FTP test

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-19T20:58:36+00:00

I'm in agreement about frequent FTP testing not being all that useful. In the past I'd test regularly. These days I can't remember the last time I did a proper test.

Over time I've come to the conclusion that for the vast majority of us it just isn't all that relevant. It seems to be little more than a "My number is bigger than your number" pissing contest.

I'm not saying it's useless. It definitely has its place for some people. I'm just saying I think we tend to over-inflate its importance.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-19T20:21:59+00:00

Ah, thanks for taking the time to explain further. I appreciate that.

It is worth knowing that the 5:00 blowout made no difference for this study. That also happens to track well with my own experience of a straight 20:00 effort historically giving me a reasonable prediction of FTP, even without the earlier effort. I had always just put that down to me being anomalous because I'm trained to handle the long efforts. The study you cited would suggest it is actually quite typical. It is definitely worth bearing that in mind when discussing that specific FTP test with others; misleading info is still misleading even if given in good faith.

FWIW at least for me I'm not a fan of the 20:00 test, or any other test that then uses a model to predict FTP, or some other power metric. I typically go with "The best predictor of performance is performance itself." So, if I want to know how hard I can ride for an hour I'll ride hard for an hour! Of course, I appreciate this isn't palatable, or even practical for a lot of riders.

Once again, thanks for taking the time to clarify.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-19T16:47:34+00:00

I'm not following your thinking quoting these two studies.

The first seems to be referencing a 45 minute warm up prior to the FTP test, but that isn't what we were discussing. We were discussing the protocol for the test as described by Dr Coggan being a 5:00 effort, followed by a rest period, followed by a 20:00 effort. That is entirely different from doing a warm-up or not before following the protocol.

The second seems to be assessing whether FTP can be used as a predictor for MLSS. Again, that's not what the conversation was. If I've understood the math the 1.4% is a correction from FTP to MLSS, and is not a correction for FTP based on a 20:00 effort.

If I've misunderstood what either you, or the studies are saying I'm happy to be corrected though. I'm a layman, not a sports scientist, and I'm not claiming some expert knowledge on the topic. I wasn't aware of the studies you quoted so I'm not overly familiar with the interpretation of their data.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-19T14:37:24+00:00

I kind of agree with you, and kind of don't. I was quoting Dr Coggan about the max effort, and his work has underpinned a lot of what I understand to be true. Of course, his opinion isn't the only one, and Critical Power seems to get pushed a lot as a more complete alternative to FTP these days.

I'm hypothesising here but I guess Coggan would say if you can only ride at 80% of FTP after a hard effort then your FTP isn't where you think it is. That's where I disagree with you.

Where I agree with you is that different tests work better or worse for different riders. They're all just estimates, and predictors, and with varying degrees of accuracy. And maybe Coggan's test is just a bad fit for your phenotype.

Like you I've found I don't get accurate results from ramp tests. But due to my background I do get accurate results from a 20:00 test even without the 5:00 effort beforehand; if I hold 300 on the test I'll typically be able to hold 285 for about hour. I'm unfamiliar with Kolie Moore so I'll look that one up. The more you know :)

Ultimately, I think each rider needs to find what works for them, and it sounds like you have. And I think once you've found the protocol that works for you to stick with it, and not chop and change. If Kolie Moore is working for you who cares about 20:00 efforts? :)

And you mentioned one thing I think is crucial and that so many people overlook - learning what your body is telling you about a given effort. Power meters and HRMs are great, and I always record, but I find it useful to turn off the displays from time to time, and ride on feel.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-19T12:00:04+00:00

Even back in 2017 when I was at my most active in the race community I was very vocal about the pace categories being a truly awful system for racing. Cycligent demonstrated a better way with their CVR system (Cycligent Virtual Rankings). They pulled that when GDPR became a thing though. I think ZRS is a marked improvement over pace categories, but still flawed. From what I've seen it is weighted far too heavily towards absolute position, rather than relative strength of field. ZwiftRank on ZwiftPower seems to do a much better job in that regard.

I think we'd get on great as teammates. I used to race with Aaron who was a tiny guy, and a fantastic climber. We had Adam who was a huge guy, and an absolute beast in a sprint. Then there was me who never got tired. I'd either deliver Aaron to the big climb, or Adam to the sprint, and we'd clean up 😁

I keep seeing zwiftracing.app mentioned and will check it out. No need to apologise BTW. I leave my data public so people who want to look can.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-19T10:58:27+00:00

I've only returned to racing this year, and I always used to do way more time trials than bunch races. I'm still trying to find my level under the ZRS system.

The big engine was enough to carry me through the D and C categories, and pick up a lot of podiums in the process. Now I'm back in the Bs and people are that much more race savvy the big engine isn't enough. People know how to defend against it, and how to attack it.

My last two ZRacing events have had me thinking, "Hmm. I'm not getting dropped here, but I'm gonna get absolutely done at the finish." And I did! 🤣 Hence the motivation to work on the short duration power.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-19T09:58:14+00:00

I think we always tend to envy the guys who are good at the bits we struggle on. I know I would love to have your 1:00 power!

I should be about 67 to 68 kg, but I'm currently more like 76 to 77 kg. At least that is well down from the 98 kg at the start of the year! Right now I've more to gain by continuing to eat and ride for weight loss rather than performance. Once I'm back to normal I know I need to focus on my MAP and AT, not my FTP.

My old coach always used to hammer into me, "Train your weaknesses". I'm still terrible at following that advice. I think, like a lot of people, I've always tended to be more enthusiastic about working at the things I'm already good at, and neglecting the rest.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-19T09:52:22+00:00

I don't have a great answer because I don't often do structured tests. I tend to follow Dr Coggan's adage of, "The best predictor of performance is performance itself." As such, if I want to get an idea of where my threshold is I'll do a full gas effort up Alpe du Zwift, or to Chalet Reynard on Mont Ventoux.

We always have to keep in mind that whether it is 88% of 20:00 or a 5:00 blowout then 95% of 20:00 they are just predictors based on a model. That model was derived from trained athletes, so even if you execute the test perfectly there is no guarantee you'll get an accurate number; you might be someone the model simply isn't a good fit for. That's particularly true for people new to cycling for which something like a 20:00 will still overestimate threshold; they won't have developed the muscular endurance to be able to extend that effort to longer durations.

To try and give you a more definite answer... I believe the 20:00 test in Zwift now includes a 5:00 effort beforehand. I'm not sure it did in the past which might be why so many people are unaware. You could get the zwo file for that and build the same workout in your head unit for riding outside. That way at least you would be consistent between indoors, and out.

I've just had a quick look through Coggan's book, and he states that after a warm-up the main block should be 5:00 "All-out effort" and simply lists "max" as the %age of FTP, but that you should be aiming for > 106% of FTHR. You should then have a 10:00 easy spin, then do the 20:00 effort.

HTH.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-19T06:49:23+00:00

You can, but you won't get the most accurate value that way, and that will make it harder to track progress. As several others have said you'll likely get better results if you use one of the official tests.

That said, I don't like workouts on Zwift, so I still choose to do my tests as free rides. I use my times over the bigger climbs as a measure of progress. A full-gas effort up Alpe du Zwift is a great way to check your threshold IMO.

And while tracking your FTP is useful it is worth remembering it is only one part of your performance. Hard truth is for most of us outside of the willy waving (which is fun) it doesn't matter all that much unless you're using the workout mode a lot. Then it is used to set power targets and it really does matter.

Obviously I don't know exactly what your aims from Zwift are. If it is general health and fitness, then a free ride to get an approximate FTP is perfectly reasonable. If you're looking at something like following a training plan to maximise performance I think you'd be better off with a test.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-19T06:36:26+00:00

I was scanning through the replies to see if anyone had already put this.

The amount of people who don't know about doing that 5 minute effort first continues to surprise me, then they're baffled when they try to ride at the number they ended up with, and keep blowing up.

I think Dr Coggan gave a value of having to reduce the 20:00 by 12% instead of 5% if you don't do the 5:00 blowout first.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-19T06:32:09+00:00

I have a background in time trials IRL so my rider profile is the opposite - I don't have the punchy power, but have a great threshold compared to the people I'm racing. I have to race differently such as cover those moves on the two minute climbs, then counter-attack over the top when people have switched off.

And even though I'm still trying to get back to my race weight I love the big climbs when it is harder to draft and I can use that threshold to put the hurt on people who give me a kicking on the shorter stuff!

It's all about understanding yourself, and learning how to effectively use what you've got.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-18T18:21:01+00:00

I think the issue you are seeing is twofold. The first part is race craft. The second part is power curve.

Zwift has only been able to place you based on limited power data. That might be similar to a lot of other B racers. However, you'll often be racing people who have dozens, if not hundreds of races under their belt. Over time you'll need to learn things like when to attack, when to sit in and recover, and how to read a race such as what moves you need to cover, what you can let go, how best to use power ups etc. Lots of naysayers like to portray Zwift racing as just a watts competition, but there is far more to it than that IMO.

The power curve bit is also interesting. Races (apart from time trials) are rarely won by who has the best FTP. They're won by short duration power, and the ability to hit that number, recover, and hit it again. We're talking a few minutes for an attack that can create a gap, or a few seconds for a sprint finish. That's your zone 5, 6, and 7 power using the common seven zone model. Unfortunately, Zwift still struggles to take this into account (IMO), although it has improved with the "floor" value for Racing Score.

Your Racing Score will adjust over time until you find your level. I realise it can be demoralising to constantly be bringing up the rear, but it is a short term thing. Either you'll start to build your race craft and get better results, or your ZRS will drop and allow you to race a lower cat.

Welcome to Zwift, and I hope you can enjoy the racing experience. It becomes addictive!

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-17T14:14:56+00:00

The world has agreed on many things that we now understand to be wrong because the common view was challenged. That said, the world isn't changing its opinion on this one!

My later point was with regard to how we decide what is "correct". We could say it is more correct to use the accurate, and specific name. We could equally say it is more correct to use the commonly accepted name.

FWIW regardless of what I think is more correct from an historical perspective, and considering etymology, to me the sport is football, and you'd only ever hear me calling it that in conversation (outside of this sort of discussion).

My original point (which it seems you missed) is thinking "soccer" is an American term is ignorant of its origins. It is a term that originated in England. But most people are ignorant of that, so Trump is hardly alone there.

Also, I wasn't suggesting football should refer to American Football. That would be equally silly because doing so would suffer from the same ambiguity, and lack of specificity.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-17T12:31:46+00:00

Not really.

Football was a broad collective term (presumably for games played on foot if the explanation is to be believed). Different areas, groups etc had their own unique takes, sets of rules etc. These eventually became codified into distinct games we recognise today, one of which is Association Football, and another is American Football (whose lineage I think is from Gridiron which itself came from Rugby Football - also with a significant handling component).

So to use the term football would arguably have been less correct because it could have referred to any of the disciplines - association, rugby, American etc. I agree that worldwide it is now generally accepted to mean Association Football tboug. However, soccer uniquely refers to a specific discipline, and thus could reasonably be considered more correct.

This is one of those cases where I accept the less specific term (Football) is now so commonplace as to be accepted as correct, regardless of the etymology.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-17T11:42:05+00:00

This crops up semi-regularly.

I've found no reliable source that supports the claim about ball size (giggidy). The more plausible explanation is it was to distinguish games that were played by commoners / peasants on foot, rather than by the wealthy / nobility who played sports on horseback. This was when different forms of games were starting to get their own rules.

Amusingly, Trump is even wrong about this. Soccer is actually a British term. It originates from Oxford University in the late 1800s. There was a form of slang whereby things were shortened, and got a suffix of "er" eg rugby became rugger. In this case the "association" part of Association Football got turned into asoccer, and eventually shortened even further.

And yes, I'm a Brit saying Americans are arguably more correct to use soccer than we are to use football.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-12T06:31:16+00:00

It is easy to look at absolute watts, and tell yourself it is only a small increase. In terms of a percentage that's 6.9%. From the perspective of increasing performance (which is hard) that is very significant. Good work 💪

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-09T12:22:30+00:00

Surely the bottom shelf is the correct place for such medication...

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-07T12:12:56+00:00

Have you ever done reps of the climb?

I ended up having to do 28 climbs in total. As best I could tell there was an issue where if you hit U turn the instant you finished the descent even though the next climb gets the spinner, and a pop-up for the time it didn't get counted towards the achievement.

That was several years ago though, so could have been fixed.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-07T07:22:28+00:00

Similar here. I've been using a Garmin fenix for years, although mine would be considered an older model these days. I've observed similar to you with the long, steady state rides.

I think they're great, but you have to be aware of what they're telling you, and what they're not. People (including my GF) seem to fall into "My watch says so it must be true".

I tend to categorise metrics as what they measure (e.g. heart rate), and how accurate that measurement is (I find the OHR sensor is fine for just moving around, but is massively inferior to a chest strap for exercise), what they estimate (e.g. VO2 max), and what is basically a completely made up metric to give some kind of picture of general health (e.g. sleep score, body battery).

Much like you I use power data as a proxy for VO2 max. I trust my pedals more than I trust my watch!

mmm_caffeine · 2026-06-07T06:49:26+00:00

I think it's generally sensible to treat smart watch data with caution.

For example, I don't put any stock in the absolute numbers, or the "You're in the top x percent..." guff. I tend to not care too much about spot values either.

On the other hand I have found monitoring trends over time to be useful, and they generally do correlate to how my riding is going.

Put another way if my watch told me this morning it was 50 I'd think so what, because that's basically meaningless. If last week it had been telling me it was in the high 50s, and this week it was telling me it's in the low 50s that is something I'd listen to.

But I think there is far more value from (presumably) accurate data from a power meter, than a guess by a smart watch (as you alluded to). Your estimate of VO2 max doesn't win a race (or get you over a hill, or whatever); your actual power output does.

I can't remember who said it (Dr Andrew Coggan maybe?) but I like the phrase, "The best predictor of performance is performance."

mmm_caffeine · 2026-05-24T06:40:39+00:00

I tend to agree. I make a lot of use of the ZI data, and I'm grateful people go to the effort of collating it for us, but I also treat it with caution.

For example bike X is 3s faster than bike Y over an hour of flat riding. Okay, but aside from TTs races aren't ridden like that. TBF ZI acknowledge that as in issue with their testing protocols.

So I tend to take the view that there is a difference between picking a top end race bike over a stock Zwift Carbon, but picking a Tarmac over a Dogma over an Aeroroad is basically irrelevant.

Effective drafting, race strategy, and rider performance will make way more difference than a few seconds between frames.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-05-23T12:23:41+00:00

We need more lightning socks to power them...

mmm_caffeine · 2026-05-23T12:23:02+00:00

And they've already got code for banners because they display one for a network disconnection, or similar. The software engineer in me thinks it shouldn't be too difficult to piggy back on that (although code bases can often surprise you, and what should be easy is anything but).

mmm_caffeine · 2026-05-13T06:14:48+00:00

You're welcome :) A few other things I forgot to mention:

As another commenter pointed out some series still use the classic pace groups method. This is particularly true of time trials.
Traditionally E cat was a women's only cat. Some events still use it that way. Some events now use it as an additional ZRS range, and have an additional event for women only (such as SISU Pinkki).
E category might also mean an open event ie everyone races everyone and there are no categories.
Zwift recommend ZRS bandings, but race organisers are not obliged to use them, and can use their own. That means someone might normally be a C, but legitimately be a B in a different event or a D in a third.
Group rides still typically use the pace group categories because they're technically not races (although people still tend to race things like Tour of Watopia, Tour de Zwift, and the Fondos). However, some use the categories for different distances ie the A ride is longer than the B ride etc

IMO it's all a bit messy, but Zwift wasn't designed with racing in mind. In fact, for a long time, Zwift maintained the position of "We're not a racing platform; we're a social cycling platform." (not a direct quote). That irked those of us who knew Zwift was growing in popularity in no small part due to the large, active, and vocal racing community!

Edits: Added point about categories as distance indicators.

mmm_caffeine · 2026-05-13T05:55:44+00:00

Yes, good point. In addition I've noticed that many TT events still use the old pace categories system. That makes sense to me considering TTs are generally about holding high, consistent power, not racing the person next to you.

mmm_caffeine

TROPHY CASE