FTP testing......I hate it....so...... (Page 2)

At least some of us who don't test regularly will still do workouts near or as hard as the FTP test, we just don't necessarily come in as rested or do any lead-in exactly how one would do it for the test. I do 2 x 20 very regularly, weekly in fact, but at 95-100%. Not quite all-in.  I also do 1 x 20 at 105% (or try to beat that). This is sorta close and is an absolute killer when done right.

I also don't use any single workout to make adjustments. Could be something fluky that day. I'll change the FTP in my logs after several workouts are showing that my level has improved enough. the key ones for me on this are the 2 x 20, the 1 x 20 and the 5 x 4.

Possibly you just need to take away the stigma of calling it a "test". And that's fine. I don't like calling any of these "tests" either, as this is supposed to be fun!

If you regularly do intervals (2x20s) then you will be more mentally prepared for the 20 minute test. If you don't then its just like jumping on the treadmill and trying to run 60 minutes when you're used to running outside every workout. It is all about mental toughness or just pure zoning out when you're trying to do a timed effort indoors.

I personally do the book testing method, but use my 5 minute power and 20 minute power in the Monod regression to find my critical power (http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/MonodCriticalPower.aspx). I find that 20 minute power * .95 is a lot higher than what I can regularly hold during intervals. I can hold much closer to the critical power from the Monod regression. In other words, I have poor "fatigue resistance".

I tested a few times last year ( 2-3), but tended to do hard group rides, over a 27 mile route (including rolling hills, etc) and would basically take part of the route to do a 20 minute test, all out (as I'm usually chasing everyone anyway).

I'd load the data into Golden Cheetah and come up with an estimate of my FTP, based on my best 20 min intervals throughout the season.  The 20 min estimate pretty much matched my power graph for FTP.  I never saw the need to test every 4 weeks or anything.  

My biking definitely improved last year, and my race pacing was much better off of these numbers.  Could they be better if I routinely tested?   Maybe.....  I would almost certainly have to test on a trainer, as there are no flat 20 minute rides anywhere close to me.  My test on the trainer tended to be lower than what I could put out on the road, so I never saw the need to put the bike on the trainer and do the testing any more routinely.

I'm just getting started this year, so I'm thinking I might need to re-test to get a good starting point, but can probably estimate it pretty close.  I'll suck it up soon and get it done.

Winners train, losers complain.

That being said, I find the 2 x 8 easier to deal with. I also do it every 2 weeks and treat it as a hard and short beyond threshold workout so it fits into my training plan better.

Every 2 weeks??  That's crazy talk. 

Um, I sorta lost track of what "the book protocol" is that you're talking about. But if you're asking whether the 5 minute and 20 minute efforts should be on different days .... well, they should be separated by enough time so that your AWC is restored to full capacity and not so far apart that your underlying FTP will have changed. The first half of that sentence might be satisfied if you separate the efforts by the (infamous?) beer-and-burrito gap (that is, rest long enough to have consumed a beer and burrito, --> not that you actually have to eat them <-- ), so consecutive days would work. [There's a little subtlety there that I'm eliding]. The second part of that sentence means that you really shouldn't cherry pick efforts from your all-time best efforts at those durations.

Did I muddy the water? That'll teach you to ask me questions.

You are not calling me a loser I hope?

I train, believe me .............

If you want to get faster you have to mash those pedals every once in a while 

All right I'll just say it, what is an FTP test?

Of course not! It's a saying.. along the lines of "suck it up buttercup" lol 

If you want to excel, be willing to do what it takes.  It's very satisfying... embrace it!

Speaking of mashing, I find that I am generally able to put out more power during intervals when i DO mash, even though I do no really ride this way. 

Is that "cheating" ?

How much of a difference are we talking about? And like I asked beebs in the other thread, what kind of differences in terrain are we looking at in this comparison (is one a trainer)?

Good to know.........

I guess I thought it was "cheating" because I do not really ride that way, so on a regular old ride with a higher cadence, then my "mashing" watts are going to be sort of irrelevant.

But then I suppose the whole point of the intervals is to bring up your FTP, so however you get to that point is ok. 

Right?

Not that much of a difference I guess.......say my version of higher output "mashing" would be low 80's VS a normal cruising cadence of 90 to 93 or so.......

OK then I guess we will call it "riding at a lower cadence than what one normally does".

I guess it just feels mashy to me compared to what I normally do.

Last year , when I had a coach (sniff......) he was constantly encouraging me to ride at a higher cadence than what I was previously used to.

I know this has been discussed here plenty of times: cadence is highly individual. Left to my own devices, I DO tend to want to ride at a lower cadence so I guess I should just accept it and not worry. about it!