I’m agreeing with everything but the last sentence. The fact that the relationship between FTP and MAP falls into a range is what the science says (as I understand it). Statistical distributions are completely normal in science, and I only object to your characterization that this “isn’t science”.
You can say that the FTP-to-MAP relationship varies too widely to make a MAP test/ramp test a useful tool to estimate FTP. Yes, that’s a discussion one can have, but that’s very different from claiming the discussion isn’t grounded in science.
Apart from the traditional 20-minute test and its derivatives, the other tests we are talking about are to failure. None of my regular workouts are intended to be to failure. There are some workouts such as hill climb reps above a certain wattage to failure, but they are not the norm. Yes, sometimes I fail at workouts, but failure is not a regular thing nor is it supposed to. I don’t think you are prescribing VO2max intervals to failure regularly for your athletes.
To me an lol out workout is one where I am close to failure. E. g. I can’t hold the target power in the last interval. Otherwise it counts as <= very hard. Maybe you count best power workouts (e. g. climb ~5 minute hill n times at best power/“all out”) as all out, and this is the source of our disagreement?
I still don’t understand where our supposed disagreement is.
Tests are part of structured training, and you can learn from doing tests, too. if some people find them useful to get to know nuances of how their body feels like right around FTP, why not?
Yes, that’s precisely the difference I’m trying to make between a test (all out, often to failure) and workouts (typically not meant to be all out and to failure).
There are some styles of workouts that are to failure the exception to the rule where you e. g. do a short climb as often as you can while keeping your average power above some set threshold.
Because I find them unnecessarily complicated and more fatiguing than necessary. If they work for you and you like doing them, more power to you. FTP tests like anything else in life, are not one-size-fits-all. So if one test protocol doesn’t work for you, it is good that you have options.
I have no doubt that once you are experienced with them that they work.
Like I wrote above, if I were coaching you, I’d let you pick the protocol (assuming the numbers are accurate). Although then I’d feel obliged to try it myself.
It’s not a threshold test to failure unless you want it to be. I’m not sure I’ve ever done it really “to failure”, and even so, that’s the type of test you do three, maybe four times a year, so it’s not the end of the world anyway. What I meant was I don’t prescribe threshold to failure as a common workout, but I absolutely prescribe VO2max and anaerobic work that way. Repeated maximal efforts.
Sure, 100% agree with that. The only disagreement we have is in the utility of repeated 20-minute “FTP” tests or ramp tests. Doing max efforts of varying duration is a staple of any training I have done or do. But it’s been a few years since I did a test specifically designed to estimate my FTP for me.
As we’re both saying - if you wanna know your threshold, go ride and find it… but again, that takes a well-developed sense of FTP, and I think that’s not quite as common as it might seem to people like you and me who’ve been doing it that way for a while.
Of the athletes on my current roster, I think probably one or two of them I can confidently say could go ride at threshold by feel on any given day.
Well, when I prescribe VO2max work I give athletes a range of intervals with the expectation that they’re doing max effort on every one, and when they can’t sustain power above threshold, they pull the plug (or do the max number of intervals). So in a sense, that is “to failure” in a way.
For anaerobic repeats, they’re max efforts and I would probably say, yeah, those are also to failure… in such a way that if you just don’t think you can generate the power anymore (say within 10% or so), you pull the plug. That might be 3-5 x 1min all-out. Take the power on the first one, say it’s 600W, and if you’re not able to average 525 or 500 on one, pull the plug… So not like max reps to failure like a strip set in lifting, but probably “to failure” for the intent of the interval.
I guess if you have a good enough sense to know where you threshold is, then you don’t need any ramp test, no matter the format. I reckon that I could do with very few FTP test throughout a season. Honestly, I really like doing ramp tests and it didn’t occur to me to skip them altogether.
What do you do for the others? I’m curious: do you let the athletes pick their favorite FTP test? Do you use eFTP/AI FTP?
The to-failure workouts you describe are familiar to me, although I thought of them as specialized workouts to reach specific aims in the specialty phase (e. g. increase the number of matches for VO2max efforts). Before I had a power meter, I would do either one, but using time rather than power.
Since starting indoor training, I haven’t done those efforts very often (mostly for time reasons since after my daughter was born, time became a much more precious commodity), and at least my instinct would be to use them sparingly for specific purposes (e. g. to increase the number of matches you have for VO2max efforts).
Out of curiosity: how do your athletes react to this. I know that quite a few people on this forum hate the ramp test, simply because they have to go to failure. Are there some where you basically cannot prescribe to-failure workouts, because of the discouraging effect and/or fatigue? Do you have to pay attention to others, because they are pushing themselves too hard?
When I started doing hill climb reps (before starting on TR and owning a power meter even), I’d often push myself way too far. I would only be happy with a workout if I could feel the tell-tale tingling in my legs that you get when you are sufficiently fatigued. So speaking for myself, those to-failure workouts might be dangerous for me unless I do them in moderation — or my coach adjusted the failure condition accordingly. Which is why I love ramp tests — I get carte blanche to do an effort to failure
How long does it take until your athletes beg for ramp tests?
(Honest attempt at injecting a bit of levity into the discussion, not meant as a jab.)
I’d rather do a productive effort that actually fits into what my plan is trying to achieve. The 1x20 or 2x8 tests are probably decent training, but they don’t necessarily make sense at week 1 of a block (that could be focussed on something else entirely). Also especially for the 20 minute test, you need a pretty close estimate of what your FTP is in order to even do the test properly. Ramp is not so bad but I’d rather just do something else!
Surely you can start with what you managed last time and try a slightly harder effort? Sure, it means you are not going to see massive jumps. But massive jumps are rare unless you’ve only just starting training the first time or after getting off the couch. Thus aim 3-5% above what you previously managed and assess where you are at every 5 minutes till done.
I returned to the 20 min test last year, as I’m interested in a functional threshold that I can hold for a decent period. I’d rather have a lower power number that I can hold on the boundary of steady state for a decent period, than a power number that I can’t hold for more than 10 minutes, even though I could call it FTP because ‘It came from a test, must be right”.
Isn’t this threshold defined as one you rapidly fatigue if working above it? If so, then surely if you can’t hold a power without rapidly fading, it’s not your threshold?
That the way I was doing them Pre AI but I would define that a
Yes I 100% agree, I prefer (or at least did a longer test) for that reason. I usually have a few numbers in my head before a TT. The ideal number (FTP or whatever folk define it); the number I know I can sustainably hold for a period (I usually pace or at least start of that) and lol, the number I can still hold when I’m absolutely fubarred
To be honest - even before AI FTP I didn’t bother testing very often unless I had been off the bike or riding without a PM (e.g., MTB for me) for a while - as I can usually estimate my FTP to within a small handful of watts based on what I have been doing - e.g., power data from the Zwift ZRL races, what Threshold on TR feels like/HR response etc., and so on. So I never really saw the value in testing a lot. Intervals.ICU and Zwift both have their own FTP estimates as well which are other data points (although I am pretty sceptical about Zwift’s figures, it seems to give me very high numbers - on Tuesday it popped up with 286 when my current training setting is 267, and I know I could not hold 286 for too long. Although I did have a good race Tuesday ).
I find out what I can hold for a decent period in those races as it is, which is useful validation . And the motivation to do it there is a bit better than just sitting on the turbo looking at the TR screen for 20 minutes (mostly it’s peer pressure from my team mates…).
I’ve actually held numbers very close to my training FTP for durations close to an hour in the past so I am fairly confident in my ability to tell whether my FTP setting is reasonable.
TLDR: I find the test is just telling me something I already know so I don’t really see the benefit.
I did a 25miles TT just under 2 years back at 292w ave (297 w NP), whereas I’d normally do under 230w (250w at best, AI FTP is pretty accurate AFAIC at 253w), and whilst my 4min pb correlated with that extra power, I’ve no idea where that performance came from either . That biased my estimated FTP’s in other programs for a bit
I get periodically verifying or getting used to riding at or around “FTP”, but that’s a bit different for me than doing a test every 4 weeks rather than not want to use AI FTP (or some other calculation) to set training zones.
We often push harder under these kind of conditions. It’s a bit like a VO2 max test in a lab where you’ll get told to keep going, and you’ll try and hold on, where if you were doing a ramp test at home you know you’d end it sooner.
Same with max HR. My highest heart rates in last 3 years have generally been racing others on hill climbs. I can do the same hills on my own and I’ll get within 4-7 bpm but not quite hit the same maxes.
Which can be a bit like 220 - age for max heart rate. You may happen to fall on their power curve estimate line but more likely you will fall either side.
Whether it matters for training (unless you are a pro or time triallist) is another question. Near enough is good enough for most.
I don’t do FTP tests. I derive their FTP from their power duration curves and look at a few different parameters in doing so. The testing we do is to maintain the power duration curve with adequate accuracy. Those are maximal efforts of varying duration… usually over the course of three months we hit 5s, 15s, 30s, 1min, 2min, 4min, 5min, 20min, 30min, etc. And then we can repeat the cycle. While I look at WKO’s mFTP, and I think it’s pretty good, their FTPs are usually 5-10W off (My mFTP right now is 284W, but I just did 50 minutes of work at 295 the other day… my personal model probably needs a 5-min test to make mFTP come back in line).
They’re fine with it. In a couple of cases, it’s been instructive as I’ve learned about the guys who just don’t want to go hard and then we can figure out why that is… is it fitness? Is it mental? Outside stress? The biggest issue with it is athletes learning when to say when. So I give something like an FRC set of 1-min intervals and say do 3-5 or 4-6 or whatever, and a lot of times people always try to do the full max number when they should’ve stopped at 3 or so. That just comes with learning.
I’ve never had someone ask to do a ramp test to determine their FTP (or for any other reason).
I think one of the fundamental differences between my coaching approach and that of other coaches I respect and my own coach is that I don’t fixate on FTP. I set a number that’s realistic and good and validated, and it stays there until there’s some reason to believe FTP has moved.
TR and other online programs have you test FTP monthly. Your true functional threshold does not move that quickly unless you are off the couch or new to training. There is no reason to test FTP more than every couple of months, and usually I can tell you when I’m expecting to see an athlete’s FTP actually change.
What happens with ramp tests, IME, is that your FTP doesn’t actually change… you just get better at executing the ramp test. And that’s problematic for obvious reasons… and that’s how you end up with athletes coming to me burned out after a month of not completing a single workout because a ramp test set their FTP 15% higher than it should be.
Yeah when I looked at her workouts, I was like, “Well no kidding you can’t do these.” Usually she would get through one of them after a couple of days off, and then the rest of the week would be a complete mess. It was kind of unbelievable, Zwift had her at 220W! She tested 20 minutes and came in just under 190.
She just did 3x17 at 180-185 this morning as a threshold set and nailed it. Her consistency is WAY up now, she can get through her workouts and her whole attitude towards the bike seems to be super positive now.
I think that might be the case for new athletes especially, although it doesn’t just hold true for the ramp test. E. g. if I were to switch to the 20-minute test, I might undertest at first simply because I’m not used to the effort. However, for more experienced athletes, I am not convinced that this is true: they should have a good handle on their preferred FTP test format.
I can see both sides here. Compared to my peak last season, my FTP changed by only 26 W, and changes in fitness can be subtle. Still, I like having a handle of FTP (together with other performance metrics) to better gauge where I am and to anticipate next season what kind of gains I can expect. I’m definitely a bit more of a data-centric person, so this approach need not be the right one. A fixation of FTP could be akin to a fixation on weight, i. e. ultimately harmful to the athlete.
I’m wondering why TR chose the Ramp test as opposed to the Kolie Moore 20 minute test, or the 2x 8minute test (Stephen Seiler?)
I’m going to try both of these and compare. Making sure I get well fuelled up and caffeinated before I start.
).