I know a lot has been written on this topic and there’s personal preferences for each test but has anyone tested their FTP on the road with the same power meter to see which matches best to the indoor tests?
Personally my FTP is higher in HM compared to FF and I have found that training to my HM numbers is more rewarding and dare I hope, beneficial. The FF data makes some plans a little too easy.
This also leads me to think that maybe HM FTP values are more accurate especially when we read that we produce more power riding in outside conditions compared to on the smart trainer.
1 Like
The answer is Full Frontal is more accurate, except for the people where it isn’t and for them Half Monty is more accurate, unless it’s not and they’re somewhere in between…
I’m in the last group.
My HM FTP figure can be as much as 40w higher than my FF number.
My FF number often makes sessions, after a very short settling period, seem too easy. My HM number often makes sessions unfinishable. My outdoor FTP is somewhere in between the two numbers.
I can literally never achieve my HM FTP numbers for extended periods in any circumstances. My FF FTP I can keep up for significantly more than an hour.
For a good chunk of last year I made an effort to manually adjust my FTP to what I thought was a sensible middle ground, where every session felt hard but just about completable.
Then I burned out…
What I have come to realise is that in using my FF numbers I might not be pushing myself as hard as I possibly can, but actually they’re not so sufficiently low that I’m also missing out on training stimulus and for so long as I am a working member of society who cycles (as opposed to a professional cyclist) sticking with my FF numbers works better for me as I don’t end up overly fatigued and then missing training totally (which takes you backwards faster than bumping your FF FTP numbers takes you forwards).
It also becomes irrelevant for actual races or performance cycling anyway because unless you’re trying to manage a TT effort, you’re always riding to perceived exertion anyway as a one-off day event.
Still, who knows what they have up their sleeves. They are constantly tweaking things to improve our training experience such as modifying certain sessions or intervals’ values so they could find a better way of testing to provide accurate numbers for the likes of myself who fall in the middle.
3 Likes
Hey there.
Yes I’ve tested indoors and out. It didn’t tell me anything materially useful but I have done it. It didn’t lean more towards FF or HM from a metric point of view. Was ballpark for both.
So I’d use whatever metrics work for you to get the best out of the workouts you are doing in SYSTM - and if that’s HM results then I’d use them.
As you say on personal choice/preference, training to the numbers that work for you the best is the simple answer, and I think you are probably doing that from your experience of the difference methods of setting your workout metrics.
Is one thing more accurate than another?
-
it is all dependent on how we handle each individual metric setting event, how we’re feeling, how much we reach or maximum during it, what we feel works for us during training, all influenced by specific daily variables on our physical/mental state.
-
in theory FF is more accurate, but that only applies if we get the most out of it. So some people it will be great, others it’s HM - and again, only if we get the most out of it. Others might just set their ftp and averagely set the other metrics from that. All methods are fine in my view if it makes the use of SYSTM beneficial to us.
Ultimately the four numbers are there to make workouts good for us, and every single person will get different results on a given day, using any form of testing/estimation.
How different are they?
If it just a couple of percent, that is easily within measurement error and daily variability.
In addition, many people find their sustainable FTP is higher outdoors than indoors.