I try to always be diligent with this one and say that estimating your FTP low will be fine, but estimating it high certainly will lead to a suboptimal training outcome.
6 Likes
I agree with this.
I agree. Until you start looking elsewhere for training info and starting having your doubts about TR’s approach. I.e. too much Sweet Spot, not enough endurance, and not enough recovery. Which is where I have been at for about the last 12 months.
This. Remove vanity. Focus on what physiological hand you’re dealt and play it.
Aside: This thread has sort of affirmed my doubts around the TR ramp test. It’s a fantastic marketing tool because it’s relatively “easy” when compared to a “traditional” FTP test and far less time consuming than a TTE test. Who doesn’t want all of that? It’s much easier for them to sell new riders. But is it the best approach?
I’ll never forget my first 2x8 min FTP test, it really hurt, and left me wondering if this is what type of pain I would have to endure with regards to structured training. However, I’ve learned that suffering on the bike is what comes with competitive cycling and focused training. It’s something I learned relish about the sport, and not something I try to avoid.
The way the TR team justifies the ramp test as a less mentally fatiguing approach really doesn’t make sense to me. I’m too lazy to go digging for quotes so I will paraphrase… SO many comments from the team about “less mentally taxing”, “easier to pace”, “less disruption to the training week”, etc etc. It’s almost like they don’t want to admit that FTP testing is and is supposed to be difficult. Let alone the common theme around here of “can I just self-adjust my FTP based on how workouts are going”…ugh. Which really means, can I just avoid doing another FTP test?
I get it, they aren’t trying to develop the absolute best and most accurate way of finding FTP, but more a simpler method that is reasonably good. Which I think it is if you’re willing to self-adjust workouts if you find them too difficult. But, this can be confusing and demoralizing for a rider. “It said my FTP is XXX-watts, but why can’t I complete a workout at XXX-watts?”
If we all agree that there is an element of suffering in this sport, why try to work around that? I’ve never understood that. FTP tests aren’t meant to not hurt, and if the ramp test generally overestimates (which I think it does) the subsequent training that follows based on that FTP number assigned by the ramp test very well could lead to very difficult, uncomfortable, and sometimes unproductive workouts.
The one time I did KM’s TTE test I found it very difficult in the last 10-15 min, but very doable AND repeatable. I think it’s an excellent protocol for leveling one’s ego, and also making subsequent training effective and not insurmountable.
5 Likes
Keep in mind that one of the best features of the ramp test is that you do not have to come into the test with an preconceived idea of what your FTP is. This is great not just for a beginner like myself, but also makes transitioning between training plan phases easy. You don’t have to guesstimate how much you have gained during your last block etc.
Finally, there are several workouts you do throughout their plans, like Lamarck that do indeed test your ability to hold your current FTP for a significant duration.
It would however be really interesting if they would release numbers backing up their claims that the tested FTP and workouts really does work for most of their subscribers.
3 Likes
Thanks for making this clear. Would you kindly comment on climbing vs flat road when testing using your protocols outside?. H
1 Like
I FULL agree with this. Doing your first FTP test is difficult, especially if you have no idea what your FTP is within reason. Which is why the ramp test is pretty effective for a ball park guesstimation of one’s FTP. But, as other’s have stated, there can be a large anaerobic contribution which can conflate that number.
I would be curious how many users’ FTPs are self-adjusted DOWN after doing the ramp test. I know I have.
I always wonder about those users from the ‘ramp test tips and tricks’ thread, who try to score an ftp as high as possible. Can they actually use that number?
Tbh I think the whole obsession with FTP numbers, and especially W/kg, is because a lot of people to not race, and their performance marker is their FTP number.
3 Likes
re: TR/Ramp/SSB I’ve been scratching my head for awhile now, along with the more important training intensity distribution since earlier this year when I began posting results from doing more pyramidal sweet spot plan (FasCat). The cynical view is that TR sold out and now has to justify the decision, I literally can’t listen to the explanations. Ramp does a good job estimating max aerobic power (MAP). And from looking at my own seasonal data, FTP as a % of MAP will vary from 83% to 89%. So how does anyone believe 75% is a science based approach? A science based approach would start with where use of ramp to estimate FTP came from (this article and related articles), and acknowledge FTP as % MAP varies across a season. I can’t be the only one seeing this, and that % FTP for vo2max and anaerobic workouts is highly personal and individual.
which makes sense for onboarding a new user, and then use that to do a longer test. Because Coggan classic levels are designed around having a reasonable FTP estimate. Above FTP? Those are very personal and individualized so TR needs to fix that and move away from Coggan classic levels.
The other uses of the ramp test and MAP that I think are reasonable:
- convert from Coggan classic training levels to TR’s own MAP based levels like Ric Stern published back in 2001 before Coggan published his levels (look familiar?)
- use max aerobic power (MAP) to predict 5-min vo2max power and related workouts
- aligning TR data with research studies
I’ve had to adjust UP after a ramp test. That seems to happen when FTP is around 89% of MAP. And I’m a naturally diesel.
Despite the fact that I transitioned to using Kolie’s longer protocols recently, this is a really great point. I do not think I could have properly paced a 45-60 minute long-form test when I was just beginning structured training with my first power meter and TR. While I had ridden for a while, my only experience with power was the handful of group rides I did after installing my power meter, which did give me some intuitive sense of “calibrating” my effort. Nevertheless, a 1-hour test on my first go would have been a disaster. The Ramp Test gave me the confidence to pursue longer sustained workouts in my first TR SSB training blocks, which helped me understand what it meant to ride at a SS/FTP-ish intensity for extended periods. The Ramp Test does lower the perceived bar to entry on structured training.
Mmmm…I would semi-agree/disagree on this. They shouldn’t be any more difficult than a hard workout.
Exactly. I’ve said that before, the last ~5min of the TTE test were similar RPE as the last ~5min of the ramp test. The ramp seems to want to test your entire an/aerobic spectrum in one shot, which isn’t really possible (I don’t think). Where as TTE zeros in on your FTP – and that’s it. It’s a more realistic result. Do separate and appropriate tests for your >FTP zones. I also think KM stated in his original article that Prog3 riders will also do separate non-TTE tests in order to flush out a proper power curve.
1 Like
- Agreed.
I don’t see the ramp test as an attempt to escape from the pain and difficulty specifically. It may be mentioned, but slots in lower in the “pro’s” list when compared to the Pacing and Lower Stress Toll that are more often listed as the good aspects.
We should keep in mind the context, that a single Ramp test in a 4-6 week training period, is a drop in the bucket to a typical plan that include 2 “hard” workouts per week. It’s not like taking an “easy” Ramp test avoids the fact that the rider will experience plenty of hard efforts in that period.
Yeah I mentioned this in a thread yesterday. Practically speaking you can get a pretty good handle on your capabilities / fitness by doing 4 tests within a week or two of each other:
- sprint power: 5-sec sprint (“sprint”)
- anaerobic power: 30-60-sec max effort (roughly anaerobic work capacity)
- max aerobic power: 5-min all-out vo2max test or MAP / ramp test (“vo2max”)
- long ‘steady state’ power: at least 20-minutes long, and up to about 60-min all-out test (“FTP”)
Or just feed your data to WKO5, and let it tell you what to test in short/medium/long durations.
2 Likes
This is the entire idea behind iLevels. People are mostly the same sub threshold except regarding TTE. z2-FTP relative to FTP is going to be the same range for ‘everyone’, it’s just how long you can hold it. Everything less than TTE is weird because of how wide the gaps can be on anaerobic and long term aerobic adaptations. The WKO answer is just go all out every now and then to find a reasonable curve and then do intervals slightly below that.
The baffling thing to me is that TR has the data to make a pretty good wag at this, especially if a user is syncing all their outdoor rides. Their ‘short’ intervals shouldn’t be based of an FTP multiplier but a fraction of the ‘recent’ PB curve at that duration. This ‘fixes’ the VO2 is ‘too hard/easy’ problem.
My (largely unfounded) guess as to why they aren’t chasing this is 1) sunk cost on the workout library and 2) computing the PB curve is too expensive right now. Watch the delay that it takes for you PB to come in after uploading a ride… it can get backed up several minutes at times.
5 Likes
Can you change the percentage of resistance using the up and down arrow keys as in erg mode? I’ve never actually tried that.
1 Like
Yes, just the Left/Right keys (Up/Down are still for Intensity):
I’m referring to a 20-min test which has you riding above (102-103% or higher) current FTP for 20 min. That’s tough. So yes, a classic 20 min FTP IS difficult.
Definitely not, but the TR team heavily promotes the idea that the ramp test is more optimal. This is the last reply I’ll give because it’s derailing the premise of this entire thread (sorry)
Advantages of the Ramp Test Over Other Formats
Traditional FTP tests are challenging and very exhausting. Not only do many riders avoid testing outright, riders who do perform traditional FTP tests often fail to complete them properly, or perform them poorly and need to redo the test. Worst of all, traditional FTP tests often yield questionable results that miscalibrate an athlete’s training. To make the Ramp Test the best and most efficient fitness assessment for cyclists, the TrainerRoad ramp test addresses a number of factors that often impact the success of more traditional testing methods:"
I just can’t get on board with what I’m reading here from Jonathan. Of the bunch, I feel most confident after doing Kolie’s TTE test, knowing that my FTP as taken from it is probably 99.9% accurate, whereas I can likely inflate my FTP on the ramp test after a nice VO2 block, which I suspect I did most recently.
I don’t think anyone is saying the ramp test is bad, it’s a pretty good test for a newbie…but I do think it’s not as optimal as TR claims it to be once you’ve been training for a while and get accustomed to it.
More accurate than your power meter!
Well yeah. +/- 2%
I did the basic KM test yesterday and didnt make it to the 25 minute point due to overcooking the first 10 minute block, I was 5 or 6W over the target, I made it to about 17 minute point which the average power at 3W above my current FTP, tbh I was annoyed with myself for not making it to the ramp portion but I’ve learnt from it and will give it another try tomorrow.
Personally I believe the ramp test slightly overestimates my FTP.
l also want to share my experience as I also somewhat failed with KM test before. I did Progression 1 back in Aug, 08. My respiratory system refused to keep going(Highly personal) on 27min marker where ramp even didn’t started. Phlegm(right word?) keeps developing and it was hard to keep breathing. Highest HR was 171, so it seems obvious I didn’t do a goot job. Outcome was 197W, but just set mine 199W.
Last week(Sep, 08) I tried Baseline test. Bucket for phlegm ready, This time I make it into ramping area. 34min AVG 203W(previous set ftp was 199W. 4W increase). I stopped pedaling because last 1~2min, my pace keeps going downward and I have to push it quite consciously in order to meet target power and feels like it’s some kind of depletion point… Max hr for this session was 178(Known max hr is 197).
One of my last ramp test(Jun, 30) gives me result of 204W. max hr was 181. But from my experience I know it definitely makes my SS training like Threshold work and recovering from OU incredibly difficult, I dialed down to 195W.
Since then, I’m using this KM test(only 2 times though) and really happy with that. As @empiricalcycling claims this test seems reflect actual physiologic FTP conditions really well. Before the ramping area it feels doable. During the ramp stage, I feel my aerobic engine die out and anaerobic kicks in(What I describe it is I have to pedal really really consciously. Pacing becomes really hard) more drastically. It seems there’s really no way(as far as I feel) these tests will overestimate my FTP. Thank you Mr Moore. And Thank you @alexgold123 for making the custom workouts for us.
I actually “failed” my first Kolie Moore FTP test, as I used @alexgold123 's Baseline test and had my FTP set at my last Ramp Test result. Given that I think it was a bit overestimated, I needed to take another shot a few days later. I personally started significantly lower than I though was necessary, and was able to ramp it up over the course of the test. For example, I started the test with my FTP in TR set at 245 watts. As a result, I started with a 10-minute interval at 240-245 watts. Despite this, I ultimately ended up with an average of 260 watts over a 50-minute test interval. Starting conservatively allowed me to ramp it up gradually and finish strongly as opposed to burning out quickly due to overcooking it.
My first attempt at the Kolie Moore FTP was done with my FTP set at 270, which the Ramp Test had recently given me. This had me start my test interval much higher, and I couldn’t hold on when the intensity ratcheted up. I bailed after maybe 15 minutes total in the test interval.
1 Like