Well, quite. Totally agree as a fan of the KM tests, but ramp test + verifying with 2 × 20 is better than ramp test + nothing, if people will insist on doing ramp tests.
2 Likes
Mind blown. Has TR retracted all the articles about FTP being the cornerstone of training? Has TR dumped Coggan power levels and metrics?
Coach Chad describes ftp as it is, the tipping point between stable and unstable physiology (HR, breathing, time to exhaustion).
You never needed AT to ‘fix’ workouts above ftp, but think about it. A lot of TR users have a smart trainer. The TR app defaults to Erg mode. A lot of people simply want to be told what to do. Those are a lot of constraints on TR.
We should all agree it is better to have TR adjust the % FTP for vo2 work (using AT / user feedback), than to have to manually change the % intensity during the workout. Before AT, it was a pain to load a workout at 120% FTP and have to change intensity to 92% in order to achieve my personal target of 110% FTP. And how confusing was it to remember 92% instead of looking at TR analytics and seeing 110% is what I achieved on previous workout.
Meanwhile on anaerobic intervals it was the opposite, I could go much higher than TR workout targets. Again same argument, things are better with AT but it doesn’t invalidate FTP it merely shows that a fixed % of FTP doesn’t work for everyone.
This entire ‘above threshold’ discussion of personalizing % FTP targets for vo2max and anaerobic work is exactly why roughly 6 years ago Coggan changed his zone model from classic (the 7 zones that TR uses) to iLevels.
Going back to first principles, it is in TR’s best interest to promote better ways of estimating FTP. And that is what TR has successively done, found better ways of estimating FTP for ‘the masses’ while still providing manual override for those with a better handle on estimating their FTP. However, AT and AI FTP shouldn’t be interpreted as the irrelevance of FTP. Because if it was, then TR would drop power zones/levels and metrics (TSS, IF, etc) that came from Coggan.
2 Likes
A big part of me becoming faster was accepting that my ramp test FTP number does not accurately reflect the power I can actually hold for ~45 minutes. It actually quite accurately predicted the power I could hold for 20 minutes.
A solid year and a bit later, using different tests to set a more accurate FTP, and doing lots of long sweetspot intervals (up to 75 minutes), my 20 minute test is now pretty accurate for me, The ramp test still predicts 20 minute power 
For a training FTP, I now do 2x20 flat out*, with 2 mins easy spin in between and take NP for the whole 42 minute period as FTP. The other one my coach likes me to do is to find the pace where it becomes really, really hard at 40-45 minutes. That’s both a useful training session and (for me) a good estimation of what true, absolute max 1hr power would be.
*that’s flat out as in the fastest pace you know/think you can sustain for 2 efforts, not a 20 minute death effort first up.
1 Like
No, I think @grwoolf means that for him Palisades is a workout with which he can check and fine tune his FTP value after an FTP test. The idea is that no matter how you determine your FTP, you verify it and he likes to use Palisades. Personally, I like to use 4 x 8 minutes or 4 x 10 minutes at threshold. This should be easily doable for me if the FTP is set right and my sleep/rest was normal.
This is a tricky subject, because there are a lot of variables. E. g. if you are not used to long efforts at threshold and for the sake of argument assume that the FTP (= power at threshold) is 100 % correct. Then it will feel easier and more doable if you reduce your FTP number. Or if you simply do too much intensity, then the number could be set correctly, but you cannot sustain your training.
I’m just saying that learning which is which in training takes time, and the answer might not necessarily be what you initially think it is.
Other training platforms determine your best power not just at 20 minutes (i. e. a classical FTP test), but also shorter times. So they add more anchor points for training. This could have been an alternative solution, although it’d come with its own set of tradeoffs.
I’d still say you should make sure your FTP is in the right ballpark and not let it slide by 10 % in either direction, that seems too much. E. g. a supposed threshold workout would become an easy sweet spot workout and over-unders would be under-unders. Still, I agree with your overarching point.
FTP is meant to be a measurement of your power at your lactate threshold (in a field test), not the power you can hold for 45 minutes. Perhaps your ability profile makes it very hard or impossible to hold that power for 45 minutes.
Within the context of structured training, knowing your lactate threshold is important for key workouts, not the best power you can hold for 45 minutes.
Not saying you are wrong, but we should carefully disentangle what we are talking about. Have you tried verifying your power at lactate threshold in other ways than a best-power for 45 minutes?
Obviously the ideal way is lab testing. I don’t have easy access to that nor, in honesty, the desire to know to that level of precision.
One reason for this is that using my 45 or 20/2/20 minute power number as a proxy of FTP has led to workouts that seem to be the right level of difficulty and have allowed progression, as well as successful pacing strategies for other length efforts.
For me at least, in this context, good enough is good enough.
I could well understand someone at the sharp end of racing having a different approach, though, which is cool by me.
1 Like
This sounds to me like you are confirming the prior assumption rather than falsifying it.
Someone with high aerobic capacity is going to have more in their tank at the end of a 20 minute effort than someone who leans anaerobic. It also sounds like you might be pacing your 20-min tests sub-optimally.
On the flip side, for the ramp tests it sounds like you are running out of anaerobic stores, then the feeling of being able to do more again comes from high repeatability associated with high aerobic capacity.
Just my 2 cents!
and surely the ramp tested “FTP” power they can only hold for 20m is also not their lactate threshold. even an untrained person should have a longer TTE than that.
2 Likes
A TTE test is not meant to validate your FTP in my opinion, it is to measure your time-to-exhaustion at FTP, i. e. you have to know your FTP in advance. It measures a different dimension of your fitness.
That’s assuming that you have ascertained your FTP correctly beforehand. I’m not against TTE testing, depending on what your goals are, it might be the right metric to look at. Or it could be a good idea to test just to see where you are fitness-wise.
I completely agree, see my previous post on that responding to @grwoolf. I’m just saying you should find a better way to verify your FTP. If you know you overtest in the ramp test, learn what your FTP-to-MAP ratio is and use that as a baseline. Nobody is forcing you to blindly accept the middle-ground value TR chose for everyone.
I have not argued that. I’m just saying that a TTE test is not a good way to validate your FTP. There is a huge gamut in how long people can hold their FTP for. I have heard anything from 40–70 minutes. A TTE test only serves its purpose if you have determined your FTP correctly beforehand.
Because the test only tells you how long you can last at a specific power. Given that there is a big breadth in TTE times (I often read 40–70 minutes), you don’t know whether failing a 45-minute interval is bad — your TTE at threshold could be 40 minutes. Or it underrepresents what you are capable of, because your TTE at threshold is 60 minutes.
Moreover, if your FTP test + correction factor deduced from your testing history puts you in the ballpark, you won’t be able to resolve that.
If you do a 4 x 10 or 4 x 8 workout at threshold (e. g. if you do a polarized block), you can use the first two intervals to verify that you are within ±3 %. If you are not, just lower or raise the power. (I’m doing those workouts in resistance mode, so I don’t have to do anything. If you are in erg mode, just adjust the intensity in 1 % increments.)
The last two, especially the last one will allow you to fine tune: if you don’t feel a significant build-up in your legs, you add a few W. If fatigue quickly ramps up, ease up a little.
Over-unders also work, they are what you would use e. g. in a sweet spot block. Personally, I prefer steady-state work, though. Plus, these workouts are simply part of your training plan, so there is no disruption. And the more you get attuned to the feeling of being right at threshold, the better you will be able to pace outdoors, the easier it is to validate your FTP in the future. The process I explained sounds very complicated, but it just becomes automatic.
But what are you measuring and why? Your TTE is only your TTE if you are actually at threshold. Otherwise, your measurements just acquire a very large systematic error. Perhaps your “TTE” increased because you just raised your FTP and you aren’t really at threshold anymore. Putting out 95 % of threshold is way easier than 99–101 % threshold.
You wrote that it is good training. Is it, though? Doing 40+ minutes at close to threshold is not an effort you want to do frequently in a block as that would disrupt your training. The only time I’d have repeated efforts of this type is in the specialty phase of the 40k TT plan. You write that such efforts teach you what supra threshold feels like, etc. I can have that with regular workouts. The progression of threshold intervals in the polarized block will often also nudge up your power by a percentage point at a time. That’s in addition to the 105–110 % FTP intervals.
I think such a strong focus on TTE is as misplaced as if you replaced TTE with FTP. TTE is a relevant metric for some riders and completely irrelevant for others. If you were a crit racer, then raising your TTE from 40 minutes to 60 minutes while keeping your threshold equal is likely not the ideal training goal.
It’s been my experience with every athlete I’ve coached so far coming from a Zwift or TR ramp test determined FTP that it is anywhere between 5 and 20(!)% too high. I won’t speculate as to WHY that is.
Regardless of AIFTPD/AT, I would recommend knowing what your threshold is so you can learn how to ride at threshold by feel. How you get there? There are some good (and some not so good) suggestions in this thread. I prefer longer form tests, personally, and would rather know what I am capable of across the power-duration curve, but that’s just one man’s opinion that may not be applicable to you. Cheers!
1 Like
My TR FTP is 272. My outdoor Garmin/Training peaks/Intervals Ftp is 289-291 (same power meter).
Personally it doesn’t make a lick of difference. TR sets my workout based on an assumed ftp. If workout is too hard AT makes it easier. Too easy AT makes it harder.
Don’t understand the amount of mental bandwidth people spend on their FTP. How many people could actually hold their FTP for 60 min? I know I couldn’t.
2 Likes
Within the bounds of TR’s system, it might not. I can’t speak to that anymore.
When I did the ramp test on first signing up, TR genuinely underestimated my FTP by probably at least 20 watts. Gave me a value of 278 when I was already doing 60mins on the turbo at about 300. I’m a very endurance/aerobic rider with no sprint. One of the guys I was training kept telling me TR had worked out his FTP yet he couldn’t even do 10minutes at that supposed FTP figure when fresh. Two ends of the spectrum right there showing that it’s just an estimate.
But @AussieRider I’m with you, don’t know why the obsession with what FTP really is. To my mind, the purpose of training is for an event or to ride faster not for a ego figure. So time to exhaustion is absolutely a valid thing to train and to set a benchmark for.
TR adapts the sessions based on a simple RPE based questionnaire, and with the base sweet spot plans being often pyramidal, i don’t think FTP accuracy actually matters that much. You will hit all the different physiological systems even if some sweet spot it actually more like threshold and VO2 is more like anaerobic (say).
No one deliberates so long on whether to have that extra bar of chocolate or extra beer I bet, as they do with FTP accuracy 
1 Like
It matters to a lot of people and disciplines. Maybe not the exact number (because it changes day to day anyway), but the ability to ride at threshold and know what that feels like for long durations. Time trialers, climbers, breakaway riders, etc., all of those disciplines would benefit from knowing their true FTP, their true TTE, and most importantly having a proper sense of what FTP feels like. If your actual FTP is 290, and you go out and ride at 275, yeah… that’s a threshold workout… but if you can hold 290 for 55 minutes, you want to do that in a TT, not sit at 275… or worse, try to go out at 290 when your threshold is actually 275.
I agree if you’re doing TR workouts within their framework, and have no reason to sit at threshold for prolonged periods, you don’t need to “obsess” over it. Really, no one needs to “obsess” over it. Saying your threshold last month was 278 and this month it’s 281 is just as silly. Your threshold is 280 and it hasn’t changed because it doesn’t change like that. It’s not really worth changing your number until it becomes blatantly obvious that it’s changed over the course of multiple sessions. Not just one really good (or really bad) day.
All that to say, just because it might not matter to you, doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter at all.
@kurt.braeckel So I think I was more pointing to the obsession with FTP so far as it needing to be absolutely accurate for training purposes. I absolutely agree you need to know how long you can ride at the power required for whatever event you might be doing. I think a lot of people will want an FTP estimate to be accurate rather than do the training and race efforts that prove the number is realistic. Can’t remember who said the phrase “the best indicator of performance is performance itself”? Was it someone like Joe Friel? I do think sessions that find true TTE for whatever race distance a rider is focussed on are never wasted.
1 Like
Yes, I agree. Testing or really even updating FTP more than a couple times per year is enough because FTP doesn’t really move from 278 to 281 over the course of a month, e.g.
@kurt.braeckel I generally agree but…In my experience I DID have a 40watt change in my FTP and it happened in 14 days…happened due to Covid. Both before and after numbers were very accurate as indicated by not only threshold efforts but also zone 2 heartrate and decoupling. This happened in October and I have yet to regain my pre-Covid FTP. At this point though my ftp is changing much faster than it ever did prior and I do see frequent increases. This is an outlier though and prior to this I would have agreed fully with you.
Next thread down: 
1 Like