Power Meter FTP testing

[RojoRacing]

So I just gave this FTP test a shot via the 20 min method and as I expected I ended up with a rather poor result of 276watts for 20 mins so a FTP of 262 or 3.6w/Kg. The test was performed on a stationary fluid trainer and after a recommended 20 min warm up followed by a few hard efforts to get the blood flowing. The reason I say that it feels like a poor result is I averaged 298 for 20mins last Monday on my DF bike during the lunch ride/race. My HR was only in the low to mid 150s which feel pathetic when you consider I've avg 175 for 120 mins on the mtb. I know it's been said that my numbers on the V would probably be lower then the DF until I get on the V more regularly but still I can't help but feel like this is a pathetic result for me. I will say my left quad started to get tight halfway through like it was on it's way to cramping but never felt hindering and by the end of 20 mins my legs were burning bad. I did do a pretty hard 17 mile trail run on Saturday but took it very easy on Sunday and did nothing at all yesterday but maybe that wasn't enough recovery time. I'll have to bring the DF home and do the same test on it for a reference. I get the feeling the fact that I'm doing this indoors is really killing my potential because I just can't seem to try 100% indoors.

You'll notice toward the end I increased my power output but dropped my cadence. I find 50/14 is too short and I can't comfortably hold a cadence in the 90s but when I shifted to the 50/13 is felt better to drop my cadence to a flat 80 for a min or so but then the power output of over 310 became too much. I feel like a gear right between 13 & 14 would have done me better but I guess I'll just get stronger so I can hold that 13 the whole time.

https://www.strava.com/activities/512219739
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1078164798

 

[LarryOz]

The reason I say that it feels like a poor result is I averaged 298 for 20mins last Monday on my DF bike during the lunch ride/race. My HR was only in the low to mid 150s which feel pathetic when you consider I've avg 175 for 120 mins on the mtb. I know it's been said that my numbers on the V would probably be lower then the DF until I get on the V more regularly but still I can't help but feel like this is a pathetic result for me.

Jason, I wouldn't beat myself up over it. This is a good result and at least a minimum FTP number to start with on your V.
I still think it is harder to make the power laying back at 20 degrees that upright on the DF.
But I also think if you work at it long enough you can train your leg muscles to adapt to the position better. Not sure how it works if you go back and forth all the time between DF and recumbent. Kind of like cross training.
Also, I think you almost have to "learn" to ride hard on a trainer and it takes some time. (About this time last year I was up to the point of being about to do around 300watts for a solid hour on the trainer. Now, not even close to that, but I am somewhere in your neck of the woods. )
Get this: I think I have ridden and trained on the KICKR trainer indoors so much with constant power (using ERG mode), that I find it hard to push the same numbers out on the open rode.
Some coaches say that your outdoor wattage will easily be higher than your indoor.

My theory, at least with the Vendetta is that when I ride indoor and since I do not have to steer or balance that I have learned to focus all my power and energy at turning the cranks, but when I get out on the open road, some of the energy has to be used to balance and steer the bike, so I just don't get as high as numbers. Then again, the power meters are different too. KICKR indoors and Garmin Vector outside, but I always calibrate each of them at each ride.
Who knows?: in the end - it's what can you really do in a race TT that really matters - so many variables - and we have control over so few of them.

when you consider I've avg 175 for 120 mins on the mtb

Surely you meant 275 fr 120 mins instead of 175 for 120 minutes

 

[RojoRacing]

Surely you meant 275 fr 120 mins instead of 175 for 120 minutes

No that's 175HR avg for 2hr Mtb race, that's 92% of my max of 190.

I averaged 181HR during an 75 min half marathon a couple years ago but it's easier to avg an insanely high HR when road running.

 

[LarryOz]

No that's 175HR avg for 2hr Mtb race, that's 92% of my max of 190.

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking watts and not HR.
Yeah - your young you can still do that!
I think my max last year for 4-hours was a 165bpm average - That was on my sub-4 hour Century record attempt - but then again I'm 56 years old too - not a babe like you Jason!

 

[RojoRacing]

I think the hardest I ever pushed myself during a sub 2 hr race whether bike or run was this trail half marathon several years ago. I battling for the win with on other guy who was killing my on the climbs but I a better descender and can work the corners better so we were going back and forth. I just remember hitting my max HR on the first climb and every time I looked at my HR on the DHs I saw that it was still over 170. I wan't that win so bad but sadly I finished second place by like 10 seconds. It's hard to get motivation like that indoors.

https://www.strava.com/activities/9415075/heartrate

 

[RojoRacing]

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking watts and not HR.
Yeah - your young you can still do that!
I think my max last year for 4-hours was a 165bpm average - That was on my sub-4 hour Century record attempt - but then again I'm 56 years old too - not a babe like you Jason!

Well you averaged over 10 BPM higher then I could last night and for 220 mins longer :lol I'd call that an excellent old guy effort

 

[LarryOz]

Well you averaged over 10 BPM higher then I could last night

If you HR was that low, then you obviously were not able (for whatever reason) to go to you maximum HR. Not at max HR, then probably not at max power output either. I suspect you are probably pretty close to 300 FTP.

Almost a year ago, I briefly hired a coach. He asked me what I thought my FTP we and I said probably 260'sh. So for my first test, he told me to ride at 270 for as long as I could.
That next next, after only having single recovery day - and a 5 hours at 200 watts ride 5 days ago - I went ahead and tried the test on my KICKR trainer.
Much to my surprise I was able to complete the whole hour at an average of 275watts, that after a 30 minute "warmup" where I ramped up from 150-220watts. After 60 minutes at 270, I was pushed for time to get to work, so I pushed it up to 290 for the last 5 minutes and then did a 10-min cool-down.
My average HR was 162bpm for the entire 100 minute ride, but for the "hardest" 65 minutes it averaged 170, which I think is my LT give or take a beat or 2. Too much past that and I will flame out so to speak.
He "assigned" me an FTP of 298 from that data. Funny thing is, I do remember after the first 30 minutes building up to 222 and then suddenly jumping to 270 - after about 5-6 minutes at 270watts - thinking I just don't know how much longer I can hold onto this power level. But I just took it minute by minute. I eventually got into a little grove, but it was always hard. When I passed the hour and still had something left I was energized to give it a little more for some reason. I was on the indoor trainer, but did have the niceness of having a video to watch of a 65 minute ride around a mountain that I had regularly ridden that spring. It's nice to have something to watch and help motivate you or pass the time and keep your senses active when indoors.
My coach was pretty shocked. He said usually when a client tells him what they think their FTP is the vastly over-estimate it. He later told me that he did not expect me to get past 30 minutes at 270watts.
https://www.strava.com/activities/277876706

Point is, you can usually go harder and longer than your brain thinks you can...

 

[LMT]

So I just gave this FTP test a shot via the 20 min method and as I expected I ended up with a rather poor result of 276watts for 20 mins so a FTP of 262 or 3.6w/Kg. The test was performed on a stationary fluid trainer and after a recommended 20 min warm up followed by a few hard efforts to get the blood flowing. The reason I say that it feels like a poor result is I averaged 298 for 20mins last Monday on my DF bike during the lunch ride/race. My HR was only in the low to mid 150s which feel pathetic when you consider I've avg 175 for 120 mins on the mtb. I know it's been said that my numbers on the V would probably be lower then the DF until I get on the V more regularly but still I can't help but feel like this is a pathetic result for me. I will say my left quad started to get tight halfway through like it was on it's way to cramping but never felt hindering and by the end of 20 mins my legs were burning bad. I did do a pretty hard 17 mile trail run on Saturday but took it very easy on Sunday and did nothing at all yesterday but maybe that wasn't enough recovery time. I'll have to bring the DF home and do the same test on it for a reference. I get the feeling the fact that I'm doing this indoors is really killing my potential because I just can't seem to try 100% indoors.

You'll notice toward the end I increased my power output but dropped my cadence. I find 50/14 is too short and I can't comfortably hold a cadence in the 90s but when I shifted to the 50/13 is felt better to drop my cadence to a flat 80 for a min or so but then the power output of over 310 became too much. I feel like a gear right between 13 & 14 would have done me better but I guess I'll just get stronger so I can hold that 13 the whole time.

https://www.strava.com/activities/512219739
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1078164798

There's your reason imo.

I think you either need more adaption on the bike or need to adapt your pedalling style to a higher cadence. IME you have to find that sweet spot between your lungs burning vs your legs burning.

I think if your HR is mid 150's then your CV system still has more to give - higher cadence at the same leg force equals more power.

This is only my opinion of course, and good job on the test. Lose another 6.7kg and up the power by 12 watts and you are 4w/kg which is borderline cat II.

 

[ratz]

The wattage whimp says:

• Harder to make watts at slow cadence laying on your back
• Harder to exchange air laying on your back
• Tested Recumbent wattage is always lower than on the DF
• You go faster on flat ground on a Recumbent for the same watts

If you are concerned about the test number measure it two or 3 times in short order after sufficient rest; and use an ERG trainer to train with that number as your guide. It really doesn't matter the starting point for that number; as long as it is consistently at the extreme of what you can do. Nobody should be able to ride 1:05 minutes at FTP; if you can that's not your FTP it's too low. FTP means, afterall, the power you can put out for 1 hour and then you fall to the ground a dripping mess of gu.

On the Vendetta my FTP today is a weak 192. On the Silvio I test out at 220. On a DF I can push about 265.
On the Vendetta max HR is 171, On the Silvio 176, On a DF 182bpm

I'm faster on the Vendetta by quite a bit, unless I am going up hill. My paltry wattage allows me and the V to keep up with the local guys that push 275-310 sustained on their DF's good enough for me.

So I train at 192 on the Vendetta right now; it's plenty hard;

For this ultra stuff; there is an extreme advantage to Learning to Create more power right a the Ceiling of your Z2 heart rate or roughly 180-age=LTH
So for me I'm currently trying to maximize the power I can put out at 133bpm. The more power I can put out there the faster I can go pretty much bonk proof running on Body fat. (Plenty of body fat, not going to run out any time soon). The peak power on the other hand is useful for climbing; and sprinting, and attacking other riders. My training goals are to save that Glucose for those types of efforts. When you ride a pace line you want everyone else to be burning Glucose while you are not then at the end you are the only one with Kick.

So that was a lot of words to say

1. Don't freak about the FTP actual number
2. Test a couple times to make sure it's consistent
3. Use that number for training on that bike geometry only, you will get faster regardless of the number size as long as it is accurate and consistent.
4. Test a separate number for outdoors when possible.

None of this is my knowledge. Just been studying for a 3 years now trying to learn the science that evolved while I was injured; and there is a lot.

I'm currently reviewing "primal endurance" for us over 40 years old it's very interesting stuff.

Oh and be skeptical; I could be repeating complete garbage. IF I fail I'll be the first to come clean. I trained last year on high glucose approach; all that did was make me 10% faster and FAT with a big budget for liquid supplement ride food and gels. So now we'll try something else. Rinse wash repeat.

 

[RojoRacing]

I've always been a 80ish cadence type of guy from what I guess because I just got the power meter and started measuring my cadence. On the road bike I can spin up over 100 no problem on 175mm cranks but on the recumbent with 170mm cranks my legs feel like they are flopping all over the place and the boom on the V is flexing around.

Is it common to have a lower cadence on a Recumbent vs a DF with similar length cranks due to the body position?

I know a lot of you are running crazy short cranks but I'm wondering if it's a recumbent thing or just a personal preference that gotten popular?

 

[ratz]

I've always been a 80ish cadence type of guy from what I guess because I just got the power meter and started measuring my cadence. On the road bike I can spin up over 100 no problem on 175mm cranks but on the recumbent with 170mm cranks my legs feel like they are flopping all over the place and the boom on the V is flexing around.

Is it common to have a lower cadence on a Recumbent vs a DF with similar length cranks due to the body position?

I know a lot of you are running crazy short cranks but I'm wondering if it's a recumbent thing or just a personal preference that gotten popular?

Common to have shorter cranks and faster cadence on a Recumbent. If you get floppy on the recumbent the cranks are likely long. I like 172.5 on a DF; I ride 165mm on the V20, I really prefer 155-160, but not available in my power meter.

Watching past people change and your skillz my GUESS is you will be faster, strong and more stable on shorter cranks. Whether you'd like them is hard to say. You could do far worse than convince larry to long you his crank length testers. The results could be fascinating.

 

[RojoRacing]

Was already looking at a way to shorten my cranks with an adapter but couldn't think of a way to do so without widening the Q-factor 20-30mm until just now. Larry what does your crank length testing jig look like? I'm curious if yours looks like what I'm thinking.

 

[ratz]

Larry what does your crank length testing jig look like?

Original Thread

http://cruzbike.com/forum/threads/fun-with-crank-lengths.8536/#post-110263

 

[LarryOz]

I'm curious if yours looks like what I'm thinking.

Here you go. Adjustable from about 90 to 150mm.
It does increase your Q-factor a tad, but I personally never noticed it, and have them mounted permanently on my M1 right now.

 

[jond]

jason

i run 175 cranks on my road bike and 170mm on the vendetta. i have never run short cranks.

i generate the same measured power and ftp on the vendetta or catrike 700 trike as the DF. with the same power meters and wheelsets (powertaps) and the same chicken legs.

and with the same cadence at around 82 and the same heart rates 150bpm /270 watts. last year i rode nearly 22,000 klm mostly with power meters and largely on my local training track.

i find it as easy on either platform. (edit by that i mean not personally easy as such but rather the bike is just as easy to make power with.) it just takes some time to develop as you did on your mtb and roadbike your individual style.

when i switch bikes it takes at least two weeks 14 rides to recapture past measured performance a solid indicator of adaptation and difference.

when i go to the DF my heart rate is higher by 10bpm and my power is not there. my heart has to work harder in the upright position till i adapt.

when i go back to the vendetta again my heart rate is lower and power is not there. at the moment i have returned to the vendetta and now my power is coming back again. once back it is stable and a known consistent. my heart does not have to work so hard in horizontal body position. yet once acclimed my HR and power are the same as the df but it requires an effort.

i have tried to achieve past numbers straight off the bat when changing platforms but i feel "weak" till i spend the time and adapt.

286 watts/152bpm/80kg body mass/ counting zeros/ on an oval track/ 100klm TT for example. this has been my area for the last four years. i am 54.

count zeros for power but not for cadence

i would note a difference between mtb and road bike too of obviously terrain affecting how much you and how you pedal. with the mtb being much more peakier with the roadbike being more even in terms of heart rate and power delivery. mtb single track courses technical and steep pinches and hills. road even the big mountains are more constant than a mtb trail. which all affects the stats. horses for courses.

so what is going on????

the comfort of the vendetta and the superior speed and aerodynamic lull you into being easy going mode and not having to work as hard. crank it up.

i believe power generation is about subtle learnt pedal style/technique and adaptation.

just because you are laying down does not mean you cannot get your heart rate into the stratosphere. remember your first love

after a life time of diamond frames and going to recumbents i noted the power drop off on firstly my trikes and then the vendetta. there is a long learning curve just like there was for the diamond frames to extract the potential of the bent but i just dont remember the df journey so well. i saw the same HR and power figures on both recumbent platforms vendetta and catrike 700 and df.

it took me a very long time 8000 klm to see similar figures on the vendetta and i thought i would always see a 10-15% deficit to the df. i was lulled into a cozy fast easy world of comfort and speed and got..........well a bit lazy.

i pedal in various styles on the vendetta. by merely pushing i can see a sustainable 270 watts.

by concentrating on my knees rising i can bring the pedal pull into action. i believe this is about 20-30 watts in effect for me and i am able to relax my push somewhat and recover whilst maintaining the same wattage.

i can inch forward and backwards on the seat to change out my muscles again allowing recovery and same performance.

i can swing my boom involving my upper and relax my legs. but i can only do this on even grades as for me it is rhythmic and variations upset the movement.

when i am hooting just below neuromuscular about 350 watts my body is rhythmically sliding up and down the seat as i push in the zone.

do not give up . find the motivation to push your HR up to your norms and check out your power then.

jason i bet it will be the same in time.

tap into yourself . and explode the vendetta's potential. then any DF rider will be watching your dust. for sure it will hurt as your new muscles developing suddenly find themselves being asked greater questions. but the results will come.

finally because on the road there are in fact variations which may even allow downhill coasting your power figures will be always less than the trainer as you count the zeros with power. maybe find an oval track if you cannot stand the trainer.

the trainer does not replicate or allow for the various techniques of riding a vendetta on the open road.

it is though the best method for making gains quickly. (especially if it is raining or snowing outside )

all this has as much to do with feel as science i suppose but the results are concrete if not the individual methodology applied.

go for it jason.

 

[JOSEPHWEISSERT]

The wattage whimp says:

• Harder to make watts at slow cadence laying on your back
• Harder to exchange air laying on your back
• Tested Recumbent wattage is always lower than on the DF
• You go faster on flat ground on a Recumbent for the same watts

If you are concerned about the test number measure it two or 3 times in short order after sufficient rest; and use an ERG trainer to train with that number as your guide. It really doesn't matter the starting point for that number; as long as it is consistently at the extreme of what you can do. Nobody should be able to ride 1:05 minutes at FTP; if you can that's not your FTP it's too low. FTP means, afterall, the power you can put out for 1 hour and then you fall to the ground a dripping mess of gu.

On the Vendetta my FTP today is a weak 192. On the Silvio I test out at 220. On a DF I can push about 265.
On the Vendetta max HR is 171, On the Silvio 176, On a DF 182bpm

I'm faster on the Vendetta by quite a bit, unless I am going up hill. My paltry wattage allows me and the V to keep up with the local guys that push 275-310 sustained on their DF's good enough for me.

So I train at 192 on the Vendetta right now; it's plenty hard;

For this ultra stuff; there is an extreme advantage to Learning to Create more power right a the Ceiling of your Z2 heart rate or roughly 180-age=LTH
So for me I'm currently trying to maximize the power I can put out at 133bpm. The more power I can put out there the faster I can go pretty much bonk proof running on Body fat. (Plenty of body fat, not going to run out any time soon). The peak power on the other hand is useful for climbing; and sprinting, and attacking other riders. My training goals are to save that Glucose for those types of efforts. When you ride a pace line you want everyone else to be burning Glucose while you are not then at the end you are the only one with Kick.

So that was a lot of words to say

1. Don't freak about the FTP actual number
2. Test a couple times to make sure it's consistent
3. Use that number for training on that bike geometry only, you will get faster regardless of the number size as long as it is accurate and consistent.
4. Test a separate number for outdoors when possible.

None of this is my knowledge. Just been studying for a 3 years now trying to learn the science that evolved while I was injured; and there is a lot.

I'm currently reviewing "primal endurance" for us over 40 years old it's very interesting stuff.

Oh and be skeptical; I could be repeating complete garbage. IF I fail I'll be the first to come clean. I trained last year on high glucose approach; all that did was make me 10% faster and FAT with a big budget for liquid supplement ride food and gels. So now we'll try something else. Rinse wash repeat.

Ratz, for what it's worth, your current training you described sounds like what I do in the winter: aerobic base training. I've tried many things and have always come out strongest in the spring by far with this type of training. While 7 - 10 hours per week will work, 12 - 20 hours will require a two-day rest at the end of the week because it applies a work load that requires recovery, which is where all the good things happen to get loads of energy from fat, thereby increasing the maximum sustainable power output when going anaerobic. Then I do hill work in the spring for a few weeks to quickly rebuild my lost anaerobic capacity. Then I'm ready for summer with a big aerobic engine and highend anaerobic power. Another benefit is that my bodyfat will drop easily with a healthy diet of fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and lean meats. This diet and exercise together have the added benefit of improving bloodwork, as determined by my physician who tracks mine. At my recent annual physical, he looked at the trends over the last few years and found that, while there was nothing wrong in the beginning, all the measurements have improved significantly each year as I have aged, which seems backwards. The disadvantage to this type of training is the time commitment, which requires 2 hours before work and 2 hours after work 4 days per week to do 16 hours per week. Every few weeks, it's also good to reduce the load for a week. Recovery only happens during rest.

 

[JOSEPHWEISSERT]

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking watts and not HR.
Yeah - your young you can still do that!
I think my max last year for 4-hours was a 165bpm average - That was on my sub-4 hour Century record attempt - but then again I'm 56 years old too - not a babe like you Jason!

Max heart rate is pretty individual. It can decrease due to aging from a stiffer heart, or stay the same due to preventing stiffness through regular training as we age. It can drop due to a larger left ventricle as a result of training. Although, athletes over 60 years old sometimes have a higher max HR than untrained people of the same age. This is also affected by stroke volume and blood viscosity, which is affected by the number of red blood cells making it thicker, and blood volume, making it even more thin than normal, and thereby easier to pump. The bottom line is that differences between any two people of any ages has no significance. It's all individual.