Hey, Larry. Lamarck is a brute and I, too, use it in place of an FTP test.
I last did it a week or so ago, all at 100% intensity and by the end of each of the last two intervals, I was right on the edge of desperation, almost chewing my bars, heart rate through the roof and begging for it to be over as I stared down the vertical cliff-face of the ERG-mode black hole.
I JUST made it. I was completely wasted, I couldn’t have survived another minute…
I judged from this that my FTP was set perfectly so didn’t change it. Would you have done the same or would you see mere survivial of Lamarck as a reason to notch up your FTP a few watts?
I know you’re asking @larry but I want to clear up something I said earlier because based on this comment and a comment in another thread I think something is getting lost.
When I say I use Lamarck as a gauge, there a few more caveats:
I’m not merely surviving. It’s not easy, but I could probably bark out a few sentences even at the end of all the intervals. My heart rate never gets above upper end of threshold range.
I’m reasonably fresh when I do it. In another thread folks were comparing how doing Lamarck would feel at the end of several weeks in a base or build plan. When done at that point, it’s brutally awful mostly due to cumulative fatigue.
That’s an interesting point. I haven’t done Lamarck after a period of rest, as one would before a ramp test, I’ve done it only at the end of a big block of workouts such as base or build, so perhaps no wonder it is so hard. I imagine I’d nail it more easily after a period of rest or a few endurance rides like Pettit/Beech etc.
I think you would too. And as a workout, it’s great just where it is in the plan. No need to change that, IMHO. I mean, you know…even though it sucks hahahhhaa
But as an assessment protocol/test, you would want to do it reasonably fresh. As fresh as you would be for a Ramp Test.
That’s a good question. I did the SSBLV1 and 2 on a road bike but just moved to my TT bike (I’d got a new frame and spent ages getting it set up!) for the start of GBLV.
As part of this transition I reduced my FTP by 4W without a restest. Judging by how hard I found the over-unders workout Carpathian Peak (very, but manageable), I feel that my FTP is set correctly.
I must add that I find VO2Max sessions very, very hard in the aero position and usually dial it back from 100% to survive them.
I would personally see this as a valid assessment of your current FTP. Like the workout text mentions near the end of the workout, 40 mins accumulated at FTP with little rest is going to be extremely close to the power you could put out for a full hour.
If you get through Lamarck when you’re well rested, and you feel decent during it, and you even increase the intensity of the workout and still feel great, that’s when I’d say it’s time to kick your FTP up a notch. Here’s an example:
A singular FTP test really only has two good uses:
To set zones/give input to TR for % of FTP.
To give a number that can be used for pacing (with practice).
An experienced cyclist who can accurately approximate this number may have no use for regular testing, but what estimating your FTP fails to do is objectively document progress (or regression). As athletes who often tie pride to this number, estimating may not be for everyone.
I personally hadn’t FTP tested for almost 2 years before starting TR, It didn’t stop me from becoming a faster cyclist during that time. That being said, I think that for anyone looking to measurably improve, testing is a must.
The problem for people like me is that the ramp test fails to objectively document my progress because I can test to a higher FTP, via the ramp test, than I can then sustain in workouts, so I always have to reduce it to the correct level.
Using the above example, I would be absolutely unable to complete Lamarck if I used my ramp test deduced FTP, but I can deduce very accurately (and objectively) by using Lamarck in place of a ramp test.
There is no logical reason to say that Lamarck, as a consistent, repeatable test, is any less “objective” as an assessor of FTP than a ramp test or 20 minute test. The acid test, to verify its accuracy, is how you manage (or not) the subsequent training plan - precisely what you need to do after each ramp test - and adjust FTP number accordingly, if needed.
It may be so that the ramp test is not accurate (for someone with high aerobic contribution), but the protocol is precise and repeatable so the result should be objective. Thus if the result increases or decreases you can safely say that there was a change, and that change can be quantified.
This result may not be useful to you, it all depends on your goals. If you really want to reap the benefits of testing, there are some other protocols that have the potential to be more accurate.
The point I’m making is not that the ramp test is not objective as a testing protocol, but that a workout like Lamarck is no less objective in that it is consistent and repeatable, so that each Lamarck “test” is identical to the previous one.
I do concede that the ramp test or the 20 minute test are different in that they give you an actual number, but in both tests I can score an FTP of 275 but sustain workouts only to about 265 so, for me, I find Lamarck to be a much closer assessment of where I’m at FTP-wise.
There’s a common theme - most of the experienced folk on here adjust their FTP based on how they feel in threshold type efforts.
Now, this forum’s a pretty good guage on what the weaknesses of the software are. There’s a reason why there are so many threads along the lines of “is my FTP is too high/low?”. It’s not because the ramp test is flawed…
It’s because TR never ask for any subjective workout feedback.
The ramp test should just be the start of the conversation. Your FTP is in this ballpark. The software should then prompt for subjective feedback after relevant subsequent workouts and adjust FTP based on that. Hey presto, everyone has a more accurate FTP.
Prompting for RPE certainly isn’t as cool as TrainerDroid AI, but it’s definitely something that’s missing. @mcneese.chad has suggested in the past he thinks TR may go down this route, but TR haven’t confirmed it so far. If it isn’t in their plans, I think it’s something they should look at.
Ok. That’s a fair point. It does seem to crop up often. And it’s always a struggle for more experienced folks not to befuddle the uninitiated, especially when training is still largely an act of faith.
For riders with more experience–be it with TR or prior to TR usage–I think another common theme is “what other metrics are critical to my success?”
Better measurement (“more accurate FTP”) is never bad, but moving away from a singular focus would be enormously helpful for all levels.
I dread the ramp tests. However, on this last one, after completing Gen’l Build II Low Volume, my FTP shot from 240 to 263. I was surprised given my fairly tepid previous tests.
I had a poor ramp test just two weeks ago and posted in one of the many negative threads about the ramp test. I wrote how I didn’t think the test reflected my true ftp. It came out at 234 which was down 20 watts from the test about 5 weeks prior. Some replies said to just accept it. I didn’t take their advice and lowered it by 3 watts from 254 to 251.
I’ve since nailed the threshold sessions and quite often go above the target power by a few watts.
On the other hand, I struggle with anything above 115% ftp and longer than 90 seconds. I can’t complete every interval at the target with the last 2 to 3 always quite a bit below.
Going back to what @oggie41 has said, I think this would best be achieved by moving the ramp test back to the final weekend of the recovery week. Then the Tuesday session, where the ramp test would have been, could be replaced by a threshold session like Lamarck. This would be a good test to see if the ftp result is in the right ballpark.
Incidentally, I completed Lamarck +1 today, 5 x 10 mins instead of 4 x 10! I ended up completing all 5 of them above my ftp; 254, 254, 258, 257, 256. I may increase my ftp to 254 as this felt sustainable.
Sometimes you’re better off listening to your own body rather than relying on a number generated by a single test.
So is the suggestion that FTP is close enough to the average of the 4 interval’s power of Lamarck - or the total average power including the rest bits?
At least if you do a workout like this rather than a Ramp test or even 20min test - you’re not wasting a workout day due to testing is kind of how I’m thinking of it.
I’m hardly the person you should take advice from, but here’s my 2 cents:
I did several tests in the first month or two, in the different protocols, and they were pretty consistent (except the ramp test that reads crazy high for me) and the workouts felt right.
I base my approach on my experience 20 years ago training for marathons using the Jack Daniels method (the running Jack Daniels, not the drinking Jack Daniels). His approach is based on a single number pulled from race results (he called is VDOT), kind of like trainerroad uses FTP. He recommended not changing that metric any faster than every 6 weeks. During the 6 weeks, as you get stronger, the workouts get easier - which he said was the point. Then, when the 6 weeks are up, you make a small adjustment to VDOT and continue training from there.
It does seem to crop up often. And it’s always a struggle for more experienced folks not to befuddle the uninitiated, especially when training is still largely an act of faith.