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.

Interested to hear others experiences.

4 Likes

Hi - 10-15% lower results using HM than 4DP so far - last wo times doing the HM a few days before the 4DP.

In my case probably just shows that I massively struggle above FTP, and my time above ftp needs ‘used wisely’.
And s a result of the RAMP result for AP being low, the ftp constrained effort then obvs gives a proportionally low starting point.

Then i do the FF and get the numbers set appropriately again :slight_smile:

1 Like

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 heart rate-based estimates will give more accurate (lower) values for those rider types.

When comparing your own Half Monty to Full Frontal results, it’s useful to look at the difference in Peak Heartrates. If your peak heart rates are relatively similar, then you had similar freshness on both tests.

The 6-week difference in training could explain some of the changs in fitness. Really the only way to know for sure is to see how you feel on your next hard workouts. It’s always okay to dial the intensity down for FTP and MAP after a new test when going into hard workouts right after increased numbers.

There are a few tweaks that we have in mind to improve the accuracy of Half Monty, but the Gold Standard will always be FF.

20 Likes

My rider type is sprinter. I find i do alot better in the ramp from HM than i do in the MAP on FF ( i think its down to pacing), but my FTP is quite similar between the 2.

2 Likes

Thanks Mac.Cassin, that’s exactly the info I was looking for.

I had thought that my rider type would if anything do less well with a ramp test so was surprised by the difference. Not at all worried about the difference, after so long riding I have a good handle on what my limits are. I’ve been turning the intensity down between 1-4% for the last month post HM.

Good point about the max HR. I looked at my data and hit max HR in both for a similar length of time. For both tests I was very fresh.

The one HR difference that really stood out was the LTHR. On FF was on 161, on HM 165. Does this play apart in the FTP difference. I assume this is used in the HR constrained FTP section of HM? I know a HR of 165 isn’t sustainable for me.

3 Likes

Great info as always - thanks. I have previously been a climber (<60kg), but now considered a pursuiter. Last time I did HM my numbers were a BIG jump. I then did a rest week and FF and they went back to where I would expect them to be.
Psychologically I found the ramp MUCH easier than trying to guess where I could hold power for 20 minutes.
Chris

1 Like

31 May FF FTP 164 MAP 230 on 6th June Hm raised FTP to 205 and MAP to 256. I found the HM numbers were unrideable

1 Like

Yeah - I’ve found the HM FTP result too challenging - tried to grit my teeth and figured I’d eventually lift myself to the point where it was OK but it actually was really demotivating continuously failing to complete any workout longer than 30 minutes.

I’ve just dialled it back 4% to put me between an old FF value and the latest HM (which I did on Monday)

I’m eyeing up a FF at the end of this training block, but jeez, that workout is in my head right now. Terrified!

1 Like

This is a crosspost from my recent post on the old forums. I’ve massaged it to fit directly to the topic of discussion:

2 Likes

Full Frontal and HM seem to be compatible for me. I did FF in April, nailed MAP but felt I under paced FTP.
MAP 343w
FTP 267w
LTHR 159bpm

Did HM few weeks later at end of a rest week
MAP 343w
FTP 278w
LTHR 165bpm

Just completed a new FF
MAP 344w
FTP 275w
LTHR 167bpm

My training volume has been lower so wasn’t expecting much change - had hoped for a bit more on FTP but it’s an improvement on my last FF and validates HM for me.

2 Likes

Brilliantly consistent numbers across your rides there. You’ve obvs mastered the art of suffering at your max so that you can use comparable numbers.
That in itself is a hard won ‘thing’ eh. Nice.

3 Likes

I’m not sure I’ll be able to separate them anymore, I’ll be using HM to get a benchmark for MAP a few weeks before FF every time.

For me it’s not worth the time/stress of blowing the 5min and having to prepare and retest, i know HM will give me a fairly accurate MAP which means I will be perfectly fatigued to get an accurate FTP from the 20

1 Like

I have now completed two 4DPs, one ramp, and two special focus training plans within SUF. Here is the chronology.

Followed Full Frontal Prep Plan

Full Frontal (4/26/2020)
Used Strava Best Efforts Power Curve for MAP and FTP pacing.
1095 NM
451 AC
340 MAP
254 FTP
171 LTHR
Pursuiter

Followed Speed Demon Plan

Half Monty (6/26/2020)
372 MAP (+32)
287 FTP (+33)
172 LTHR

Followed Volcano Climbing Plan

Full Frontal (8/1/2020)
Used Half Monty (6/26/2020) for MAP and FTP pacing.
1116 NM (+21)
523 AC (+72)
391 MAP (+19)
290 FTP (+3)
170 LTHR (-2)
Pursuiter

1 Like

Sho, that’s quite an impressive jump, my numbers are more gradual every time I complete a test. I really struggle to push the Watts on the 5 second sprints
My plan is coming to an end over this weekend, I reckon I’ll try one of the plans you did :+1:

1 Like

I’ve just done HM and FTP up to199 from 166 and MAP at 252 from 221. 1st work out I did was Downward spiral and it was really hard. I had to stop after 45 mins. Maybe I was having a bad day I dunno. I’ll keep slogging on and see how it goes

1 Like

Thanks for the explanation Mac Cassin.

Explains a lot…I have trouble pacing FF and always felt there was more on the 5 minute effort. Just completed HM and went from FTP 262 to 276 and MAP from 311 to 352. First 100% effort ride after that was Nine Hammers and only managed 2 hammers before bailing (completed it later at 90%) and that was followed the next day by Revolver which was crushed at 100% but those efforts are right in my wheelhouse.

Will be interesting to see if the rides over the next few weeks can be sustained with the HM numbers. Certainly feels a whole lot tougher now than it did!

I know FF is the gold standard but it makes me feel ill just thinking about it! I found HM so much easier (probably psychological).

I’m working off virtual watts, but I’ve been using the same trainer and bike setup. So I figure even if the numbers aren’t that accurate, I should still be able to at least compare them.

For my first FF I was very green. Ran the LA marathon a monthly earlier and had almost a month off. So, even if I was a bit fatigued, my legs were fresh, tho since it was my first FF I knew I might not pace it quite right. I felt like I probably undercooked the 5 min effort. And then I went out way too hard on the final 1 min effort and died after 35 second, but tried to keep pedaling. My AC and MAP numbers both had to be boosted by the app because they weren’t high enough above FTP and MAP, respectively. Possibly because I didn’t know how to properly pace the 5 minute or 1 minute efforts. I want to say my FTP was too high to begin with. But, I never actually struggled with my FTP numbers in any of my subsequent workouts. I only struggled with MAP, AC, and NM efforts. lol. Probably because I never did those kinds of workouts before… heh.

First FF Test Results - April 4, 2020
Cyclist Type: Time Trialist
NM - 487
AC - 300
MAP - 273
FTP - 237
LTHR - N/A since i only had my Garmin watch and didn’t know how to get it connected to the app.

In the middle of my 12-week All Purpose Road training plan I did a HM test towards the end of a rest week, tho was feeling fatigued. This time I had bought a Wahoo TICKR to get my HR.

Half Monty (Ramp Test) - May 22, 2020
MAP - 283
FTP - 228
LTHR - 152
Notes: I failed the FTP portion, tho, because I didn’t stay inside the HR zones. The instructions said it should feel easy and I should be riding under FTP, but I had to keep riding harder and harder just to get my HR inside the target zone. In most of my workouts I am consistently at the bottom or under the target HR zones.

At the end of my 12-week training plan I did my second FF Test.

Second FF Test Results - July 10, 2020
Rider Type Rouleur
NM - 492
AC - 316
MAP - 287
FTP - 235
LTHR - 152
Notes: I killed myself on the 5 min effort. My lungs were burning and it really killed my FTP effort. The burning feeling never went away during the 20 min effort and I was coming around towards the end, but my legs and lungs were totally dead. Not sure if it’s possible to overcook the 5 min effort? I also totally screwed up my 1 min effort. I heard the app tell me to slow down and I thought I had already finished the full minute, but it was only the 30 second mark and so after 5 seconds of recovery I realized I wasn’t done and kicked it back up as much as possible, but by then it was too late and i had totally messed that part up. My LTHR was exactly the same, so even if my HR zones aren’t that accurate, at least the LTHR value is.

I’m now just over 8 weeks into my Metric Century plan. Doing a lot more extended efforts and not as many high intensity efforts each week. Just did another HM test 2 weeks ago and the results are kind of surprising, but not. I’ve always felt my threshold efforts at 235 felt a bit too easy. Doing the Defender and GOAT sessions in the 2 weeks prior to my last HM test I was consistently holding 10-15w higher than the target throughout the entire workout, so I had an idea I was improving. So, then I did my second HM test that next week.

Second Half Monty Results - August 12, 2020
MAP - 295
FTP - 255
LTHR - 157
Notes: My LTHR went up, which is good. This time I didn’t fail the FTP portion of the HM test. But, to keep my HR in the proper zone I had to ride around 240w the entire time. I bounced around 235-250 to keep my HR from going too low or too high. That was higher than my previous FTP, so I was very surprised I had to ride that hard. But, as I was able to do it after completing the ramp effort, it makes sense that my FTP went up from 235.

So, how comparable are the FTP results between the FF and HM tests? Just 6 weeks after my last FF test, should my FTP have gone up by that much? Especially when it barely even moved in the previous 12 weeks? Or am I benefiting from switching from the All Purpose plan to the Metric Century plan? Maybe I’m less fatigued? The FTP efforts were definitely feeling a lot easier as I said. Tho, I know I’m more of a time trialist, anyway and I enjoy the threshold and sweet spot efforts more than the high intensity efforts and find those efforts easiest, even in the middle of other hard workouts.

But really, just how comparable are the FTP results between the HM and FF tests? Does HM give slightly higher FTP numbers than FF? Or does it depend on your rider type? I feel like my FTP from the last HM test was pretty accurate while the FTP number from the FF test 6 weeks before seemed a little low. However, the MAP number from the HM test seems high and the number from FF seems more accurate. I nearly killed myself getting 287 just 6 weeks before but now I’m suddenly at 295? I love to see my numbers go up, but i’m just not sure about them.

But maybe that’s because I’m using virtual watts?

My MAP efforts seemed pretty spot on in my workouts in the 6 weeks after my last FF test. But, my the threshold efforts between my previous FF test and this last HM test were way too easy and I was pushing myself way above them. It felt like the 5 min effort in FF totally overcooked my legs for the 20 min effort and my FTP numbers ended up too low. In the 2 weeks since my HM test the FTP efforts are definitely more difficult, but seem more accurate. I just did The Bat on Wed. It was hard, I was able to hit the 4 min targets on every interval, but every effort was definitely hard and I didn’t feel like I was leaving anything in the tank. In short, So, the last HM test seems accurate, but maybe the numbers are a little too high. The previous FF numbers seems bit too low. But there are just so many factors to compare between them.

Anyway, just curious for some info and opinions.

Sorry for the long-winded post! :slight_smile:

2 Likes

I will say that it is totally possible to overcook the 5 min effort and crack during the 20. I’ve done that very thing myself. The final result of the 20 min effort was something like 40 watts low as I basically had to stop pedalling the last 5 mins.

I had an idea where my FTP was so I manually adjusted it after.

So far, I seem to be able to do the workouts using both the calculated 5 min power and manually set 20 min power.

2 Likes

You can’t overdo a max effort. I think a LOT of people don’t go quite hard enough on the MAP. I’ve been in that position a few times where I had to (probably more mentally than physically) stop on the 20 because I was too broken. In the end I worked out I had to go harder on MAP and more often - AVDP and vise grips for pure MAP, the chores and 9 hammers for the recovery/transition between MAP and FTP

2 Likes

You may be correct semantically but it is absolutely possible to get your pacing wrong over 5 mins and overcook the first 3 minutes to leave you struggling over the next two, for example, and that can have a domino effect, both physically and mentally, for the 20 minute effort.

There aren’t many suf workouts that emulate Full Frontal, leaving the only way to realistically practise the required pacing to produce your very best on all 4 metrics: doing FF itself.

Just IMO, of course.

1 Like