“work for me” is all relative, something might work better and you’ll never know.
Not sure how you would react if discovering a ‘can’t ignore it’ difference between the tests?
As I understand it, ramp tests have been around a long time and were designed to estimate maximum aerobic power (MAP). There is a meta-analysis I posted somewhere on the forum that reviews all of the science behind step sizes (e.g. 1-min vs 2-min vs 3-min). So even within the narrow scope of using a ramp test to determine MAP, I don’t believe there is agreement on “the best” ramp test.
For example GPLama blog post + video covered a test used by Dr Stephen Lane in Australia and it uses 2.5 minute ramps to calculate MAP. Dr Lane then estimates FTP, and uses that as pacing strategy for the athlete do a 20-minute FTP test.
Here is my take:
- relying on the ramp test is putting faith into an “estimate of an estimate.” Better to use the ramp test for what is was designed to do: easier way of estimating MAP versus doing an all-out 5-min effort.
- the classic 2x20 threshold workout is a classic for a reason, it gives a strong training stimulus. If you can pace one of these, you can pace a 20-min all-out test for estimating FTP.
- periodically do a 20-min all-out test
- periodically do longer threshold efforts (Kolie Moore or otherwise) and post 'em in the FTP Challenge thread
- use other estimates to help triangulate (race files, etc.)
Don’t take the easy way out, you are working hard following a plan so why not incorporate efforts that help you triangulate FTP, serve as good workouts, and help you develop a feel for riding at your limits?