Is the FTP Test a Reliable, Reproducible and Functional Assessment Tool in Highly-Trained Athletes?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Journal of Exercise Science 12(4): 1334-1345, 2019. The aim of the current study was to assess reliability of the Functional Threshold Power test (FTP) and the corresponding intensity sustainable for 1-hour in a “quasi-steady state”. Highly-trained athletes (n = 19) completed four non-randomized tests over successive weeks on a Wattbike; a 3-min incremental test (GxT) to exhaustion, two 20-min FTP tests and a 60-min test at computed FTP (cFTP). Power at cFTP was calculated by reducing 20-min FTP data by 5% and was compared with power at Dmax and lactate threshold (TLac). Ventilatory and blood lactate (BLa) responses to cFTP were measured to determine whether cFTP was quasi-steady state. Agreement between consecutive FTP tests was quantified using a Bland-Altman plot with 95% limits of agreement (95% LoA) set at ± 20 W. Satisfactory agreement between FTP tests was detected (95% LoA = +13 and -17 W, bias +2 W). The 60-min effort at cFTP was successfully completed by 17 participants, and BLa and ventilatory data at cFTP were classified as quasi-steady state. A 5% increase in power above cFTP destabilized BLa data (p < 0.05) and prompted VO2 to increase to peak GxT rates. The FTP test is therefore deemed representative of the uppermost power a highly-trained athlete can maintain in a quasi-steady state for 60-min. Agreement between repeated 20-min FTP tests was judged acceptable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it