Functional Threshold Power (FTP) in cycling is the highest average power a cyclist can sustain for about one hour. It’s used to guide training zones, but it doesn’t consider other factors of a cyclist’s performance such as sprints, repeated efforts, or efficiency.
FTP is most commonly measured by performing a 20-minute test on a bike with a power meter and taking 95% of the average power for 20 minutes, this gives an estimate of what power a cyclist can hold for 60 minutes.
Racing cyclists often wonder how much they can improve their FTP within a certain period. On training rides or at races, you’ll sometimes hear cyclists asking each other about their FTP value or that someone has done such and such to increase their FTP to ‘X’.
Many cyclists tend to obsess over their FTP value, however, there is far more to a cyclist’s performance profile than what power they can hold for 20 or 60 minutes. For example, road racing rarely involves riding at a steady effort for exactly one hour. It depends on things such as anaerobic capacity, repeatability of efforts, technical skills, and fatigue resistance over longer durations. FTP only captures one point on a cyclist’s power curve.
Two cyclists with the same FTP can perform very differently depending on their strengths, one cyclist might excel in short, high-power efforts, whereas the other could be better at sustained aerobic efforts. FTP doesn’t reflect the full capabilities that determine cycling racing performance.
FTP also doesn’t account for a cyclist’s ability to resist or manage fatigue, which is one of the most important aspects of cycling performance, particularly in elite races where races are longer and harder, however, also still an important area to work on for amateur racing cyclists.
Testing and using FTP to set training zones is still valuable, but I would not use it as the sole test for a cyclist during winter training, because it never shows the full picture.
The question on how much FTP can be improved each year?
For elite professional cyclists, very little, as they have spent years training and have achieved very close to their genetic ceiling. This could be somewhere < 2% per year and some might not see any improvement after several years, instead they will often focus on improving repeatability, efficiency, race weight or race execution rather than raw FTP.
For amateur cyclists with a year or less of experience, an example would be between a 10-20% improvement within one year of consistent cycling training and racing. For example, if a rider at 70kg started with an FTP of 210w or 3 W/kg, they may see their FTP reach 252w or 3.6 W/kg in year 2. It’s highly individual of course, but many amateur racers will often see a 10-20% improvement within one year of consistent training and racing. The more trained a cyclist becomes, the less they will improve their FTP.
However, this is where cyclists become fixated on improving their FTP to the point where they don’t focus on the other key areas of their performance profile, and this is quite common in amateur racing.
It’s now that time of year where cyclists return to winter training where many will have one eye on how much they can improve their FTP for next season. I would encourage any cyclists focusing only on an FTP test as their performance test, to switch their focus to a full performance testing profile, for example, testing power over 30 seconds, 1 minute, 5 minutes as well as 20 minutes.
The above tests provide insights into both anaerobic and aerobic capacities, showing strengths in sprint power, endurance, and recovery. By including a wider battery of tests it will create a well-rounded performance profile while identifying where strengths and weaknesses lie. While FTP remains a useful benchmark, these broader tests offer a more complete picture of overall cycling performance.
Graham O’Brien is a Senior Technical Officer at the Department of Physical Education & Sport Sciences in UL.
Contact: Email: graham.obrien@ul.ie LinkedIn
PESS News & Information 