That's not bad! You might also try doing a ramp test to see if that is more to your liking. My impression of it is that it's much more unpleasant for the last three minutes or so you hold on for but is less mentally crushing than a 20 minute FTP test.
For you that'd be 5 minutes at 100W, then ramping up 5W every 12 seconds until you can take no more (then immediately drop to 100W again or some other light cooldown––no fixed duration). Take the highest 60 seconds' average power, multiply by 72% (some use 75%, potentially optimistic) and there's your FTP estimate.
Re "working hard during [your] regular cycling sessions" maybe not? There is evidence at least for running that a larger volume of predominantly low intensity (zone 2 by power or heart rate) training leads to better results, and it is much more pleasant, honestly. I'm shooting for 80% zone 1/2 hours and 20% zone 4-7 hours these days, as little as possible in zone 3 (by power).
Does polarized training improve performance in recreational runners? - PubMed
Polarized training can stimulate greater training effects than between-thresholds training in recreational runners.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Human running performance from real-world big data - Nature Communications
Laboratory performance tests provide the gold standard for running performance but do not reflect real running conditions. Here the authors use a large, real world dataset obtained from wearable exercise trackers to extract parameters that accurately predict race times and correlate with training.
www.nature.com
New one is a bit more accurate but old one not bad at all. See the Power Accuracy Analysis section (sidebar links to it) here:
Peloton Bike+ (Plus) In-Depth Review
The Peloton Bike/Bike+ (and associated platform) is by massive margins the most popular consumer fitness bike in the world, and largely for good reason: It just works. Every…single…time. But up until the Bike+, there were elements that weren’t as polished.
www.dcrainmaker.com
