I agree with myself on this. For the same duration, the two are basically equivalent stimuli. The advantage is that you can ride just under FTP for a little longer, and that increases the stimulus. Going over really digs into glycogen stores, since instead of getting ~32 ATP for one glucose aerobically used, you’re only getting 2 ATP from glucose anaerobically used. And the higher you go over FTP, the more you use anaerobically (disproportionately to what’s being used aerobically for… reasons), and the sooner you fatigue.
On the note of erg mode, I’ll mention that I do think it may have a place, but you need to know where you’re looking first. The wko5 model is very useful for tracking fitness changes if it’s well fed. If you’re bumping up your FTP 10w because you’re hopeful, then you may end up seeing that you can hold it at a disproportionately shorter time than you can hold 10w below your FTP… which means it’s easy to triangulate on it. Either way, even if it’s hubris, it’s useful hubris if you can learn something from it. And frankly, I think anything I’m good at in life is a result of just that.
I keep wondering about this. Why do I need to know my ftp exactly? Presumable all physiological processes happen on a continuum, and not in zones or steps. So riding just below ftp is similar to riding at ftp, just a little less effective. Does that little bit really matter so much that I need to spend a lot of effort to work out where exactly my ftp is?
You should know where your FTP is within about +/-5w and in practice, err on just a little below it to allow some room for error. Spending too much time over FTP and not enough time under has what I think are negative consequences. Sure 4x10min over might be doable but really hard, but you won’t have nearly the endurance of someone who can do 80 minutes of intervals at just under FTP.
The thing I found hard was the mental effort it needs to keep talking me through those intervals, always doubting if I’d finish the interval, nevermind the whole set. It’s fine doing that now and then, but doing it basically every day is extremely tiring. I just wanted a workout where I could just ride through it without thinking about it too much. And I started to doubt if you really won’t make progress if you’d do them a couple of watts lower, which would be way more managable.
I do not think that anything above active recovery is not taxing mentally if you want to elicit proper adaptations. Even Z2 is really taxing mentally when over 2h (for me). Long threshold intervals are great to train mental side of cycling, not to mention long VO2 max
As a side note, I’d also like to add that nearly 100% of my 2020 training has been sub-FTP; I’ve done exactly 12 VO2max sessions. I’ve tripled my Sweet Spot TTE, raised my FTP 43% year-to-date, and 5% higher than when I was doing strict TR plans. And still a few more months to go.
I say this as a a supplement to KM’s statement about endurance. For most recreational and beginner cyclists, I think TR has far too much supra-threshold work and way not enough pure endurance work.
That said, I also think that TR is still a valuable product for most of us.
After last week’s test when I don’t think I understood purpose of the ‘ramp’ and quit when I couldn’t manage the ramp instead of carrying on at what felt like ftp type power…leading to 28mins at 306w and myself questioning if 28mins really long enough to estimate ftp, even though I FELT I could have done more at that level if didn’t ramp…today I had another go. Set ftp at 306W and followed baseline test, determined to make it to 40mins or die trying, with first 10mins bit under 306 per test and then ignore ramp and do what I could by feel for next 30 mins…end result was 40 mins at average of 309W (side note- last TR ramp test said 311W so pretty darn good estimate BUT this also felt an amazing workout PLUS gives me so much confidence on what I CAN do rather than what I should/may be able to do)
I hear ya. The ramp and TTE usually give me very similar results, but arriving from different sources. Maybe that makes me an average MOTR cyclist who’s not exceptional either way.
I think a good combo would be a TTE test and a 5min power test.
I see about a 20 watt difference between my tr ramp test and the km test…its a super hard pill to swallow but I sadly think the tr ramp test over inflates my ftp. I guess I’m an anaerobic athlete
It is indeed hard to swallow, but on the plus side welcome to not absolutely hating threshold work now! That was how I cheered myself up about it anyway.
Reading through this thread, and other FTPoverestimatation threads, I think over-estimation of FTP via ramp test should be taken seriously by TR team.
I send my referral links to people in here South Korea, but almost all of them said training is way to hard. I told them to reduce their FTP value but many of them just turned to xert as xert training goes more “Challenging, but Doable” then TR plans. I also experienced same last year as well(just I didn’t turn to other platform but take rest and did lots of learning. Now I just descrease my FTP value with my own feeling. So easy option).
Is ramp test really fit to most of people according to data recorded on TR as Ramp Test FAQs states? One can descrease his FTP by his own and it’s always available option, but if TR can do something more about preventing this over-estimation problem it would be incredible feature.
Until see such feature available, I would count on Kolie Moore’s protocol. Much more logical and fit to me.
Meant to add - new season and career power PBs from 22 to 53 mins (no bad as only did a hard 40 min interval!). Based on Season match I’m between 30-50W improvement from last year. TR sure does work (BUT I prefer this test - hard but gives me confidence of what I can do!)
