The problem with that approach is that you need maximal efforts to build a full picture of a rider and workouts don’t necessarily give you that, especially TR’s workouts which don’t have much in the way of maximal level efforts much over 8 minutes (nothing wrong with that, a workout and a maximal test are two different things). TR workout alone are not going to build out the data for your full power curve. Anyone who gets stuck inside for most of the bsae, build specialty cycle can see their data does not paint a full picture. So, unless you race, or do some really freakin’ hard rides, you’ll have to test, at least if you want a sophisticated output.
3 Likes
I am going to do the Z ramp test today. I have a pretty decent idea where my FTP is based on what wattage I am hitting in my workouts. I will share the results here.
Anyway, being quite biased to the shortest part of the power curve, I am expecting a ramp test to overestimate my FTP since the anaerobic contribution for building my power in the short steps will be much greater than the average,
Coach Alan Couzens (a mad scientist - as he calls himself - that works mainly with triathletes) is always warning about the need for the ramp tests to be more gradual and with bigger time intervals for each level. This applies to all the measured parametes like LT, VO2Max, FatMax, Metabolic Ratio, etc…
He says that labs try to fit the ramp tests in a short period of time due mainly to economic reasons and most of the times the results suffer.
Maybe a 1 minute 20w ramp has the same problem,
1 Like
I think you’re bringing in a big assumption about how you can set training levels based on how people currently do set training levels.
TR has other useful information. They know what you were supposed to do in a workout, and they know what you actually did – whether you succeeded. Further, if you use one of their plans, they control what workouts you do. So, they have a feedback system where they could, say, manipulate your workouts until you start failing.
It seems to me, based on their recent workout and plan redesigns, that they’ve been working internally on compliance metrics – judging whether you succeeded in a workout and, if not, why not (or how not). It also seems from the workout text that many workouts are designed with the expectation that there will be some acceptable rate of failure. Take from that what you will.
1 Like
I did the Zwift test in an erg rollers and the results look far from ideal.
The main problem came from using Zwift’s powermatch.
At a certain moment in the test, when the power went up 20w the resistance of the roller decreased like 50w at first and then overcompensated.
This made the test quite erratic and difficult so I guess that I could have reached a higher power even with the added cognitive load that come from the rollers vs a trainer.
This is the first time I had problems with their powermatch.
I could have done the test using the power measured in the roller but the FTP estimate would be completely context dependant and probably useless in a outdoor situation.
So, for me it gets a C-
I will not set training zones based on that figure.
2 Likes
Zwift has powermatch?
Sort of…
When pairing the user can setup the
roller/trainer ANT FE-C device for erg and slope but the bike’s PM for power and cadence. This should mean the erg mode gets the power feedback from the bike’s PM and not the roller/trainer.
In addition to my previous comments, yesterday I did a short race in Zwift that took me 35 minutes and my 20m power during the race multiplied by 95% is spot on with their ramp test results. However, because I raced 15 minutes more, those 20m cannot be considered max effort so I woul say Zwift indeed underestimated my FTP by 10w or so.
I am doing a one month test of Zwift to see how it works and so far the conclusion is that I will be using only Traineroad as soon as that month ends.
2 Likes
I would not draw that conclusion because the 95% of 20min test protocol expects a 5min max effort beforehand.
5 Likes
Oh yeah, I see how that can be. Thanks for the tip!
1 Like
Good point there. Then maybe it was ball park.
I will repeat the ramp test soon to get a clearer idea.
I’ve used the TR ramp test for quite some time now (from beta) and have generally tested pretty consistently with nominal improvement. After spending some time doing weekend zwift races, I found my ftp increased nicely from 208 to 216 (using the same step test), probably due to the sustained nature. After another 4 weeks riding at 216 I tested again, this time using zwifts step test.
First thing I noticed was the steps are 20w vs 6% of ftp, which in my case was 20w vs around 12w. As a result, I was able to sustain a higher wattage (300+) for 1min, possibly because I got there quicker, rather than the slower ramp to get to my previous max of 288. Zwift then determined my ftp to be 230 (which I’d surely take than increase from 216).
So the question is… What’s going on? Is this zwift thing accurate? Have I actually improved from pushing harder? Or is it a result of being fresher at higher wattage resulting from a shorter test?
Granted, ftp is nothing but a benchmark to set yourself to for intervals and after trying 230, if I’m able to suffer my way though, I can’t imagine being any worse off, if anything it may result in more gains?
Any thoughts here?
Whay don’t you take part in the FTP challenge and find out. The FTP Challenge
Mike
2 Likes
You can’t compare FTP tests with two different protocols, that’s with TrainerRoad, Zwift or any other program. Consistency in testing is the only way to ensure improvement, aside from any discussion if one test is better than the other.
You would be worse off if you are using TrainerRoad with a higher FTP. Essentially you would be training in the wrong zones. When you think you’re doing a zone 2 workout, you would actually be in tempo. Then all your sweet spot workouts become threshold. It is possible that you could maintain this in the short term, but eventually you would be overreaching and start to dig yourself a hole.
Yes, that is the only risk there, in terms of overreaching. I’m a low volume guy so could definitely use a bit more to see real gains, but after doing TR for a few years and going from 201-203-208-216-230 seems a bit insane at the end of that sequence.
Just listened to the Zwift podcast with Greg Henderson, Kev Poulton and Matt Rowe and Poulton made the interesting point that he uses the ramp test to verify the results of an all out 8 minute test which is done after the ramp test but within the same session.
From memory he uses 72-78% of the ramp then confirms by taking 90% of the 8mins. That would be a brutal session. Definitely had never heard of this protocol before.
Here is the link for those interested