And I would add the limitations of that measure are more apparent the further your race/event/goal distance is from the duration of FTP, be it 35-45mins or a little over an hour.
What better way to measure how well you are improving at (roughly) race duration than to actually assess what your power would be at race duration? Even if it’s inaccurate as long as you’ve erred on the side of underestimating all is good.
On the other hand, I have gotten significantly faster over distances exceeding 100k and my FTP is basically the same. This is after a few years of structured training where I saw steady improvement in FTP. Once it plateaued I looked to other measures more relevant to my goals.
The OP may not be at this point yet or care to ride longer distances. And everyone can and should work to improve threshold, to a point.
So if I want to know the power I can hold for an upcoming 100 mile TT, am I better off retesting my FTP, or having my LT measured at the local uni?
I know, I know, I should just suck it up and do a 100 mile simulated TT like triathletes like to do, but I’m afraid of leaving my best effort in training.
I think that is close enough to FTP that you would train FTP. The debate usually swirls around “ok, what’s the best way to train my FTP?” It’s a debate I no longer participate much in. Without a significant change in volume/load etc., my FTP is basically where it’s going to be. If I eek out 10W more (putting aside the fact that this marginal increase is likely within the error of the PM, the protocol, etc), then what have I really gained over that century ride. Nothing.
There’s people who test more favorably on the ramp test and have deficits in other areas, and there’s people who test more favorably on the 20 minute and have deficits of their own. I know a guy who can do 375w for 20 minutes during a TT (in the real world and on zwift races) but can’t crack over 340 on the ramp. “Look at the number of people” implies a big number and there’s no basis for that.
Valid, but look at other hour rides with a .92IF (like Kaiser for example) and I’m sure you’re not going to find people passing with flying colors. Also we don’t know how the people who passed tested, or what test they used, so kind of a moot argument saying “look people aren’t completing this high IF ride” and implying it’s the ramp test’s fault
Perhaps, but take also Kaweah for example. It’s right after second ramp test in the SSB progression, and also in a bunch of Build plans. 5x10’ between 96-99% with 5’ rests should be doable by just about everyone with a correctly set FTP who’s at least made it through SSB1.
I might be wrong but I do believe Jonathan has said this is one of the more difficult workouts. While other non-TR coaches have said 10min is the minimum Threshold interval they assign.
That one was tough for me, but I was also super new to structured training at the time and came off an FTP bump from 268 to 281. Last year I finished it no problem but first year I did turn down the final 2 sets. Can’t just assume that someone not finishing a workout at 100% over tested on the ramp though. Perhaps they did, perhaps they bailed early because they had things to do, maybe they are sick, or didn’t sleep well, or have an injury. Now if there’s a consistent pattern for a user who can’t complete numerous workouts of a similar intensity, that’s something to look at, but we don’t even know who used what test protocol
Hard workouts are hard, shocker. Sweet spot is tricky because it feels hard, lot of them I feel like I want to quit because of the discomfort, but mentally push through and don’t feel like death when I’m done. Like I said you can’t just look at incomplete workouts and assume that person over tested on the ramp and that’s the reason they can’t complete it. I mean, you can assume whatever you want, as can I, but that doesn’t make it absolute.