FTP 46 watts lower w/ FF vs HM for sprinter profile

[jlscandr]

I took the HM and FTP was 232w did the FF 2 months later and it gave me 186w. Tried training at 186 and too easy. Anyone experienced that difference between test

[Heretic]

How many times before have you done a FF?

[jlscandr]

I did FF back in 2021

[way9e0]

There’s a topic here with a similar question:

4DP vs Half Monty results

I’m curious as to what others experience have been with 4DP vs half monty. Have people found the results are similar? Do some rider profiles favour (ie give higher results) for one test over another? My experience is that for me half monty seems to give higher results. While there was 6 weeks training between the 2 tests below pretty confident current true FTP is half way between the 2. 4DP FTP 330 (4.5w/kg) MAP 380 Half Monty FTP 362 ( 4.9w/kg) MAP 421 Rider type - time triallist. Int…

Have a look at Sir Mac’s response here:

4DP vs Half Monty results

There are rider types that do “better” on Half Monty compared to Full Frontal. The main one being Attackers, secondarily Pursuiter. We have found that many people for those rider types get artificially high FTP and MAP values from Half Monty, while those who are more diesel type (TT’ers / Climbers) might see the opposite. Ramps will always give artificially high Sustained power values (FTP / MAP) for people who are “anaerobically inclined”- attackers and pursuiters. We have found that our he…

[Heretic]

FF is tough to master, maybe you did not have a good test.

[Dimitri]

Yes, I had a difference of 30w. Training wit HM FTP was too hard, training with FF FTP way too easy.
I did another HM test recently and that result was more reasonable/manageable, somewhere in the middle of two earlier tests. Maybe they updated the HM calculations?

[Dafydd]

I’ve just completed the HM / FF test week and saw a 15w difference in FTP between tests. I also did the same early last year and saw an 18w difference.

In both cases my MAP results were virtually identical in HM and FF but I always find it difficult to get the pacing of the 20min effort just right.

My FTP setting prior to the test week was just under my HM result and I found the workouts manageable so I’ve adjusted it back to this level.

46w is a 20% drop which seems a big difference. I suspect it may simply be a pacing issue, particularly if you were training at the higher level before.

How did your MAP results compare for both tests? We’re these similar or did you also see a drop with the FF?

[AndyP]

The nature of the Full Frontal test means it should give an accurate representation of FTP.
You are draining your anaerobic capacity (W’) during the 5 minute test meaning that during the 20 minute test you are relying on your aerobic system = a good way to simulate your 1 hour power using a shorter duration test.

There’s only really two ways to get a value too low from FF.

1. Starting the 20mins too hard and blowing up

2. Giving up mentally and not pushing to your limits.

What workouts are you finding too easy? Have you tried any of the longer FTP based workouts with the new numbers? Something like Tour de Suisse 1 or ISLAGIATT would be excellent for verifying FTP.

[jlscandr]

Map went down 30w

[jlscandr]

I went hard hit 1900w but MAP went down 30W and starting cramping 10 mins in on 20 min effort but didn’t give up

[jlscandr]

I may try that once my legs recover

[Azrine]

I too have the same problem. I usually swing from sprinter to attacker. I do know that my MAP is weak.

My Half Monty is too optimistic at times for FTP. What I have resigned to do is just rely on full frontal numbers. It may be lower than the half Monty numbers and may seem like the workouts are easy but I check to see if my HR is in the correct zone. I have to rely on trusting the system and that I will see gains.

[jlscandr]

Thanks. I’ll try a few workouts at the new numbers