PS… Be careful with eFTP on there - it can be based on really short best efforts depending how a user sets it up. I had to push the minimum counting time way out to not get artificially high ftp even higher than the (for me) already too high ramp test.
2 Likes
Literally unsubscribing from my own thread.
3 Likes
Exactly, which is why it’s puzzling to hear “stop pretending it matters.” In the context of structured training it matters a lot. Hell, unless you’re a 40k TT specialist that would seem to make it more relevant than if it were just “what you can hold for an hour.”
But does it though? Now that TR has announced they’re going to break progressions down into zones, FTP testing is a thing of the past.
Hashtag let’s make FTP great again.
1 Like
Am I the only one who was thinking you weren’t changing the value of ftp? (Same operator exists in c#)
/= Operator - Visual Basic | Microsoft Learn.
Personally I prefer the fitness signatures xert uses
I like the idea of FTP as a range. I personally keep track of my FTP as a 45-50 minute power, since my focus is the 40k tt and 50 minutes is about the time spent on the bike. Plus, my favorite climbs nearby take 45ish minutes to complete.
Not making anything scientific, just sharing how I actually USE ftp, instead of just arbitrarily measuring it.
1 Like
You are assuming that Intervals.icu knows what’s doing and haven’t confused critical power with FTP. Hint, lookup how eFTP is derived. And FYI, not a single physiological threshold is tied to a set duration and why should FTP be different.