LET'S GET CRITICAL

Is it time to ditch the traditional FTP test in favour of the more scientifically advanced Critical Power? Coach Tom Bell puts theory into practice on two unwitting CW staffers

- Tom Bell

If you’re even remotely interested in cycling performance, you’ll be familiar with the concept of ‘functional threshold power’ or FTP. Theoretically, it is the maximum power that can be sustained for 60 minutes, and is a marker of general aerobic fitness. It’s useful because it helps define training intensity zones and calculate metrics such as ‘training stress score’ (TSS). The more scientifically sophisticated rival to FTP is Critical Power (CP) – but is it really a superior test and, if so, why?

Critical Power, though similar to FTP, is finding favour among cyclists who place a premium on accuracy and in-depth data analysis. For the same reason, it is the preferred benchmark among sports scientists and national cycling federations including British Cycling. So should you too be testing CP instead of FTP? Let’s face it, no one enjoys fitness tests, so you probably don’t want to perform more than one type. It’s time to choose.

We’re going to find out if CP offers advantages – both theoretically, in terms of the science, and practically in the real world – by sending CW staffers David Bradford and Dan Baines down to the Shed of Suffering to take the test. Our aim here is to establish whether, for ordinary riders, CP really is superior to FTP – and whether it should be your go-to test.

FTP vs CP: What’s the difference?