I know this could go into the regular “Training” category, but put it in “Uncategorized” on purpose since it’s from the Zwift side. I can move it to that category if people think it’s appropriate.
That said, I think it’s a good article that touches on the range of related aspects without getting too bogged down in details. More interesting than that is what I found when reading the comments at the bottom, with some notable names related to the topic 
It’s sort of good. 
It’s pretty funny because I had the same double-take to the “sort of” comment too when I read it first thing this morning, but there were no comments since it was just posted. I like to revisit after a bit to read comments and was pleasantly surprised that the comment was questioned… and by the man himself no less. Pure gold 
I thought it was a bit petty to call out the author, I don’t think there was any intent to undermine Coggan’s influence.
I thought it was a pretty good article. A lot of people could do with reading it to get a handle on why FTP is so contentious lol.
It was good he came in with a “value add” with the link in the comments.
Who uses categories? I just wait for a mod to put it in the right category after I post.
ETA - those comments are too good. Poor Schlange…
The comment section made me laugh, thanks Chad.
Here the author defines FTP as power at MLSS. TR defines in their blog as one-hour power. For practical reasons it doesn’t really matter as the TR FTP tests are estimates of both.
But it leads to some good confusion on the forum when other testing protocols come.
In the end you aim for a functional assessment of a complex biological system - muscle adaptation, motor unit recruitment, cardiovascular and metabolic functions, neurological control and mental readiness.
R. Chung in the comments is a mathematician who wrote a ‘Estimating CdA with a powermeter’. So he seems to like Critical Power in mathematical theory more than FTP in lactic acid experiment.
If we could go back in time and call it Functional Training Power, some of these issues would vanish.
Everyone just needs to remember, they’re all estimates to find a number to base your training off. It doesn’t matter who’s number came from which test and is the biggest. It only matters a)is it consistent (for measuring Specific fitness improvement), and b)does it give you a number that provides productive, manageable, recoverable, etc training zones/workouts.
Definitely lost site of what’s important - we seem to care much more about the input (Power) than what really matters which is the output (Speed).
Not exactly. FTP is also a “functional” measure that skirts around the need to do actual lactate measurement. That’s why Andy first proposed it: exactly to get around the need to do a lab test for MLSS. I’ve used both FTP and CP/W’ for many years (and continue to use both) but I prefer CP/W’ (and related models) because of both practical and theoretical reasons. One practical reason is that it reduces the need for tests of a specific length, so if I bust out a PB at 12, or 18, or 22 minutes instead of, say, exactly 20, I can still use it to update my CP (and possibly my W’).
Just realized… are you THE Robert Chung?
As you may have guessed, among my everyday rides, there’s a hill that’s around 12 minutes, another around 18 minutes, and a third around 22 minutes. I don’t have a hill that’s exactly 20 minutes at my current fitness. I can use any of these hills to update my CP/W’. That’s a pretty big practical advantage.
Yeah, I’ve been doing similar for awhile now too. Because all the software and discussions revolve around FTP I will then do a little “translation” from CP. The trickier number is getting at an estimate of LT1, which I’m not confident estimating from CP or FTP.
Can’t you just stop pedalling at 20? Then take a moment to enjoy the view. 
Like others have said many get lost in the weeds when they should be concentrating on the functional aspect. How does the test protocol you do inform your training in a functional way?
It is an honour. While I was wiping my coffee cup, I summoned a Genie.
I am a software engineer at Korean, not North, and I can also deal with data science. Last year, I made a model that estimates the power duration model itself, not FTP, based on actual statistics, and applied it to the actual service. At least 10,000 Koreans trust the FTP I made rather than the existing FTP models such as 20min, ramp test, Garmin, WKO, and XERT. May I send you an email regarding this? I think it’s a topic that you might find quite interesting.
I’d be interested to see it. My e-mail is on that CdA presentation.