Im a 64kg rider and a "stander". If i stay seated my ftp is severe understated. My ftp and vo2 max workouts are way too easy (2x20 or 5x5vo2) if using that number. My seated fpt from my last ramp was 261, but i can do 260 for 2hrs so obviously not correct. Im around 290 if outside based on 20minute. And yes power meters are reading correctly. Erg is good for some things but definitely not accurate ftp.
Thanks Jesse! That’s always been an argument of mine when Zwift tells me to stay seated. I can switch back and forth to seated or standing and if the idea is to get the most out of you on an FTP test, then there should be standing. In the real world, when you’re trying to get the most out of yourself you often stand so why should it be any different on an FTP test? Thank you for clarifying this and further supports my argument.
Great video as always, I agree completely. Imagine telling Alberto Contador to stay seated for a maximal effort. Also your pedaling looks really smooth, I would really like to see a bike fit video or some cues about position, I know it’s hard to give advice on this kind of thing because it varies a lot but I think it would be interesting.
Great points. I'll add I think what most ppl miss is whether you sit or stand does not matter for your max 20 minute value. That number is what it is. The creator of FTP has said multiple times FTP is a range for individuals but platforms have made it a fixed number (95% of max 20 min power). Working with my coach I've consistently found my true number to be around 93% of 20 min power.
Definitely ERG specific - not many can keep a 85-90 rpm cadence out of the saddle, so with ERG on, the trainer just locks down when the rpms drop - not ideal on a ramp test. Testing outdoors it’s almost compulsory to get out of the saddle to try compensate for road grade fluctuations over a 20 minute period. Not many of us have a consistent 5% grade 10km climb on our doorsteps
Yep the dealing with erg more can make it more of a hassle than it’s worth to stand up. But some riders self selected cadence will be down in the 70’s, so there’s less of an issue for them resistance wise if they wanted to stand up for portions. Most riders will naturally just sit for the entirety of a ramp test even when not instructed, so the decision whether to sit or stand applies more to a sustained output test
What do you mean the trainer “locks down” in erg when you switch? I do this all the time on both a regular kickr and on a kickr bike when doing erg intervals. You can even avoid the temporary drop or spike in power if you go down a few gears when you sit and back up a few gears when you stand. If you want the power to be really really steady then ya you need to avoid changing cadence.
Some people seem to get accurate results from the ramp test on zwift, i'm not one of the though. it reads at least 20 watts high. Dunno how to explain it but it does feel like i switch to using my "sprinting muscles" for the last minute. Best way i can explain it is its like dessert there's always room for it :D (provided you haven't already eaten too much dessert)
Agree. I just did my first one on an app it put me in ERG mode so standing up not an option. Feel I could have got a better number and more representative of how I ride outdoors if I could vary seated/ standing.
and another thing.. if normalised power is any kind of valid metric for real world riding (and I think it is), then your ftp should reflect this, so standing, sitting, surging etc, as you would outdoors, is all valid to end up with the final figure for an hour. My normalised power is often 30w higher than actual
Well I think most people should do it seated, because the test should reflect the power output that you are able to do in the position that you mostly ride, and for majority of cyclist, that is seated. That being said, if you’re a climber that regularly do long tempo/threshold climb off saddle, an off saddle FTP test might have a utility for you, and That’s why a triathlete should test his power output in a TT position too, because he would want his FTP to reflect his work capacity only on that position Because changing position, while not changing your physiology, does change your leverage, it changes your muscle utilization, the angle of your muscle contraction, and the amount of torque produced to the crank. So you should just test consistently with the position that you wants to hold for significant amount of time during the race, and for majority of amateurs, that is seated power. I think that’s the reason most training platform recommends it. The same analogy occurs is weight lifting, the repetition only counts if executed with proper technique
I somewhat agree, doing a maximal effort to replicate the demands for a specific discipline, e.g. time trials, is worthwhile for some. But that’s not an FTP test, its a time trial test. These online training platforms are telling all riders they need to conform to that. The vast majority of riders doing these FTP test are free to sit or stand as they please in almost all their riding, it’s not bad form.
@@nerocoaching Does this mean that if you are just testing your FTP to set power targets for workouts, you *should* stay in the saddle (to replicate the position you will be using during workouts)? (Edit: Related question: Is it a bad thing to stand up during a VO2max interval workout?)
Why don't you stand up at all when you're doing a workout? If it feels natural and most efficient to sit when doing a workout, then you'll like naturally just sit during your maximal effort tests anyway
@@nerocoachinganother perspective is that, these online platforms use the FTP number to prescribe their workout, like 15 minutes at 95% FTP for example, which in their scenario on a trainer would be done seated.. but if you’re benchmarking for your real world riding FTP number than yeah go ahead off saddle I guess
Some people seem to think getting OTS is some kind of doping. It’s just a way of putting force into the cranks. The test is unlikely to care about what’s happening above the pedal as long as the pacing protocol is being observed. I suppose maybe you’re testing your seated 3m power because you’re working on that for a race with cobbles. That sort of rider probably isn’t doing a virtual coach app ramp test. The origin of this has to be fitness apps designed largely for novice riders to see big gains for a few months. I can believe it’s good advice for the majority of novice riders to stay seated purely because they’re more likely to be inefficient OTS or find that they’re materially deviating from their maximum steady power for the effort they’re doing when changing position. It just needs some nuance, particularly for more experienced riders-and we can thank JC for adding that with his trademark lack of bullshit.
Lovin’ the Kosciuszko Rd backdrop! Hope you and Mr Gran Fondo are psyched for the Classic in the Snowies shortly. Sit, stand, lick the stem and grovel into your ’bars, on the drops, whatever it takes just get it all out.🤢🤮
I think my 20 min power would be at least 30 watts lower in the saddle compared to out. Chris Miller looking much physically fitter this year compared to last years snowy classic video, or is it just the Bib tights making his legs and rear end looking skinny?
This has been a question of mine for a little bit, ever since I discovered I could stand for long efforts and produce 10-15% more power out of the saddle than in the saddle, and generally with a lower RPE (although the “pain” associated with either position is slightly different). And this was not just for short efforts or spurts, but for 40+ minutes (up Alpe du Zwift, for example) or even 7.5+ hour virtual “Everestings” (with breaks during the descents, of course). In my own training I’ve found it useful to try to keep a mental estimate of what seem to be very different thresholds for both techniques, rather than mixing them together. If I know I’ll be doing intervals where I’m working on my seated power, then it would be counterproductive to “inflate” my estimated FTP by standing during a test, as this power would not be reproducible at all while seated. On the other hand, when I’m working on training my standing power I need to increase the intensity to make the sessions productive relative to my seated power. I think ultimately this highlights the limitations of seeing “FTP” as an all-encompassing picture of someone’s fitness, especially when that FTP is being estimated by a test (like the ramp test) which does not actually test FTP. For me it’s always been about guiding my training, and at the moment that means maintaining multiple approximations of my “FTP” depending on what I’m targeting during the session. And I generally don’t test often, with frequent training being a pretty good guide of where I’m at and how much I’m improving. Not to try to get any free coaching from you Jesse, but I’m curious how you would approach this question with an athlete of your own. I’ve settled on my own approach based on a good amount of testing and plenty of context that I won’t get into here, so I’m comfortable with where I’ve gotten to for the moment, but with no expertise and relatively little experience I can’t entirely trust myself. (For a tiny bit of added context, I’m a little over a year into riding consistently for the first time, started “late” in life (31 years old), I’m pretty short (170cm), still slightly “overweight” in cycling terms (68kg, which may contribute to the standing power somewhat?), and have a threshold around 310w while seated and around 330-335w while standing. And I don’t compete or intend to compete at all, the training is purely for “fun” and lifestyle reasons, and being at all invested in this question is purely out of curiosity.)
Curious- have you tested this seated vs standing difference out on the road? In terms of what to test, the training is for fun, you aren't competing and looks like you're riding mostly indoors. You'll always be able to stand when riding, so it doesn't really matter what your "seated FTP" is. But sure, if you wanted to know what your seated FTP is, then you could test it. But if that number is lower than your "standing FTP" that doesn't discredit the standing value, you're still having to generate the power when standing, it's not cheating as some people seem to think. They are just different numbers.
@@nerocoaching Thanks for the reply! I haven’t tested it outdoors, as I don’t currently have a useable outdoor bike. It’s hopefully on the horizon, but current life circumstances make outdoor cycling much less realistic than indoor training. And yeah, I suspect the difference wouldn’t exist in the same way in a less static environment. Likewise, with aerodynamics playing such a big role the uses for standing power would be far more limited in the “real” world. This is partially why I choose to maintain a distinction between the two, and even generally to view my seated power as more “real” (although I take your point about the validity of power generated while standing), because I do hope to get outside on a bike someday. I don’t want to pigeonhole myself into always generating power standing just because the numbers are bigger and the style of exertion feels marginally more manageable. If my entire motivation was to see increasingly bigger numbers maybe I’d go in that direction, but I do have some interest in being a reasonably well-rounded cyclist, at least someday.
I feel like you're nearly my exact clone, I really struggle to put out consistent power while seated at threshold. My best seated effort for 40 minutes was around 305w, with a few bursts of standing intermittently. However, I just seem to be able to put out power far more comfortably when standing. My recent alp du Zwift effort nearly 100% standing was at 332w (67kg), and while it felt hard on the legs, I feel that when standing, I can max out my aerobic capacity. (average heart rate for that 40 minute alp effort was around 194bpm, average for the seated, perhaps 189 bpm) For me, when being seated, my legs just seem to seize up far quicker. Even that best 40 minute effort was on a day where my legs felt great and responsive. However, most days, I struggle to ride at threshold while seated. Oddly, 270-280w is actually quite comfortable when seated, but above that, my legs feel like they start tightening. have played a lot with bike fit and stretching, as it does just feel like my muscles just tighten up before they are really at their limit, but not sure. On the plus side, I'm still able to race fairly well, as efforts are not consistent and I still find that in my super aero position, riding at 270-300w is net faster than my "power" position. Would love to be able to fully alternate both though :P
Gosh being a small lighter older rider I would stand the whole 20 minutes, I could probably hold 215 seated but 270 standing. I ride slot standing and know it's where I get the best bang for my Threshold buck. Standing all the way up the Alpe is the norm for people like me.
I tend to only stand for the last couple of minutes of a 20min test once my legs are burning for a change of muscle groups or to relieve saddle pressure. I find my HR climbs pretty quickly out of the saddle which i wouldn't want early in the test. I'm guessing this is due do engaging more muscles in the upper body? Despite being a 65kg rider I carry a fair bit of upper body mass (compared to most cyclists) from years of rock climbing and construction work.
it depends on what kind of rider you are, if youre a time trialist why would you test standing? most road racing and training is best done sitting in an aero position. the person who should stand more is a hill climb racer and theyre rare. ppl never talk about riding position when training, whats the point of being strong sitting upright in a trainer, to show off numbers on strava? go out in the real world if you wanna go fast you gotta get aero, so those ppl who only train sitting up and do tests sitting up and standing will be very weak in the aero position and thier body will likely not be able to hold the position. one of the hardest things about being a tt or track rider is staying aero and strong, it would make no sense for those guys to stand or sit upright during a test. so i would say test in a similar way that you train and/ or race in. if you want to be fast sitting up and standing then test that way because thats how youll train, but if you want to be fast in an aero position then test that way, personally i do both, but 95 plus percent of my riding is in the saddle. so im not going to test in the saddle 75 percent of the time. most ppl stand to relieve overall body discomfort which will also make a rider faster so yes standing a little bit will help but not much.
Agree with the vid Soy Boy 🤣 ... serious though I think someone said it above/below but think this is mainly for an ERG ramp test, not 20min etc.....which going from 60rpm back up to 90rpm+ when you're deep in the tank is near impossible. Outdoors is different. Although, if you can do a strict ramptest outdoors, that's pretty impressive!
Assuming that the main goal of an FTP test is to correctly identify training zones, then OTS FTP numbers will result in setting incorrect zones and a faulty training regime. So Z2 will, in fact, be Z3. Based on that, your insistence on allowing OTS during FTP test is a poor advice. But there has to be a way to account for the OTS power particularly on climbs where one's ability to ride >500W for 5+ min will decide a one-day race or a GC on a multi-day tour.
Yeah like why can’t you stand up? When you ride or race you stand up and stay down,power is power no matter how you do it..most likely when you get out of the saddle it usually comes down for a second then evens out again..at least with me
Hi Jessie! I have a question about this topic related to training. So far I have not tested it directly (will do this summer for sure), but I can do about 10% more power for 20 mins up a hill, with occasional standings compared to a flat TT-like effort in a relatively aero position (the position does not matter much, power is still less sitting upright, and I don't feel like getting out of the saddle when going on flats at around 40 kph). Is it something I should implement in my training (~10% less power target when doing flat efforts), or is it something that will equalize if trained specifically (only doing flat efforts for some time)? The other interesting thing is, it's quite hard for me to reach my maximum HR when staying seated the whole time, I feel like my legs start burning way before I could 'max out' my cardio system. On the other hand, when going up a hill, partially out of the saddle, I can hower just below my max HR for a whole (3-4 min) effort. Thanks!
Depends what output you're training for. If you want to be good on the flats you'll want to close that power gap by moving some of your training hours & efforts from the climbs to the flats. If you care mostly about climbing power don't worry about the difference, it's very common.
Completely agree. I just do whatever feels natural in the moment and always have. I used to be a 64 kg climber at 1.84 m tall and would ride OTS all the time. Now that I have finally put on some more weight (intentionally) to get up to 71 kg, I find it much more natural to stay in the saddle. Whatever feels better is probably better.
@@Gustavo_Rodrigues19 My nutrition strategy was being 18 years old haha. 64 kg at my height is way too light. Now that I am 22 and 71 kg, I am faster in every possible way than I once was. I would not recommend dipping below a 20 BMI if you have never been there before. It is very difficult to maintain, especially if you are not a young gun. I have no intention of losing weight and actually want to gain more. As far as nutrition actually goes though, high carb diet and focus on getting more than enough fuel. If you focus on the performance aspect of cycling, your body will do what it needs with excess weight.
Jesse, I think the platforms are advising against standing up for the ramp test and not the 20 minutes test. Can you talk about the ramp test as well? Cause the principle might be a bit different there, huh?
Yep I can see standing be more problematic during a ramp test. But not because of the whole anaerobic argument, more from the sense that it's difficult to manage with ERG mode. Most riders will naturally sit the whole time during a ramp test anyway even if they aren't instructed to sit. So I'm less bothered by instructions to sit in a ramp test- but the explanation/reasoning is important, because it leads to riders being confused about the physiology behind sitting/standing. As we've seen here in the comments there is a significant group of riders that think standing is "cheating" the watts because you're able to clear lactate faster.
@@nerocoaching That's true, I guess when it's only the top-watts-minute that counts during the ramp it's impossible to avoid a dip in power in erg. How about vo2max intervals, though? Would you recommend doing half of your intervals standing up, if that's what you're aiming for during the goal event?
I would suggest doing what feels natural to get the most power out, in your VO2max intervals. Same for the goal event, not sure what the event is but I don't know why you'd have a goal to spend half the time standing. You'll do the most power in the position that feels most efficient and natural as you do it, the body is smart! Same with cadence, self-selected cadence is best. Unless the event you're training for would benefit from being seated the entire time, like a flat time trial, then you'll want to remain seated and VO2max intervals should also be seated to develop that ability.
I think the issue is the testing protocol which confuses this topic. Take Jesse’s climber example on a 20min test standing for 8-12min, great but an FTP test is simulating maximum 1 hour power. That same rider in the real world is not standing for 24-36min in a 1 hour effort. On the other hand, if you wanted to understand maximum effort for a 20min climb, by all means sit and stand as suited by your riding style.
Good point, this would be true for many riders. Hard one to solve- staying seated the entire time wouldn't be the answer. I'd prefer the sit/stand for 20m, then apply a common sense appraisal of the FTP value in training after that, as we all should do anyway. Or better yet, just do a one hour test, sit stand as preferred, problem solved!
I think you’re approaching this purely from the angle of an FTP test being used as a performance metric/to squeeze out every last watt from a 20minute effort. But if you were actually using an FTP test as an MLSS proxy (I.e. to optimally establish LT2 for training purposes) then a lower number and with certain restrictions (pre-exhausting 5-min MAP effort to reduce anaerobic reserves, as well as - relevant to this video, staying seated to ensure that lactate is clesred consistently by primary mechanisms and not eg by switching muscle groups as standing does), then the recommendation to stay seated does actually make more sense. Would you not agree?
This is what I’m constantly confused about. I personally see FTP testing as a means to approximate LT2, not as a way to see how much power I can hold for an hour (and find TTE a more useful metric), but it seems like not everyone thinks that way.
No I wouldn't agree, on many points here. Some of this is technically right but doesn't follow logically: - Your two first sentences RE what FTP is a proxy for has nothing to do with sitting vs standing, that's related to FTP testing procedure and the estimating methods thereafter, could be a discussion for a different video. - Standing doesn't mean you've unlocked some secret lactate clearing potential by switching muscle groups. It's just a riding preference, just as you can ride in a full aero position, upright position, in the drops, on the hoods, on the tops. Imposing a seated restriction on a rider that has trained a strong aerobic ability out of the saddle could result in an under-estimated FTP. This idea that standing necessarily changes the underlying energy system contributions to the power doesn't hold water.
I gave my thoughts on the first few sentences at the end of the video, along the lines of- if the test is inaccurate (usually over-estimated FTP) then change your testing methodology, take a lower % of 20m power, don't use the ramp test, do a 1 hour test, etc. Don't impose arbitrary restrictions on riding position to limit the power output and in a roundabout way make the FTP test more accurate. Standing does not equal anaerobic contribution, or magical lactate clearing ability.
@@nerocoaching after watching the whole video, I will say you’ve totally convinced me! But I still would love to see a video discussing FTP testing for LT2 vs 60’ power, and all that jazz 🙏
I think so Jesse, just my opinion, but your video of a guy doing 49rpm standing for his ftp test doesn't really cut it for me. I also have my concerns when the zwift academy shows the ladies just jumping on the pedals for extended periods out of the saddle
@@aaron___6014 yeah maybe. Although doesn't seem to hold back a lot of the pros too much. Something I should try and work on though, as I know my core stability isn't that great.
FTP as useful as it can be, is largely irrelevant for your needs. Personally, I climb big climbs, I wanna get faster up those climbs. I know I can do 2-3 longer climbs in one bigger ride at about 90% of my FTP. I will never do those climbs seated the whole time. So what's the point doing my FTP test seated. Especially if you do proper FTP tests and not just ramp tests.
This peaks my interest. Two comments: one important part of any testing to as best possible create a consistent and repeatable scenario. Allowing a rider to mix up positions randomly would arguably make retest comparison much hard to determine if an improvement was from physiological adaptation or maybe they spent more time out of the saddle in one test compared to the other. If you were to look at most cyclists, they spent the majority of their time seated. You could find some outlier exception of a climbing specialist maybe in which case I would argue to do the entire test out of the saddle each time. Point 2. A secondary notion of testing is to come up with zones. Back to point 1, if the zones are based on out of the saddle max efforts they won’t be reflective when riding seated in training properly. We know you can produce a higher result out of the saddle but ask what creates a more relatable test scenario and what is more applicable to the individuals on road training scenario?
On point A, it seems random, but it's not randomness, the rider will naturally select position on what is most efficient, which is what they've adapted to in training. I wouldn't say riders preferring to spend at some time out of the saddle is an outlier, depending on the test length I'd suggest the majority of riders would spend some time out of the saddle. In a re-test, if they spend more time out of the saddle, and then do a higher power, that's a physiological adaptation. They've produced more power, burned more energy. That increase may not be beneficial for a time triallist who needs to stay seated, but it's still an FTP increase and would have required a fitness increase. Which is where individuality comes in, if someone specifically needs to test and re-test seated power, then absolutely test that. But that's an individual scenario, doesn't need to be applied as a blanket condition to the average rider doing an FTP test. Point B, most riders train some time out of the saddle. Same as above, if you don't care at all about standing power, and just want to improve seated, do a seated FTP test. But most riders are riding on mixed terrain, with some climb, and want to just get fitter, so riding out of the saddle is fine.
Super man, Ive been 268 for about 2 years... And I cant seem to get it up, Ive tried zwift, intervals 40/20, is there something you would recommend? I would like to get to 290
@@hugozavalaflores3953 Thanks for sharing. If you train that volume I could assume you are a low responder and needs a high training volume which you are already on. Now when it comes to ftp improvements, Joel Friel talks about how one should not forget at least every two weeks a threshold workout. Now, again, it gets complicated because what if you are doing the 3 saints: base, build, and specialization? The fact is, a threshold will be improved with a good amount of under-over workout. The 40/20 are glycolic and will also of course stimulate your vo2 however, glycolitic workouts tend to bring ftp slightly down. You know, as I can't advise you as a coach, I d recommend you take a rest and start an ftp build program for 6 weeks for intermediate to advanced riders. good luck
Out of curiosity, do you have clients who still use TR and if so, how well do you think their AI FTP detection works? I am asking for a friend who doesn't like to do FTP tests....
Yep a few. It tracks changes well, I've been impressed. In most cases if there's a difference between my estimate and TR, they are almost always coming in a few watts above what I think is accurate, which is interesting. But overall quite good
As someone who has used TR’s AI FTP detection and adaptive training for a while now, in addition to “real” testing on the side from time to time, I think it does a pretty good job. And at the very least, I think if someone is consistently using TR it tends to give a number that is appropriate for the workouts it recommends (which are based on individual “progression levels” across different power zones), whether that number is completely accurate to someone’s “real” FTP or not.
Didn't you and Chris both say the old pros and amateurs really aren't any slower than the guys of today? Then I say, who cares about FTP or even sitting or standing? Just read Greg Lemonds, bicycling encyclopedia, and enjoy the ride.
@@nerocoaching haha I’m think I’m just heavy and might be leveraging that. I did a seated ramp test and then held More power on alp de Zwift for over an hour than I got on my ftp test.
Me too, my standing 1-hr power is 15 watts higher than my seated 1-hr power. I think it's because you use more muscle groups when standing e.g. in your arms, core and back), so it's like you have extra resources that aren't available when in a seated position.
Im a 64kg rider and a "stander". If i stay seated my ftp is severe understated. My ftp and vo2 max workouts are way too easy (2x20 or 5x5vo2) if using that number. My seated fpt from my last ramp was 261, but i can do 260 for 2hrs so obviously not correct. Im around 290 if outside based on 20minute. And yes power meters are reading correctly. Erg is good for some things but definitely not accurate ftp.
Wonderful! As a 60 kg climber who rides out of the saddle a lot this is music to my ears 🎉
yea but standing too much is inefficient. check times not power
57.8 kg 👍👍
Thanks for a great explanation and taking up this topic!
finally someone speaking up to this topic! thank you so much!
Thanks Jesse! That’s always been an argument of mine when Zwift tells me to stay seated. I can switch back and forth to seated or standing and if the idea is to get the most out of you on an FTP test, then there should be standing. In the real world, when you’re trying to get the most out of yourself you often stand so why should it be any different on an FTP test? Thank you for clarifying this and further supports my argument.
Great video as always, I agree completely. Imagine telling Alberto Contador to stay seated for a maximal effort. Also your pedaling looks really smooth, I would really like to see a bike fit video or some cues about position, I know it’s hard to give advice on this kind of thing because it varies a lot but I think it would be interesting.
I’m guilty of saying this, because it’s the rhetoric I’ve heard over the years. Thank you for the getting the knowledge out there, I appreciate it.
Great points. I'll add I think what most ppl miss is whether you sit or stand does not matter for your max 20 minute value. That number is what it is. The creator of FTP has said multiple times FTP is a range for individuals but platforms have made it a fixed number (95% of max 20 min power). Working with my coach I've consistently found my true number to be around 93% of 20 min power.
I’ve always wondered this and thought it didn’t make sense. Thanks for clarifying this.
Let's go, my favourite creator uploaded!
Wow, thanks!
Definitely ERG specific - not many can keep a 85-90 rpm cadence out of the saddle, so with ERG on, the trainer just locks down when the rpms drop - not ideal on a ramp test. Testing outdoors it’s almost compulsory to get out of the saddle to try compensate for road grade fluctuations over a 20 minute period. Not many of us have a consistent 5% grade 10km climb on our doorsteps
Yep the dealing with erg more can make it more of a hassle than it’s worth to stand up. But some riders self selected cadence will be down in the 70’s, so there’s less of an issue for them resistance wise if they wanted to stand up for portions.
Most riders will naturally just sit for the entirety of a ramp test even when not instructed, so the decision whether to sit or stand applies more to a sustained output test
What do you mean the trainer “locks down” in erg when you switch? I do this all the time on both a regular kickr and on a kickr bike when doing erg intervals. You can even avoid the temporary drop or spike in power if you go down a few gears when you sit and back up a few gears when you stand. If you want the power to be really really steady then ya you need to avoid changing cadence.
Thanks for this. My usual winter training block starts with a few weeks climbing and by the end of that I’m standing for 4km uphill comfortably.
Some people seem to get accurate results from the ramp test on zwift, i'm not one of the though. it reads at least 20 watts high. Dunno how to explain it but it does feel like i switch to using my "sprinting muscles" for the last minute. Best way i can explain it is its like dessert there's always room for it :D (provided you haven't already eaten too much dessert)
Agree. I just did my first one on an app it put me in ERG mode so standing up not an option. Feel I could have got a better number and more representative of how I ride outdoors if I could vary seated/ standing.
and another thing.. if normalised power is any kind of valid metric for real world riding (and I think it is), then your ftp should reflect this, so standing, sitting, surging etc, as you would outdoors, is all valid to end up with the final figure for an hour. My normalised power is often 30w higher than actual
Well I think most people should do it seated, because the test should reflect the power output that you are able to do in the position that you mostly ride, and for majority of cyclist, that is seated. That being said, if you’re a climber that regularly do long tempo/threshold climb off saddle, an off saddle FTP test might have a utility for you, and That’s why a triathlete should test his power output in a TT position too, because he would want his FTP to reflect his work capacity only on that position
Because changing position, while not changing your physiology, does change your leverage, it changes your muscle utilization, the angle of your muscle contraction, and the amount of torque produced to the crank. So you should just test consistently with the position that you wants to hold for significant amount of time during the race, and for majority of amateurs, that is seated power. I think that’s the reason most training platform recommends it.
The same analogy occurs is weight lifting, the repetition only counts if executed with proper technique
I somewhat agree, doing a maximal effort to replicate the demands for a specific discipline, e.g. time trials, is worthwhile for some. But that’s not an FTP test, its a time trial test.
These online training platforms are telling all riders they need to conform to that. The vast majority of riders doing these FTP test are free to sit or stand as they please in almost all their riding, it’s not bad form.
Also most amateurs doing an FTP test don’t race!
@@nerocoaching Does this mean that if you are just testing your FTP to set power targets for workouts, you *should* stay in the saddle (to replicate the position you will be using during workouts)? (Edit: Related question: Is it a bad thing to stand up during a VO2max interval workout?)
Why don't you stand up at all when you're doing a workout? If it feels natural and most efficient to sit when doing a workout, then you'll like naturally just sit during your maximal effort tests anyway
@@nerocoachinganother perspective is that, these online platforms use the FTP number to prescribe their workout, like 15 minutes at 95% FTP for example, which in their scenario on a trainer would be done seated.. but if you’re benchmarking for your real world riding FTP number than yeah go ahead off saddle I guess
Some people seem to think getting OTS is some kind of doping. It’s just a way of putting force into the cranks. The test is unlikely to care about what’s happening above the pedal as long as the pacing protocol is being observed. I suppose maybe you’re testing your seated 3m power because you’re working on that for a race with cobbles. That sort of rider probably isn’t doing a virtual coach app ramp test.
The origin of this has to be fitness apps designed largely for novice riders to see big gains for a few months. I can believe it’s good advice for the majority of novice riders to stay seated purely because they’re more likely to be inefficient OTS or find that they’re materially deviating from their maximum steady power for the effort they’re doing when changing position. It just needs some nuance, particularly for more experienced riders-and we can thank JC for adding that with his trademark lack of bullshit.
Lovin’ the Kosciuszko Rd backdrop! Hope you and Mr Gran Fondo are psyched for the Classic in the Snowies shortly. Sit, stand, lick the stem and grovel into your ’bars, on the drops, whatever it takes just get it all out.🤢🤮
I think my 20 min power would be at least 30 watts lower in the saddle compared to out. Chris Miller looking much physically fitter this year compared to last years snowy classic video, or is it just the Bib tights making his legs and rear end looking skinny?
I can't imagine telling an athlete not to stand if they can get more watts in that position. Crazy. Good video!
This has been a question of mine for a little bit, ever since I discovered I could stand for long efforts and produce 10-15% more power out of the saddle than in the saddle, and generally with a lower RPE (although the “pain” associated with either position is slightly different). And this was not just for short efforts or spurts, but for 40+ minutes (up Alpe du Zwift, for example) or even 7.5+ hour virtual “Everestings” (with breaks during the descents, of course).
In my own training I’ve found it useful to try to keep a mental estimate of what seem to be very different thresholds for both techniques, rather than mixing them together. If I know I’ll be doing intervals where I’m working on my seated power, then it would be counterproductive to “inflate” my estimated FTP by standing during a test, as this power would not be reproducible at all while seated. On the other hand, when I’m working on training my standing power I need to increase the intensity to make the sessions productive relative to my seated power.
I think ultimately this highlights the limitations of seeing “FTP” as an all-encompassing picture of someone’s fitness, especially when that FTP is being estimated by a test (like the ramp test) which does not actually test FTP. For me it’s always been about guiding my training, and at the moment that means maintaining multiple approximations of my “FTP” depending on what I’m targeting during the session. And I generally don’t test often, with frequent training being a pretty good guide of where I’m at and how much I’m improving.
Not to try to get any free coaching from you Jesse, but I’m curious how you would approach this question with an athlete of your own. I’ve settled on my own approach based on a good amount of testing and plenty of context that I won’t get into here, so I’m comfortable with where I’ve gotten to for the moment, but with no expertise and relatively little experience I can’t entirely trust myself.
(For a tiny bit of added context, I’m a little over a year into riding consistently for the first time, started “late” in life (31 years old), I’m pretty short (170cm), still slightly “overweight” in cycling terms (68kg, which may contribute to the standing power somewhat?), and have a threshold around 310w while seated and around 330-335w while standing. And I don’t compete or intend to compete at all, the training is purely for “fun” and lifestyle reasons, and being at all invested in this question is purely out of curiosity.)
Curious- have you tested this seated vs standing difference out on the road?
In terms of what to test, the training is for fun, you aren't competing and looks like you're riding mostly indoors. You'll always be able to stand when riding, so it doesn't really matter what your "seated FTP" is. But sure, if you wanted to know what your seated FTP is, then you could test it. But if that number is lower than your "standing FTP" that doesn't discredit the standing value, you're still having to generate the power when standing, it's not cheating as some people seem to think. They are just different numbers.
@@nerocoaching Thanks for the reply! I haven’t tested it outdoors, as I don’t currently have a useable outdoor bike. It’s hopefully on the horizon, but current life circumstances make outdoor cycling much less realistic than indoor training. And yeah, I suspect the difference wouldn’t exist in the same way in a less static environment. Likewise, with aerodynamics playing such a big role the uses for standing power would be far more limited in the “real” world. This is partially why I choose to maintain a distinction between the two, and even generally to view my seated power as more “real” (although I take your point about the validity of power generated while standing), because I do hope to get outside on a bike someday. I don’t want to pigeonhole myself into always generating power standing just because the numbers are bigger and the style of exertion feels marginally more manageable. If my entire motivation was to see increasingly bigger numbers maybe I’d go in that direction, but I do have some interest in being a reasonably well-rounded cyclist, at least someday.
I feel like you're nearly my exact clone, I really struggle to put out consistent power while seated at threshold. My best seated effort for 40 minutes was around 305w, with a few bursts of standing intermittently. However, I just seem to be able to put out power far more comfortably when standing. My recent alp du Zwift effort nearly 100% standing was at 332w (67kg), and while it felt hard on the legs, I feel that when standing, I can max out my aerobic capacity. (average heart rate for that 40 minute alp effort was around 194bpm, average for the seated, perhaps 189 bpm)
For me, when being seated, my legs just seem to seize up far quicker. Even that best 40 minute effort was on a day where my legs felt great and responsive. However, most days, I struggle to ride at threshold while seated. Oddly, 270-280w is actually quite comfortable when seated, but above that, my legs feel like they start tightening.
have played a lot with bike fit and stretching, as it does just feel like my muscles just tighten up before they are really at their limit, but not sure. On the plus side, I'm still able to race fairly well, as efforts are not consistent and I still find that in my super aero position, riding at 270-300w is net faster than my "power" position.
Would love to be able to fully alternate both though :P
Gosh being a small lighter older rider I would stand the whole 20 minutes, I could probably hold 215 seated but 270 standing. I ride slot standing and know it's where I get the best bang for my Threshold buck. Standing all the way up the Alpe is the norm for people like me.
I tend to only stand for the last couple of minutes of a 20min test once my legs are burning for a change of muscle groups or to relieve saddle pressure. I find my HR climbs pretty quickly out of the saddle which i wouldn't want early in the test.
I'm guessing this is due do engaging more muscles in the upper body?
Despite being a 65kg rider I carry a fair bit of upper body mass (compared to most cyclists) from years of rock climbing and construction work.
it depends on what kind of rider you are, if youre a time trialist why would you test standing? most road racing and training is best done sitting in an aero position. the person who should stand more is a hill climb racer and theyre rare. ppl never talk about riding position when training, whats the point of being strong sitting upright in a trainer, to show off numbers on strava? go out in the real world if you wanna go fast you gotta get aero, so those ppl who only train sitting up and do tests sitting up and standing will be very weak in the aero position and thier body will likely not be able to hold the position. one of the hardest things about being a tt or track rider is staying aero and strong, it would make no sense for those guys to stand or sit upright during a test. so i would say test in a similar way that you train and/ or race in. if you want to be fast sitting up and standing then test that way because thats how youll train, but if you want to be fast in an aero position then test that way, personally i do both, but 95 plus percent of my riding is in the saddle. so im not going to test in the saddle 75 percent of the time. most ppl stand to relieve overall body discomfort which will also make a rider faster so yes standing a little bit will help but not much.
Zwift says remain seated during ramp test so I do.
I'm sure this is where the confusion has came from 💯
Zwift also lets me take hairpin bends at 80kph 😂
Should you take caffeine before ftp. Some says don’t
Agree with the vid Soy Boy 🤣 ... serious though I think someone said it above/below but think this is mainly for an ERG ramp test, not 20min etc.....which going from 60rpm back up to 90rpm+ when you're deep in the tank is near impossible. Outdoors is different. Although, if you can do a strict ramptest outdoors, that's pretty impressive!
Assuming that the main goal of an FTP test is to correctly identify training zones, then OTS FTP numbers will result in setting incorrect zones and a faulty training regime. So Z2 will, in fact, be Z3. Based on that, your insistence on allowing OTS during FTP test is a poor advice. But there has to be a way to account for the OTS power particularly on climbs where one's ability to ride >500W for 5+ min will decide a one-day race or a GC on a multi-day tour.
Interesting. On the Zwift ramp test, you are instructed not to stand.
Yeah like why can’t you stand up? When you ride or race you stand up and stay down,power is power no matter how you do it..most likely when you get out of the saddle it usually comes down for a second then evens out again..at least with me
Hi Jessie! I have a question about this topic related to training. So far I have not tested it directly (will do this summer for sure), but I can do about 10% more power for 20 mins up a hill, with occasional standings compared to a flat TT-like effort in a relatively aero position (the position does not matter much, power is still less sitting upright, and I don't feel like getting out of the saddle when going on flats at around 40 kph). Is it something I should implement in my training (~10% less power target when doing flat efforts), or is it something that will equalize if trained specifically (only doing flat efforts for some time)?
The other interesting thing is, it's quite hard for me to reach my maximum HR when staying seated the whole time, I feel like my legs start burning way before I could 'max out' my cardio system. On the other hand, when going up a hill, partially out of the saddle, I can hower just below my max HR for a whole (3-4 min) effort.
Thanks!
Depends what output you're training for. If you want to be good on the flats you'll want to close that power gap by moving some of your training hours & efforts from the climbs to the flats. If you care mostly about climbing power don't worry about the difference, it's very common.
@@nerocoaching Thank you!
Staying seated favours the one with the biggest backside.
Completely agree. I just do whatever feels natural in the moment and always have. I used to be a 64 kg climber at 1.84 m tall and would ride OTS all the time. Now that I have finally put on some more weight (intentionally) to get up to 71 kg, I find it much more natural to stay in the saddle. Whatever feels better is probably better.
What was your nutrition strategy to get to 64kg?
@@Gustavo_Rodrigues19 My nutrition strategy was being 18 years old haha. 64 kg at my height is way too light. Now that I am 22 and 71 kg, I am faster in every possible way than I once was. I would not recommend dipping below a 20 BMI if you have never been there before. It is very difficult to maintain, especially if you are not a young gun. I have no intention of losing weight and actually want to gain more. As far as nutrition actually goes though, high carb diet and focus on getting more than enough fuel. If you focus on the performance aspect of cycling, your body will do what it needs with excess weight.
Jesse, I think the platforms are advising against standing up for the ramp test and not the 20 minutes test. Can you talk about the ramp test as well? Cause the principle might be a bit different there, huh?
Yep I can see standing be more problematic during a ramp test. But not because of the whole anaerobic argument, more from the sense that it's difficult to manage with ERG mode. Most riders will naturally sit the whole time during a ramp test anyway even if they aren't instructed to sit.
So I'm less bothered by instructions to sit in a ramp test- but the explanation/reasoning is important, because it leads to riders being confused about the physiology behind sitting/standing. As we've seen here in the comments there is a significant group of riders that think standing is "cheating" the watts because you're able to clear lactate faster.
@@nerocoaching That's true, I guess when it's only the top-watts-minute that counts during the ramp it's impossible to avoid a dip in power in erg.
How about vo2max intervals, though? Would you recommend doing half of your intervals standing up, if that's what you're aiming for during the goal event?
I would suggest doing what feels natural to get the most power out, in your VO2max intervals. Same for the goal event, not sure what the event is but I don't know why you'd have a goal to spend half the time standing. You'll do the most power in the position that feels most efficient and natural as you do it, the body is smart! Same with cadence, self-selected cadence is best.
Unless the event you're training for would benefit from being seated the entire time, like a flat time trial, then you'll want to remain seated and VO2max intervals should also be seated to develop that ability.
Id say stay seated when testing tt power, but either for road racing.
I think the issue is the testing protocol which confuses this topic.
Take Jesse’s climber example on a 20min test standing for 8-12min, great but an FTP test is simulating maximum 1 hour power. That same rider in the real world is not standing for 24-36min in a 1 hour effort.
On the other hand, if you wanted to understand maximum effort for a 20min climb, by all means sit and stand as suited by your riding style.
Good point, this would be true for many riders. Hard one to solve- staying seated the entire time wouldn't be the answer. I'd prefer the sit/stand for 20m, then apply a common sense appraisal of the FTP value in training after that, as we all should do anyway. Or better yet, just do a one hour test, sit stand as preferred, problem solved!
@@nerocoaching But does a 1h test work for everyone?
Sit or stand. Do what tickles ya fancy. Just hold it steady 👍
It depends on gradient!
On 15% gradient i'm better 10% while standing
I think you’re approaching this purely from the angle of an FTP test being used as a performance metric/to squeeze out every last watt from a 20minute effort. But if you were actually using an FTP test as an MLSS proxy (I.e. to optimally establish LT2 for training purposes) then a lower number and with certain restrictions (pre-exhausting 5-min MAP effort to reduce anaerobic reserves, as well as - relevant to this video, staying seated to ensure that lactate is clesred consistently by primary mechanisms and not eg by switching muscle groups as standing does), then the recommendation to stay seated does actually make more sense. Would you not agree?
This is what I’m constantly confused about. I personally see FTP testing as a means to approximate LT2, not as a way to see how much power I can hold for an hour (and find TTE a more useful metric), but it seems like not everyone thinks that way.
No I wouldn't agree, on many points here. Some of this is technically right but doesn't follow logically:
- Your two first sentences RE what FTP is a proxy for has nothing to do with sitting vs standing, that's related to FTP testing procedure and the estimating methods thereafter, could be a discussion for a different video.
- Standing doesn't mean you've unlocked some secret lactate clearing potential by switching muscle groups. It's just a riding preference, just as you can ride in a full aero position, upright position, in the drops, on the hoods, on the tops. Imposing a seated restriction on a rider that has trained a strong aerobic ability out of the saddle could result in an under-estimated FTP. This idea that standing necessarily changes the underlying energy system contributions to the power doesn't hold water.
I gave my thoughts on the first few sentences at the end of the video, along the lines of- if the test is inaccurate (usually over-estimated FTP) then change your testing methodology, take a lower % of 20m power, don't use the ramp test, do a 1 hour test, etc. Don't impose arbitrary restrictions on riding position to limit the power output and in a roundabout way make the FTP test more accurate. Standing does not equal anaerobic contribution, or magical lactate clearing ability.
@@nerocoaching after watching the whole video, I will say you’ve totally convinced me! But I still would love to see a video discussing FTP testing for LT2 vs 60’ power, and all that jazz 🙏
I think so Jesse, just my opinion, but your video of a guy doing 49rpm standing for his ftp test doesn't really cut it for me. I also have my concerns when the zwift academy shows the ladies just jumping on the pedals for extended periods out of the saddle
Yeah i remember TR saying to stay seated, so i thought you needed to.
Jesse with the pinkeye
I spend a lot of time out of the saddle especially if steep. Staying seated all the time feels unnatural and uncomfortable for me.
If you're mostly out of the saddle on steep climbs you're wasting a lot of energy. It's far from ideal.
@@aaron___6014 yeah maybe. Although doesn't seem to hold back a lot of the pros too much. Something I should try and work on though, as I know my core stability isn't that great.
FTP as useful as it can be, is largely irrelevant for your needs. Personally, I climb big climbs, I wanna get faster up those climbs. I know I can do 2-3 longer climbs in one bigger ride at about 90% of my FTP. I will never do those climbs seated the whole time. So what's the point doing my FTP test seated. Especially if you do proper FTP tests and not just ramp tests.
This peaks my interest. Two comments: one important part of any testing to as best possible create a consistent and repeatable scenario. Allowing a rider to mix up positions randomly would arguably make retest comparison much hard to determine if an improvement was from physiological adaptation or maybe they spent more time out of the saddle in one test compared to the other. If you were to look at most cyclists, they spent the majority of their time seated. You could find some outlier exception of a climbing specialist maybe in which case I would argue to do the entire test out of the saddle each time. Point 2. A secondary notion of testing is to come up with zones. Back to point 1, if the zones are based on out of the saddle max efforts they won’t be reflective when riding seated in training properly. We know you can produce a higher result out of the saddle but ask what creates a more relatable test scenario and what is more applicable to the individuals on road training scenario?
On point A, it seems random, but it's not randomness, the rider will naturally select position on what is most efficient, which is what they've adapted to in training. I wouldn't say riders preferring to spend at some time out of the saddle is an outlier, depending on the test length I'd suggest the majority of riders would spend some time out of the saddle. In a re-test, if they spend more time out of the saddle, and then do a higher power, that's a physiological adaptation. They've produced more power, burned more energy. That increase may not be beneficial for a time triallist who needs to stay seated, but it's still an FTP increase and would have required a fitness increase.
Which is where individuality comes in, if someone specifically needs to test and re-test seated power, then absolutely test that. But that's an individual scenario, doesn't need to be applied as a blanket condition to the average rider doing an FTP test.
Point B, most riders train some time out of the saddle. Same as above, if you don't care at all about standing power, and just want to improve seated, do a seated FTP test. But most riders are riding on mixed terrain, with some climb, and want to just get fitter, so riding out of the saddle is fine.
Super man, Ive been 268 for about 2 years... And I cant seem to get it up, Ive tried zwift, intervals 40/20, is there something you would recommend? I would like to get to 290
what muscle fibers are you predominantly? And, how many hours per week do you really train? things like this have an impact on your numbers.
@@Northwindbreeze I train 6 times a week, 2 with intervals
@@hugozavalaflores3953 Thanks for sharing. If you train that volume I could assume you are a low responder and needs a high training volume which you are already on. Now when it comes to ftp improvements, Joel Friel talks about how one should not forget at least every two weeks a threshold workout. Now, again, it gets complicated because what if you are doing the 3 saints: base, build, and specialization? The fact is, a threshold will be improved with a good amount of under-over workout.
The 40/20 are glycolic and will also of course stimulate your vo2 however, glycolitic workouts tend to bring ftp slightly down. You know, as I can't advise you as a coach, I d recommend you take a rest and start an ftp build program for 6 weeks for intermediate to advanced riders.
good luck
yoo000 kid!!
There should be standing FTP tests separately from seated.
Out of curiosity, do you have clients who still use TR and if so, how well do you think their AI FTP detection works? I am asking for a friend who doesn't like to do FTP tests....
Yep a few. It tracks changes well, I've been impressed. In most cases if there's a difference between my estimate and TR, they are almost always coming in a few watts above what I think is accurate, which is interesting. But overall quite good
@@nerocoaching Thanks, good to know.
As someone who has used TR’s AI FTP detection and adaptive training for a while now, in addition to “real” testing on the side from time to time, I think it does a pretty good job. And at the very least, I think if someone is consistently using TR it tends to give a number that is appropriate for the workouts it recommends (which are based on individual “progression levels” across different power zones), whether that number is completely accurate to someone’s “real” FTP or not.
Fully agree. Power is bloody power.
Didn't you and Chris both say the old pros and amateurs really aren't any slower than the guys of today? Then I say, who cares about FTP or even sitting or standing? Just read Greg Lemonds, bicycling encyclopedia, and enjoy the ride.
ppl need to worry about times not power, this whole online bike riding crap is for the birds
Good news I love climbing out of the saddle for long periods and can put out about 20% more power.
A rare breed! I’d be about 20% lower if I had to stand…
@@nerocoaching haha I’m think I’m just heavy and might be leveraging that. I did a seated ramp test and then held
More power on alp de Zwift for over an hour than I got on my ftp test.
Me too, my standing 1-hr power is 15 watts higher than my seated 1-hr power. I think it's because you use more muscle groups when standing e.g. in your arms, core and back), so it's like you have extra resources that aren't available when in a seated position.