Nobody refers to a person, not a thing. Nice try though
1 Like
Whatâs the nice try. Calling you out on continuously trying to reframe what I have said and ultimately going so far to downright lie?
I have set the record straight. Thatâs all I had left to say to you. Would be appreciated if you stop approaching me.
1 Like
Your vo2 max will probably go up, you will be more fresh. Your FTP from ramp test will definitely improve. Not sure about FTP from long test and muscle endurance. My prediction based on nothing 
1 Like
What the shirt!!! Youâre rightâŚ? Is the entire thread gone?! Why? When did that happen?
Request from OP and KM.
1 Like
TR and their coaches differ how? 
Got a good chuckle when Justin Williams was on the pod and he said he had never heard of them.
2 Likes
I never mentioned the TR team. Though as you now brought it up I do think they have a good track record with amateur cyclists. I base that opinion on the thousands of success stories here on the forum. People certainly got faster. Ditto for myself.
But are they âsomebodiesâ in the coaching world?
I would say yes for the amateur athletes world.
I can do SS work based on my FTP but struggle with the Vo2 stuff so trying to focus on that. Gotta turbocharge this Diesel engine
1 Like
Not to take anything away from our crew but have they actually ever coached anyone personally, or is their coaching experience just putting the TR plans together?
1 Like
It would be interesting to see, if in the future, you could choose to set workouts based on MAP rather than FTP. Then you just get a percentage of one figure, MAP, rather than a percentage of a percentage guess at FTP. An option in your settings based on your preferences, for doing the ramp test, as your testing protocol, and using a percentage of MAP to set interval intensities.
Lifted from another thread:
re: doing an FTP and MAP test.
This is what I alluded to how TR could improve their platform, and a lot of coaching revolves around multiple test durations.
1 Like
You would not get rid of the variability this way. @old_but_not_dead_yet created another thread where he posted a link to an explainer by the inventor of the ramp test. TrainerRoad (and I think also Zwift, and probably most pieces of software that use ramp test) estimate FTP as 75 % of maximum aerobic power. Ric Stern says that most people fall within 72â77 % and 75 % is smack-dab in the middle. So depending on where you fall, youâd still have the problem of how to scale to your FTP or what percentage of MAP sweet spot is.
Ric Stern recommends to use the lower bound 72 % and then correct up if necessary. That could be a solution, but practically speaking, also comes with its own trade-offs. Itâd mean that most people would have to âcorrectâ their FTP, since 72 % is the lower end of the spectrum. I reckon many people will be tempted to correct it up too much.
I just think it is a difficult problem with no obvious solution thatâd work for everybody.
2 Likes
Dumb question, but howâd that help? To estimate FTP from a 20-minute FTP test, you also need to subtract a percentage from the power you managed to do. AFAIK Coggan originally subtracted 5 %, but nowadays it seems the recommendation is to use 15 %. Clearly, even if you err on the latter, there is invariably a statistical distribution and you donât know where you fall individually. The variability seems quite similar to be honest.
Do an actual TTE test for your FTP; all work done at or below is based off that result.
Do a MAP/ramp test; all work done above FTP is based off that result.
But, like I suggest, this is moving in the direction of SF 4DP, so TR probably want to avoid that. Also, seems like more moving parts discourage TR users so compliance might be very low.
TTE seems like an option for experienced athletes, but doesnât seem to be a good choice for TR. According to this test protocol, youâd first have to do a 20-minute FTP test correctly (re-test if you missed your power targets). Then rest a day, then do the TTE test.
If you know what you are doing, all power to you. But I think this is overkill for what TR and other platforms use FTP for: to scale their workouts. At least personally, that has always worked very well. TRâs FTP never overestimated my power, at times it underestimated it a little.
Sure, thatâd assume that TR adapts zones to the individual athlete. Given the amount of testing that is involved, I donât think it makes sense for TR to adopt that. Especially if in most cases the changes would be rather small (e. g. +/- 2 percentage points in case of VO2max). The simpler solution is to rely on the user to do that manually.
If you have a coach or know what you are doing, go for it, though. This is not a ding, I am not poo-pooing better methods. Iâm just saying, this is too advanced for the average or even many advanced TR users.
I suppose thatâs the problem of sweet spot being defined off FTP.
To be honest I donât care about FTP all that much. Itâs just something that makes scaling the same workouts easy enough.
But I was talking about do ramp test, use the MAP figure, calculate percentages off that. Donât bother trying to work out an exact FTP.
So scale workouts directly off MAP. If you want sweet spot that just set the intervals at around 70%. If you are working at 95% or 90% of FTP does it really make a huge difference to adaption and ability to execute them? Iâd argue itâs far more important not to overdo it when above threshold and I think a percentage of MAP would be good for that.