TR has really muddied the waters with the ramp test. I feel it’s a really poor way to establish “threshold” training anchors. Lots of others have elaborated as to why it’s not a good idea to use some fixed percentage of your MAP/VO2max to estimate threshold, because the percentage will change depending on training.
I kind of think like this if you have power:
Use a ramp test to establish VO2max using power. The 25w/min ramp TR uses is good for that. Workrate/O2 relationship is mostly linear and a simple equation can estimate VO2 utilization from 1-min power. This value may not change much at all through the season. It’s an easy test though and can be done as part of another workout.
Use 3-point CP testing to establish the arbitrary threshold to train by. Based on a paper I have, using 1-, 4-, and 10-minute time trials (dreaded max efforts) provides a reliable CP estimate using modeling. You can do this both indoors and outdoors over the course of a week. I like incorporating the max efforts into the early part of a longer endurance workout. There are paid and free softwares to do the math for you and several online calculators that will also give you a value based on power-duration pairs.
Go for a hard 30-40 minutes ride (or Zwift race indoors) with low variability and see what you can do.
Then train. Repeat every 6ish weeks.
You can also do some things to establish the upper bound of your endurance zone.
I think if you want to do a good job of mapping your abilities, it’s gonna take several types of tests. The ramp is just one part of the picture.
I’m on the opposite side of spectrum compared to most. Ramp tests typically underestimate my FTP compared to longer tests. A few weeks ago I averaged 88% of my ramp test FTP on a 2h 45m climb. Typically I can average 10-15 watts more than my ramp test FTP on a local 45 minute climb. In some ways I do enjoy the ramp test because I can always fully express my results I’m the real world. I think this is the beauty of AT in that it can adjust workouts based on riding strengths and weaknesses and not solely the FTP number.
@jmlowery3489 there are others like you…we just don’t ever hear from them! But if you just take your ramp results at face value and proceed with a TR workout plan, do you feel like you’re leaving some meat on the bone?
Or, alternatively, now does adaptive training handle your workout progression? Is AT always adjusting stuff up?
The MAP test (aka ramp test) actually predates Hunter Allen’s VO2 Max and 20min TT (aka FTP) test. There’s whole bunch of variations on the basic test depending on age, sex, w/ or w/o lactate testing. The correlation to FTP range is between 73% to 78%. It also uses a slightly different training levels. TR version is different, set ramp rate based on fixed wattage and starting point verse % of previous FTP and 50%. MAP is more brutal in my books.
My TR ramp test tend to be 3%-5% higher than my modeled FTP based on WKO and CP (standard duration 2p, 3p, & envelop using Golden Cheetah). I only done one true TTE test and that lined up with both WKO & GC’s CP envelop model. My handful of 30 minute TT tests also lined up pretty well to the models. Hunter’s test on the other hand has been hit or miss (mostly miss as the 5 minutes usually kills my 20’ TT). I don’t actually do regular power profile testing to feed my models beside the usual Saturday hammerfest (except for the last two years as I couldn’t get a hall pass from DW). Given accuracy of different power meters vs my trainer, outdoor and indoor, the differences for me is insignificant and basically noise. I normally round down to the nearest 10s. YMMV.
Good question! I think AT actually handles it really well. The first week is a bit easy mostly with SS, but then it quickly adjusts and is giving me a good workout, I just progress more quickly through those levels because of how I rate them at the end. Prior to AT for some of the SS intervals in plans that are say 3x16 with a 2 minutes break between and then have 30 seconds of recovery within each 16 minute block I would just skip the 30 seconds of rest and go straight through. But with AT I just do exactly what it asks and at the end rate it and then let the chips fall where they may, so far it’s working really good and the workouts feel the appropriate amount of “hard” across each energy system.
I am not sure this is even desirable: I think you should have to do maximal efforts in some form or another on a regular basis in training. Whether that takes the form of a ramp test or a max effort on a Strava segment doesn’t matter. You should know what a max effort feels like.
When I entered my first race in 2019 it helped me tremendously that I knew I could do the efforts asked of me to participate, precisely because I did them while training.
You’ll get similar error bars with other methods to estimate FTP. @jjmcsummarized his thoughts quite well in a recent thread. E. g. when doing a 20-minute test, you are asked to subtract 5–15 %. And a by-the-book TTE requires you to do a ramp test first so that you know what power to shoot for. Personally, I don’t think you can do much better in a regular setting (i. e. not in a lab) than the ramp test or the 20-minute test, and that the error bars are quite substantial, probably a lower bound is 5 %. In my experience a change of even 2 % in set-FTP (to scale workouts) can mean the difference between comfortably finishing and breaking down with e. g. difficult threshold workouts.
But IMHO that isn’t an issue if you keep your brain switched on, listen to your body and tweak the number your favorite test method has spit out using your experience as an athlete who is aware of his body.
If you do multipoint CP testing, you won’t be that off. The 20 minute test is only good if you do other short duration time trials for CP modeling.
If you want to have a better idea of where you workload threshold, or functional threshold, is, you need to do more than just a ramp or single-point test.
There’s nothing more simple than doing a timed maximum effort. You don’t even need to pace all that well.
For sure the first time I tried a full hour at ‘ftp’ I started out at my ramp test result and in about 10 minutes started to think, ‘I’m not going to make 20 minutes!’. I was aiming too high! Needed to ‘shoot low at the limbers’ so to speak.
I am 90 % sure I got the relevant link from you
(Unfortunately, I was unable to find neither the post nor the link, though, although I still have a rough memory of what the website looked like.)
But the point is that you do an FTP assessment the day before the TTE test so that you can make an informed decision what power to shoot for. Of course, it may be that I am misremembering or that I took your link for an endorsement of this particular TTE test protocol.
Don’t be disappointed. If you want to spend roughly 40–70 minutes at FTP you need to train specifically for it. It is as much a mental challenge as a physiological challenge. There is also a pacing element that is crucial. When I watched Alex Dowsett’s second Hour Record attempt, I was blown away by his consistency without a power meter. Before he fatigued, he was able to hit lap times within 1/10th of a second! The importance is of course that when you are right at the edge, knowing where the edge is and not going over it (e. g. with power spikes) is the name of the game.
The hour-power moniker first came up because the first group Coggan took his data from was all trained cyclists who did 40k TTs among other things. And he realized that the average power during a TT was a good proxy for LT2 power. The 20-minute test came about, because a 40k all-out TT incurs a lot of (mental and physiological) fatigue. But I don’t think that transfers to most amateurs who haven’t trained for TTs.
Personally, I think these are two separate performance metrics. Both may be useful for you, but need not be. You can build your power tower higher or have a wider base (or choose your compromise between the two). If you do 30-minute crit races, I don’t think aiming to increase your TTE from 50 to 70 minutes is probably a wise investment of your energy. If you do long-distance triathlons, though, that may be different. Also, you may have longer-term goals across years. I deliberately focussed on my power tower’s “height” last season to complement that with more focus on broadening the base. That seems to have worked well for me. But YMMV.
But if you just take your ramp results at face value and proceed with a TR workout plan, do you feel like you’re leaving some meat on the bone?
The importance is of course that when you are right at the edge, knowing where the edge is and not going over it (e. g. with power spikes) is the name of the game.