Would it not be better to not have to do additional work to verify the result of an ftp test?
1 Like
I don’t think that’s possible, no matter which FTP test you do. I always recommend to verify the result of any FTP test, no matter how I determined my FTP.
Plus, it becomes less necessary once you gain experience with a particular method to determine FTP. If you know that in your case FTP ≈ 73 % MAP, use that conversion consistently and see if it needs adjustment after one or several key workouts. If you prefer another FTP test protocol, use what you prefer, get good at testing and then forget about it.
AI FTP and the ramp test produce essentially the same results during a season, so I am testing less often. Although I still love doing ramp tests. (Essentially means they are literally 1–2 W apart, and either number is so close that it’s a valid FTP for the purpose of training.) Only in the beginning of a new season, I prefer doing ramp tests to get a good starting point.
1 Like
It is possible if you do a longer ftp test where you avoid the issues of ramp tests and shorter ftp tests.
This is still a major issue with the ramp test and a smaller one with the 20m test. You can do the ramp, verify the result and find that your correct % is let’s say 73%. Then you go do some anaerobic intervals and re-test.
Now you have a higher anaerobic capacity so your test result is higher but your ftp has not necessarily improved, using that same 73% from before can easily be well above what you can actually sustain for around 30-70 minutes so it’s not a reliable test since the % changes throughout the season based on the training you are doing.
I am glad it’s working for you, and as I said before the ai ftp seems to be doing a much better job than the old ramp test.
2 Likes
In my experience (N = 1) this change is very slow and limited to a single percentage point. I’m not sure this is a big issue in practice, especially if you verify your results. Verification need not be super elaborate, just see how the next threshold workout goes and make a mental note if it it feels off.
I’m very skeptical of this claim. Just variations in daily form have a bigger impact on my FTP tests than, say, between FTP = 75 % MAP and 73 % MAP. Add to that things like measurement errors (1.5 % for my Quarq, officially at least).
Plus, the more elaborate the test protocol, the more you need to bring your mental A game (and be well-rested). I doubt the juice is worth the squeeze, at least if you want that juice fairly regularly.
It depends on the athlete. Some have little/no change others have a significant one.
Variations in form impact your anaerobic ability significantly more than your aerobic ability so it makes sense to see larger variations in testing when doing the ramp or 20m tests.
Long form testing is far simpler, it is much less elaborate than the ramp or 20m test. If you are not on a great day your tte might be a bit shorter but the ftp will still be very similar, unlike coming into a ramp test a bit fatigued. Additionally you get great training stimulus from a longer test so it’s still a good training day if you want to do it more often.
1 Like
Just finished my test. Riding ~45 minutes up a dead end road. I knew what my FTP was half way there. Pushed on to see if I could eek out a few more watts. By the time I was done, I got 1 more watt. Maybe I could have another watt or two on top of that if I had another 5 minutes of road, but I didn’t realize I was at the end of the road until I had a minute left, oops.
No guessing, no verifying, no math. It’s just hard work.
And that’s the problem. People want shortcuts. So we have arguments online about the best testing methods because people just aren’t willing to suffer for a long period of time.
I’m not arguing with anyone on this. Do whatever you want.
3 Likes
That depends on the test protocol, some are more sophisticated, but other, simpler ones (e. g. 60-minute best power) incur a lot more fatigue. The more mental and physical energy you need, the more likely it is that something can go wrong. TTE-based tests are not as easy to interpret, because people can sustain power at MLSS for different durations and this can be specifically trained. Some TTE test protocols also have athletes do a ramp test to figure out what power numbers to shoot for. (I’ll leave it up to you whether you want to call that an FTP pre-test 
).
There’s a reason most of the early adopters of power-based training settled on the 20-minute test.
But even with your protocol of choice, I’d still suggest that you verify your numbers. Especially for threshold intervals, having an accurate estimate of your power at MLSS is crucial to achieve the desired training effects.
Choosing a test that has less impact on your training (since it induces less fatigue) is not a shortcut, it’s a smart choice. Nor is verifying your numbers (more work, in a sense) a shortcut. All that matters is that the result is accurate enough for you to base your training off of it.
1 Like
To me the ramp vs 20 min or whatever doesn’t really matter too much because after the result progression levels are going to sort it all out. For me the ramp test is pretty close but my VO2 and endurance progression levels end up quite a bit higher than my threshold progression levels at the same FTP setting.
1 Like