feeling if I did an FTP test or ramp test now the number might be lower and don't want that to adversely affect my training.
So, going all out for 20 minutes and an FTP test are a little different. That being said, you can get a pretty decent estimate of your FTP by doing that, and that hill is a great way to test it. FTP is really just a number and one that shouldn't be given too much credit. If your workouts are feeling okay based on that FTP, stick with it. Honestly, that, IMO, is the biggest reason to know your FTP. Otherwise, I'm way more interested in 1 minute power, 15 second power, 5 minute power, etc.
Only thing I agree with is the 180 watts warm-down is a bit stupid. And if you pump out a higher FTP, that number gets jacked up compared with your original warmup values and I often pray for the thing to ramp down quickly. I think you are missing the point with the Zwift FTP test. Does it work? If you perform the test correctly, it gives you a pretty accurate estimation of your FTP. Curious to see what you think of the ramp test. :)
I am. And I think you're right. But I don't think it was ever intended for the masses to just do. It's intended to be used along with coaching. There are other methods that can be used for people who only test once or twice a year
@@TacomaCyclist It was specifically designed for the masses. That's why it is on Zwift. It hurts feelings because it gives a much lower (and more accurate) FTP. People who are coached will use their PDC to determine FTP along with TTE.
5:20 i'm trying to figure this out. it sounds like this ftp test requires an ftp# to do an the test. but what if you just got a smart trainer and have never ridden with a power meter before, and have no idea what your ftp is? is there a theoretical calculation like 220 - age
Exactly. I would recommend starting with the ramp test first. Watch my most recent video on my journey to 300. I explain the best way to take the ramp test. Cheers!
When you first start using Zwift, it will automatically set your FTP from your first ride that is longer than 20 minutes. Even without doing a test, Zwift will continue to automatically update your FTP as you improve or try harder on your regular rides. This way, your first FTP test will already have a good starting point. It will take a few tests to really get a good result. Learning how to pace the 20 minutes is a big part of a successful test. Best just to jump in and do your first test to set a benchmark without worrying too much about the result. By your 3rd test, you'll have it nailed.
Isn't the 5 minute block at 110% a standard part of the Coggan 20 minute FTP test? It has been part of any structured 20 minute test I've ever done and is supposedly to minimize the anaerobic contribution during the 20 minute interval. Additionally, note that if you do the FTP test workout in ERG mode, Zwift will switch to slope mode for the 20 minute test block, so your comment about adjusting incline should still be applicable.
You're right - that 5 minute block is prescribed in many places. I still don't like it. And yes, it does switch out of erg for the FTP portion, but erg still does terrible things throughout the rest of the test. A lot of coaches, myself included, specifically request to NOT use erg mode for that reason. Sure, the incline feature will work in that portion of the test, but if not using erg, you can use it in the whole test. Cheers!
I should mention, there are other ways to minimize the anaerobic contribution including higher intensity openers prior to the actual test. There has been a LOT of study on the subject since Coggan introduced his concepts. Many of them disagree with his approaches. One of our colleagues in the area is currently studying similar things and will be releasing his studies soon. I hope to get ahold of them and learn even more!
@@cyclingboss469 so one of my issues is that, if you don't know your exact ftp,how can 110 percent exhaust your anaerobic reserves but 105 percent be what you're supposed to hold for 20 minutes. There's no margin of error at all. This basically means you have to know your ftp value before you actually do the test. Most people really don't and put in a good estimate. That means that 110 percent is just wrong. Instead, a few 150 to 200 percent intervals for 30 seconds with adequate rest between them makes a lot more sense. It still exhausts your reserves but gives you enough range that you don't have to know your exact ftp before finding out what your ftp actually is.
Not sure where everyone is getting the 110% that they then defend as standard. When I did this test it gave 3 mins at something like 150% programmed FTP (from ramp test). It was just stupidly difficult.
It comes from Joe Friel. The challenge I have with it is, if you know what your 110% figure is and it's perfect at getting rid of lactic threshold capabilities, then guess what, you already know what your FTP is and you don't really need to do the test...
Regards to the 5 min block before the ftp test which you control (no ERG mode) not being great, what do you think of the 4DP Full Frontal where you have a 5 minute maximal effort before the 20 minute FTP test which is then followed by a 1 minute max effort ? It seems as if as soon someone gives benefits to the 5 min effort before the FTP test for a more accurate result someone comes along and disputes this. And then vice versa. So who is the average person supposed to believe if so called professional coaches cant even seem to agree on something ? I for one have no idea who to believe anymore :-( It is the same for cadence, I have been led to believe that, in general, low cadence (as an example) training can help but then out comes a video with evidence contradicting that. It is a minefield with no consistancy it seems.
Honestly, I treat FTP as a relatively insignificant number. It's a guideline at best to determine about where your general zones are. That being said, every variety of FTP test I've taken (including just riding a 1 hour effort) come up with a number that is within 3% variance. That being said, I say, do whichever test you prefer, consider the number, but then throw away the test.
The thing to remember is that the 5 minute block is to reduce your ability to go into lactic threshold at the end of the 20 minute block. What is being described here is how to get an optimal 20mintue power NOT a true representation of your FTP, doing this will give an artificially high value for your FTP.
New to Zwift this week.... so glad you have told me about this (thought I would research it before sitting in the pain cave). I have done a FTP on a Wattbike in a gym with no fan (public self torture, soaking in your own sweat as people take selfies around you.... fun right).... anyway unless zwift has a different method or I am forced to do this for racing or other parts of zwift I will not be peddling at 100-150 watts (unless I am injured and doing a recovery spin).... Thanks again.... I dont care about stars as I have never worked in McDonald's so this test is not for me
Everyone's an expert they did the work and talked to the experts this is a fair test give your thoughts to zwift but don't think you know better. Are you an Olympic coach or something?
You hit the nail in the head. I think the reason they put that 5'' @ 110% is to make you work really hard so it makes 20 min @ 100% more manageable. But it makes no sense as you said. I have done hundreds of tests on the bike and rowing machine (back in the day). These warm-ups only reduce your potential. I bet many people have lower avg power #s in the second half of the test with these bad warm-up routines where they actually should be aiming for the opposite. At least that's what I do. Same with a lot of Vo2max workouts in Trainerroad. I understand a lot of people don't have time for a proper warm-up but those warm-ups are a joke.
As others have said, FTP has morphed into some ego-led d1ck measuring statistic as it's all over Zwift and the forums. Just as Zwift is nothing like your ability as a real life cyclist, your 20 min performance is an over-estimation of the useful power you can produce for longer. It doesn't show how you'd perform in real life or how you compare to your peers. It may help track your progress but it's best kept to yourself, tbh.
Have you compared your ftp results from a ramp test and 20-minute test before? I just completed my ramp test, video here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Zvp7lnUN9XY.html The results seem fine but I am also wondering about how it would compare to a 20-minute test result. Also I feel that you should not use erg mode in 20-minute as you should pure pace yourself, but that you should use erg mode for the ramp test. Way back I did the 20-minute test on Zwift and I was new to training and similarly had no luck with the hard efforts and had no idea of how to pace myself.
