FTP Value from 4x13min Test

Just from that workout? Not in any useful accuracy, 205-272W would be a lazy safe guess. You could use the maximum 1 hour NP as lower bound, but I doubt that makes the range small enough to be useful.

spot1100 said:

[font=Verdana]Hi !

I usually do a L4 work once per week minimum. Because I like to do this on a hill I make 4x13min with a break (descent) for about 7min.
I found no longer hill here to maximize the uphill time.

My FTP is 260Watt. Last week I did this workout with following Watts.

1. 265 Watt
2. 270 Watt
3. 271 Watt
4. 272 Watt

Do you think it is possible to predict the FTP from these values ?

Thanks
Chris

[/font]

NP for 1:20 is somewhere around 241-243W depending on how much (if any power) was applied in the decents.

Assuming the entire workout represented a maximal effort (as it should for FTP purposes), I'd have guessed something in the 250W range.

spot1100 said:

[font=Verdana]Hi !

I usually do a L4 work once per week minimum. Because I like to do this on a hill I make 4x13min with a break (descent) for about 7min.
I found no longer hill here to maximize the uphill time.

My FTP is 260Watt. Last week I did this workout with following Watts.

1. 265 Watt
2. 270 Watt
3. 271 Watt
4. 272 Watt

Do you think it is possible to predict the FTP from these values ?

Thanks
Chris

[/font]

I assume this was the average for each effort. You could use an equation to estimate your FTP. It won't be exact, but neither is a 1 hour time trial if your only motivation is to test for FTP.

It's standard practice to estimate FTP from a 30 min maximum effort by multiplying the 30 min average by .95. For a 13 minute effort, let's just go with a multiplication factor of between .92-.93. That gives us a range of 249-252 if we multiply by the power of the third interval (271). That sound reasonable enough?

bbrauer said:

It's standard practice to estimate FTP from a 30 min maximum effort by multiplying the 30 min average by .95.

It shouldn't be.

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

It shouldn't be.

ric

I think it is more standard to think of a 20 minute effort as being about 105% of threshold, at least I believe Mr. Coggan's thinks so ...

Watoni said:

I think it is more standard to think of a 20 minute effort as being about 105% of threshold, at least I believe Mr. Coggan's thinks so ...

I don't think he thinks that. He doesn't quote that method at all amongst the numerous ways to determine FTP.

http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/browse_frm/thread/df47bc3a44cfefe2/f01981e3bd5f2ef6?lnk=gst&q=seven+deadly+sins&rnum=3#f01981e3bd5f2ef6
you may need to be a wattage member to view, I'm not sure.

The use of a 20min test in the book is Hunter Allen's idea, not Andy Coggan's.

This is not to say a 20 min test is useless - it is still a good marker of aerobic fitness.

Alex Simmons said:

I don't think he thinks that. He doesn't quote that method at all amongst the numerous ways to determine FTP.

http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/browse_frm/thread/df47bc3a44cfefe2/f01981e3bd5f2ef6?lnk=gst&q=seven+deadly+sins&rnum=3#f01981e3bd5f2ef6
you may need to be a wattage member to view, I'm not sure.

The use of a 20min test in the book is Hunter Allen's idea, not Andy Coggan's.

This is not to say a 20 min test is useless - it is still a good marker of aerobic fitness.

My bad -- that is the trouble with co-authored work 😉

In any event, my point is that the idea of using .95 x 20 minute test is, though not accepted as the gold standard, has some merit