That’s exactly what @CaptainThunderpants has done. So kudos to Thunderpants for identifying the problem and coming up with a solution. If he sticks with his plan, he’s going to have a lot of success.
This, surely has to be the best approach. Testing different approaches for oneself and applying whatever works best.
For me, the ramp test has always given me a number that allows me to complete TR workouts consistently, whilst also challenging me. Given the amount of time I spend doing structured training vs the time I spend pacing myself outside/in races, I’d much rather have an FTP value that gives me effective training.
Would a different/longer protocol be better? That, surely, depends on how you intend to apply it.
1 Like
Vocabulary? Or physiology?
This isn’t some pedantic argument - nor is it theoretical, I’m speaking from personal experience here.
The ramp test worked really well for me at the beginning until it didn’t about ~80W later and started over-estimating. That combined with the fact that TR plans (apart from a few specialities) have a massive shortfall in long sweet spot / threshold work, and that I have a good anaerobic capacity, meant I could complete 99% of the workouts, and my ramp test results even kept going up (no surprise given how often I must’ve been working over FTP when it was supposed to be under).
I questioned whether my volume was too high (lol, I’m doing twice the volume now), whether I was over trained (after only 6-7 months…), whether I was losing my mental game etc. Dug myself a decent hole.
It’d be one thing if the ramp test had consistently never worked, or if the plans had enough long work in them to expose when your ramp test result was too high, but when you combine inconsistency with a lack of TTE work, you get what you see on these forums day after day. Today it’s someone looking to extend TTE when they can only hold their current ramp-test FTP for 25 minutes. That’s not a dig at anyone - I hope you continue to make great progress @CaptainThunderpants, honestly. Just listen to your body and don’t second guess yourself like I did.
2 Likes
Maybe! I think TR probably have more data on this than just about anybody. I doubt they picked the WORST test. 
But whatever test they pick it’s reasonable to conclude that rider results are going to be a gaussian distribution. Some are going to be above the mean and some are going to be below the mean. A few are going to be WELL below the mean and some are going to be WELL above the mean.
What was the paper from way back in the day where they had trained cyclist just do 1 hour at some percent of MAP & got these monstrous blood markers for training adaptation? Anyhow, if you read that paper you’ll see that in the beginning of the protocol there were several riders that weren’t able to hold 70% (or 75%, whatever) of their MAP for an hour. They had to bump it down to 60% for the first few weeks.
Remember the paper about determinants of cycling endurance? Some riders could hold 88% of ~MAP for 75 minutes. Some riders could hold it for 50 minutes. Even among those trained cyclist in that controlled environment there was tremendous variability (50% !!).
That was >40 years ago.
So we’ve been kicking this around for 40 years and the problem is still very much the same today as it was in 1988. I’ve criticized the ramp test as much as anybody, I suppose, but it’s still pretty good at what it does. You just gotta be self aware enough (like CaptainThunderpants) to recognize when the ramp test is overestimating the constant work rate you can hold for the better portion of an hour…
And that’s why coaching will always be a thing.
4 Likes
Just to clarify, because you sound similar to me…
Are you saying that you were getting overly fatigued despite increasing FTP and 99% completion? And this was because your anaerobic contribution was good enough that you were actually working over FTP when you shouldnt have been and hence the workouts (despite completion) were harder than they shouldve been?
Do you now test with one of Kolies protocols and do you find it better?
2 Likes
Or would they…? It’s very convenient that they landed on one that requires almost no estimate of your current FTP, and no pacing, making it very good for self-coached beginners…
Also, as a data scientist, data does not trump domain experts. If your data tells you one thing, and lots of domain experts are telling you you’re wrong… well in my experience it’s pretty much always either your methods or your data that are flawed.
1 Like
Yep, you’ve nailed it. And yes, my first step towards recovering and getting my training back on track was doing a KM FTP test. It was honestly less fatiguing and also more fun than a ramp test, and a great workout in and of itself. I’d recommend everyone try it at some point regardless of whether you believe the ramp test is working for you.
The most important thing though is not to get caught up too much on the protocol itself and calculating average powers etc. After the first bit under your target FTP, you should be able to feel it quite easily if you start to creep above threshold as you ramp it up.
No, he hasn’t. The universal solution is to not overestimate FTP in the first place.
1 Like
That’s good to know, thanks a lot for confirming! I’ve been reading the Kolie thread with some interest so it may be time to give it a go. I haven’t dug myself in to any holes with the ramp test so I don’t know that a different protocol will “fix” anything for me, but I’m curious all the same!
2 Likes
I invite you to present your version of that solution to the public right here in this forum in another thread. Please consider, though, that telling anonymous athletes they are wrong about pedantic matters might not be the best platform to influence people to your way of thinking.
2 Likes
I have to agree. I’m always open to other viewpoints and approaches but a post saying “you’re wrong” is in no way helpful.
2 Likes
It wasn’t too deep of a hole to be honest, not physically at least, mostly because I was only switching back and forth between low and mid volume plans, and it was probably only a matter of a few months during which I was training with my FTP set too high. Mentally it was very draining, getting through 10-15 minute supra-threshold intervals. I just kept telling myself “it doesn’t get easier, you just get stronger”, thinking that 300W or whatever was always going to feel the same, you’d just be able to “put up” with the pain for longer. All the while feeling like you’re not becoming a better rider in the real world, despite your ramp test results still ticking upwards.
I know exactly this feeling! Sorry if you’ve covered this elsewhere but what sort of reduction did you see in FTP as a result of the KM protocol? And did that lower FTP simply make workouts easier and therefore more volume tolerable? Do you now feel like you’re a better “real world” rider as a result of these changes?
1 Like
TR workouts are based on Coggan classic zones (with the addition of sweet spot).
The workouts are the same before and after the ramp test was introduced. The only thing that changed - TR now has 3 tests: 8-min, 20-min, and ramp.
1 Like
I know there are several discussions going on about longer-form FTP/Kolie Moore/Empirical Cycling Tests at present. I’m definitely in the longer-form camp based upon some more recent experience. Also, in addition to the links you’ve provided, and the Empirical Cycling podcast, I stumbled across the link below in (I believe) another thread here on the forum. I find it interesting that even an advocate of the MAP test (aka Ramp Test) admits: 1) there is variability in the percentage that should be used to determine FTP; 2) simply using 75% is problematic; and 3) longer-form tests may ultimately be superior in some instances.
2 Likes
I went from 320W to 300W. That might not sound like a huge drop, but it’s down about 6%, so imagine doing all your TR workouts at 94% intensity. Big difference.
And I’d say yeah, I’m a much faster rider now in the real world. When your FTP is set correctly, you’ll be able to see steady increases in your ability to handle volume, you’ll be able to feel your TTE grow when doing longer intervals, and so on. I can ride solo for hours now at a faster pace than I could hold for 10 minutes before, with barely a mid-way break to refill my bottles instead of a break every hour. Fast group rides are a breeze. Can’t wait for Crit season to start up here again in a few weeks! (Western Australia before anyone has a go for racing during a pandemic, been community transmission free for over 6 months IIRC… long time at any rate).
4 Likes
Not confused. If you do a FTP ramp test your resulting number is not one you can ride for an hour,
If it is, you then would do another ramp test ,and the number you get would be higher than your 1 hour number.
Think I will give it a try.
My estimate is similar to CaptainThunderpants. About 25 minutes.
1 hour isn’t the magic time to determine FTP.
2 Likes
I just did?
Don’t overestimate your FTP - period.
1 Like
Closer than a ramp test or a 3, 8, or even a 20 minute test, though.
1 Like