FTP zones vs. CP zones

[GWPOS]

Well here comes another question. I just did my CP tests and also my FTP test. I thought that some how the 2 different methods would some how be similar, but I was wrong. It seems to me that if I use CP zones and workouts through Training Peaks that I would spend more time in efforts at or slightly below FTP(my CP 180 is in my FTP zones Lactic Threshold area), while if I use Hunter/Allens method based on FTP I my zones are more like HR zones would have been. My current FTP/20 min test was 292-%5=277watts.

It is hard to explain what I am trying to ask.
For instance a tempo workout using the CP zone would be CP90= 250w-276w, and Hunter/Allens would be 209w-249w. Thats a big difference. So which one would be more right? Did I do something wrong in my calculations? Any help or ideas would be great.

[racerfern]

If your FTP test yielded 277w then I would expect CP90m to be about 250w. FWIW, I've never heard of testing or training based on CP zones. Zones are a percentage of FTP just like HR zones are a percentage of your HR threshold. You train and test on percentages of your FTP. Based on the statement in your second paragraph a tempo workout would be 209w-249w.

[GWPOS]

You are exactly right!!!! That is why I wrote to the forum, because Training Peaks uses CP (critical Power) for all of its power based workouts. This is how I got that unusually high tempo power number from. I have decided to just use the FTP method, but I had one problem and that was coming up with about 8 weeks of base workouts based on FTP. I then wanted to use Training Peaks but it put all of the workouts in CP zones, which for some reason are considerably higher than using FTP zones.

Thanks again racerfern, that other project is going pretty good!!

Clint

[iRacing.com]

It is my understanding from reading much literature on power, that CP (Critical Power) and (FTP Functional Threshold Power) are the same. Saw mention of two different tests, one method is the 20 minuytes of pain, other is to go the full hour. Another method is a 3 minute all out effort followed by a 12 minute all out effert. Golden Cheeta if i recall correctly, takes your best 3 minutes and 20 minute efforts and calulates CP/FPT. but as I said, the difference between CP and FTP is the nomencalture, the watts are the same, at least of what i've read on the subject.

[R Mc]

Not quite.

It would be more accurate to equate CP60 with FTP . . . But triathletes training for Ironman distances, mtb'ers training for marathon events, and long-haul cyclists could conceivably be more interested in improving CP120 . . .

Conversely, Boyd has mentioned a few times that elite racing in the US--especially crits--is often decided by CP5 numbers . . .

[doofus]

Simplify.

FTP is the key. Races are decided on 5-minute, 1-minute, and :15 power, but FTP gets you in the door to use that big anaerobic engine (if you have it).

The CP model -- like Joe Friel tried to come up with a few years ago -- micro-manages power zones and becomes unwieldly. I think it best to do as much Base training in the "sweet spot" range as possible -- 2x20s, 2x30s, 1x45s, 1x60s at 85-90% of FTP or longer efforts of 90-120 minutes at 75-85% of FTP, to build up the engine, then look at what the 5-minute and under numbers are in racing. When it comes time to do those 3-5-minute VO2s, and 1-minute lactate tolerance reps, try to hit the numbers from race efforts when you train (or just work with Coggan/Allen zones for those, based off of FTP.)

[racerfern]

IMO there is only one true test and that is CP60. IOW go as hard as you can for one hour, so you nearly drop over from exhaustion as you finish the hour. Training and terms such as Tempo and Anerobic are based on a percentage of your FTP which is your CP60m.

In reality, it's very difficult (almost impossible) to go flat out for 60 minutes which is why most people do a 20 minute test and take 95% of that result. Unless you have a dedicated road or a velodrome you're going to have to stop, slow down, coast; there are too many things that can get in the way of a real 60 minute test. Climbing a hill non-stop for one hour is one of the best tests. Of course you need to have a hill long enough. The advantage here is you pedal all the time and you need a shorter road because you're going slower. However it's easy to burn out early and never achieve your true potential.

Obviously CPx is power for a certain amount of time and using terms such as Endurace is power within a certain range. For example my CP5s is 880watts but that has nothing to do with anything. Of course I'm always working to raise it in the course of training and I can specifically go out and try a 5 second blast to see if I've improved. Yesterday's goal was a long slow ride so I did 44 miles of Active Recovery (< 118 watts) yet I still did a blast off part way through the ride just to wake up my legs. It resulted in a CP5s of 864watts but that just tells me I'm at about the same power for CP5, no new personal best this time around.

CoachBoyd should be able confirm or better explain some of these things, maybe he'll jump in if I messed something up.

[doofus]

I'm no authority

I'm also not a big fan of "95% of 20min = FTP"

that's in the ballpark for the middle of the bell curve, but not for those on either end of it

better to do 2x20 on 5 minutes rest, or 3x20, and then look at the average power. I'll do those, and consecutive climbs of Ceasar's Head (for me, 35 minutes...for Boyd, 30...for Big George, 25!), and also look at the CP60 for "hour of power rides."

those data points tell me what I can consistently hit in training, and when I look at averages of all those numbers, and look at what my power-duration curve looks like in WKO+, that gives me working targets for training zones.

forget about lab precision. most racers don't really know what their FTP actually is -- but they know what their sustainable max is for 20 or 30 or 60min intervals at a given point in the season, so they know what the targets are.

back to the OP, start with the 20min test -- but do 2-3 of them,, look at the average, and go from there. Stick with the Coggan zones, and use WKO+ as a feedback loop.

[MultiRider]

I've been told that FTP for climbing will be different (higher) than for flats and that FTP for a steep climb will be higher than for a less steep climb. This seems consistent with my experience -- I am able to generate higher average power on a local one hour climb than I can anywhere else. Pretty much everything around here (Castle Rock, Colorado) is hilly, so I don't have any 1 hour flat sections to try.

Is testing FTP on a climb acceptable? Does grade matter? My favorite workout is Deer Creek Canyon which is 5-8% grade for about 12 miles. My one-hour power is about 305w. Should I use that as my FTP?

[doofus]

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/05/ ... -sins.html


The best FTP figure is for a rested, all-out 60min effort.

Otherwise, the power that you can regularly and consistently produce during your 2 x 20s, 2 x 30s, 1x 45s, etc.. is a reasonable indicator of FTP.

[Russ]

Multirider,
I just read through Alex's post that doofus provided, I have read that before someplace but a great reread!

While I am not sure I can really add anything to that, a few practical observations may help.
As Alex said in comments to a tri biker (paraphrased) 'you produced 300 watts for one hour, that is your ftp'.

Now with that reiterated, the steady uphill pull does not give you any breaks like a flat that is actually rolling. The problem with (for me) the somewhat flat is the discipline to really push the same on the slight downhill, or on the flat just after the slight uphill. So, bottom line what I am getting at is that I would 'trust' the uphill result as a gold standard. Now as to it translating into usable target wattage for a tt on different terrain, I am not as sure about that. Used to simply track your fitness, I suspect there is nothing better.

Russ

[racerfern]

I did an FTP test yesterday and was told by a coach where to do the ride. Absolute constant uphill for 52 minutes. It's the closest we can get to a long climb around here without traveling too far. A good fast rider would make it up to the top in 30 minutes and the coach then takes a percentage of it. In my case, it's close enough to the hour that I'm going to use that as my FTP. I agree there's one FTP and it's very difficult to achieve it under varying conditions. I guess that's where Normalized Power comes into play as it averages out the highs and lows and weighting them properly. When Normalized Power exceeds FTP it's time to look at re-testing for increased FTP.

However, you can get Normalized Power to exceed FTP on interval sessions, so don't use things like 30s on 30s off to determine if your FTP has gone up. Maybe Coach Boyd will pitch in.

[coachboyd]

Normalized power will go higher with a more variable workout. If you want a good example of this, do a workout where you sprint all out once every 4 minutes. Inbetween, ride very very easy. You'll have an average power of 100 watts or so, but a normalized of over 300.

With that being said, a 1 hour time trial is going to give you the most accurate results but it can be very physically and mentally draining. Trying to do too many of them can really start to crack you. I like a 20 minute test because it's still quite hard, but manageable. If your 20 minute power has gone up there is a very good chance your FTP has gone up. Of course if you have a local 40K time trial or some other event that will take approximately an hour, this can also be a great time for a threshold test.

[Morocco Mole]

I used to find that my uphill power was higher than on the flats and I believe it is because most of us have a more efficient pedaling action on the hills. You are less inclined to rest through the pedal stroke and engage more muscles. With that understanding I worked on my pedaling technique on the flat lands and find I am now pretty much the same as my hill power of 20 minutes - 1 hour. It was more mental than anything, just concentrating on applying power evenly, unweighted your foot on the up stroke etc.