Totally my newbie self when I started TR.
Then there’s this guy who started TR this year and just did Kaweah:
If we’re thinking about the same thing, I thought that was about Antelope +5 or something similar.
You’re right that we can’t just assume, but I’m seeing approximately 1 in 3 failures - that’s too high a number to just wave away… you can also click on the user and see their calendar, which a lot of people leave public.
And that’s only accounting for people who over-test - people with low VO2max relative to FTP (ie high fractional utilisation) or low anaerobic work capacity / FRC / W’ / whatever will likely undertest significantly on the ramp test and sail through the intervals without necessarily gaining the full benefits.
And it’s not just the data for clearly simple bread and butter workouts that we have to go on, it’s also the number of threads on here dedicated to such topics, or that indirectly lead to discussion of such topics.
And more importantly, there’s the expert consensus. Ramp tests are a proxy for MAP, which is only very roughly a proxy for FTP. Nobody who knows what they’re doing seriously uses them without a met-cart.
I’m just saying I’ve already been over all this before. Already looked at the folks who have FTP that is sub 75% of MAP. Those people exist & they have to figure out how to handle that gap because TR has already taken the position that TR is going to remain silent on the issue.
Things I’ve said about the ramp test in the past…
"I suspect correlation between TR MAP-based FTP estimate and actual FTP or actual hour performance is not that great. For a few reasons:
1.) TR is pretty honest with their user base. They never talk about this. We talk about it a bunch. What does that tell you?
2.) A progressive ramp test is designed to estimate Maximum Aerobic Power, or MAP. Pegging FTP at 75% of MAP is using an estimate to make an estimate. Usually such things don’t have good R^2. 
3.) There is a lot of data from other sources suggesting that individual variation from the 75% rule can be substantial. Anecdotally, I think dialogue on this forum only serve to support this notion.
MAP-based FTP is a tool. It designed primarily to improve testing compliance & I think it’s good for that. Directionally, it’s a good measure of what’s going on with FTP. On an absolute basis, it can certainly OVER report FTP and UNDER report FTP. Individual users should be aware of where they sit on that continuum and either adjust plans accordingly or take steps to correct deficiencies (see my hour of power threads for more thoughts on those steps)."
" Here is what I think is going on: TR uses (primarily) a MAP ramp test to determine FTP. Most would perceive all TR plans to be FTP based but they are not. They are Maximum Aerobic Power based & the first thing you do with your Maximum Aerobic Power is multiply it by 0.75 to get your ‘FTP’. So, really, all training plans are based on 0.75*MAP…not FTP.
Here is the problem with that MAP-derived FTP number: if you compare the actual FTP to the actual MAP of a population of riders with similar MAP you get a BROAD distribution. Remember that paper from way back in the day by Coyle and Coggan where they did exactly that? Determined FTP as a percentage of VO2Max for a bunch of trained cyclists? Some of them were 60% & some of them were 85%. A lot of them were less than 75%.
TR has no way to deal with those riders who have sub ~70% FTP. And in fact, at least for the sustained power build plan, TR puts those riders into a destructive positive-feedback loop. Imagine our trained cyclist who has an FTP that is 60% of their VO2Max. TR uses a ramp test to estimate VO2max, then assigns an estimated FTP of 75%*VO2Max.
Yikes! Our 60% rider’s next workout is Avalanche Spire! The poor fellow is doing over/unders at (nominally) ~118% of his true FTP. That’s a VO2Max workout . So he slogs it out. Does what he can. It’s a super tough workout…maybe he can’t complete it all. People on the forum tell him it should be ‘hard but doable’. Especially those riders who are lucky enough to be in the >80% FTP-to-VO2Max club.
Our 60% rider is one tough cookie. He hammers through workouts as best he can. Then, when it comes time to do the next ramp test, guess what? He hasn’t been doing sustained power for the past few weeks AT ALL. He’s been doing a ton of VO2max work. Guess what that does to your Maximum Aerobic Power? It makes it better…so now his next ramp test…surprise, surprise…is a little bit better.
But his FTP probably hasn’t improved that much.
That’s what I think was going on with me. My physiologic profile favored Maximum Aerobic Power. As a result my MAP test results caused 75% of MAP to overestimate my FTP. So when I executed a TR workout at 95% of TR-ramp-test-derived FTP…I as really doing intervals at >110% of true FTP."
“just started TR”.
Doesn’t this jive well with the other thread of SS Progression?
There’s a whole thread with people just talking about building SS90% from 2x15 minutes up to 1hr+.
Would it not then make sense that the same applies to the TR plans? I.e. you have to train a while to do 5x10min at this intensity?
Seems to me people are struggling with knocking out long SS/Threshold at the beginning of a block no matter who’s ideology they are following.
And I bet some of is because of being stuck inside on a trainer. Doing well in such a mundane setting isn’t for everyone.
I suppose in theory 1 hour power is FTP - all the rest are just estimates used to set training zones - ramp/20/2x8 etc. That said I can’t hold my ramp test FTP for an hour - especially on the TT bike but it does seem to scale well for doable workouts on TR especially in SSB. For me it breaks down a bit in build as 108% threshold sessions are v tough using the ramp test and V02 max intervals longer than 2 mins are really tough too. Can get through Dade+1 but not Spencer+2. However, if I used my 25m TT power then most things would be pretty easy. Although I think I had a weird power curve as my 50m TT power was only 5W lower than my 25 when I rode 2 on consecutive weekends in August …needless to say I finished much higher up in the 50! 
Ha! Good job.
It takes me a good 8 months to claw my way up to 1 hour TTE >75% of MAP…and then a few weeks of VO2 work will send it right back down to 65%. That’s just the way it is. I don’t think doing a ramp test vs a 20min test vs a HA hybrid ramp will change that.
But I try to be open to suggestions.
Last spring I ramp tested at 290w, rode outside all summer, in the fall I did a long effort on a closed racetrack and held 325 for 20 minutes and 286 for an hour, my ramp test a few weeks later put me at 300w.
I feel like it’s mostly newer riders that overshoot the ramp because they have the burst power from riding like novices, but not the steady state to do well on a 20 minute test, and subsequently longer intervals near FTP in the plan (my first year of TR agrees). Everyone’s mileage will vary, and that’s why there are two other test protocols to pick from. Personally I do the ramp since it’s easier to be consistent, and less daunting to do inside than trying to pace for 20 minutes.
First time I ramp tested I got 268w, whereas doing a 20 minute zwift effort on Innsbruck the week before had me at 263w, so for me the difference is negligible, and I blame my lack of experience for my failed workouts in year 1, not the extra 5w of FTP.
None of the test’s are 100% accurate, all of them take an estimate based off of evidence from a large group of different types of riders and people. For people who specialize in 40KTT, a 20 minute ramp test will probably give them an estimate that is a little high, but for a Short track CX mountain biker, that test will yield a result that is probably too low. However it is opposite for the ramp test, a short track mountain biker would probably test a little high, but a 40KTT person would probably test a little low. What I am getting at is that everybody is different so all of these negative opinions, based off of very little knowledge, about these different types of test’s are invalid.
agree with all that and your 3 reasons
Directionally? I believe its a good measure of what’s going on with Maximum Aerobic Power (MAP), which is basically 5-min power at VO2max.
Perhaps that is where we diverge. Ramp is estimating “VO2max power (5-min)” and then we have the fractional utilization (FTP as % of VO2max) discussion which you get into and I basically agree with what you wrote.
Looking at my own data for 4 seasons, my fractional utilization varies from 82% to 89% over a single season. If fractional utilization impacts the multiplier to estimate FTP from a MAP estimate, and my fractional utilization changes over 9 months of training, why would I want to use a fixed 75% to estimate FTP from the MAP estimate?
As you said, the ramp has been sold on the podcast as a tool to increase compliance. The TR FAQ takes a different tact:
See why we are debating? TR’s official position is:
- ramp test gives an effective estimate of FTP
- FTP is a measure of performance
- FTP is used to guide TR workouts
My favorite part of the FAQ is where TR marketing department points out a good ramp test is better than a bad 8- or 20-minute test.
LoL. Our field is a confused one. There are more acronyms than real concepts and even less concepts that map to actual physiology. I can only add this: For us that don’t have good coaches, the best way to have some actual benchmark of threshold is to have a well constructed power curve, by that I mean have a healthy amount of really hard efforts and/or races in the 30-90 minutes, accompanied by good heart rate data.
Cheers!
My understanding is that FTP will typically be somewhere between 72% and 78% of final minute power of a ramp test. The 75% usually used is in the middle of the range, but will clearly be out by a few watts for many. With a ramp test last minute ave of 360W, for example, FTP is very likely somewhere between 260-280W.
If you really want to find out, take whatever figure you think your FTP is and see how long you can hold it for. If you manage around 40 minutes its about right…
Did the Baseline test from Kolie Moore’s page. I managed to get to 26:10, which gave me an average of 294W. I wasn’t expecting too much as I just swapped it in for a normal mid week workout, rather than take a recovery week. I’m going to re-do it after a proper recovery week and I think I can do better. This one was more to get a feel for it and how it felt. I found it a lot tougher than the ramp test, and my guess is because I haven’t done long intervals like that at/near threshold.
Maybe, but personally I:
- Wasn’t fresh for my first attempt
- Had only done TR plans plus one 30 minute threshold effort before, so very very little preparation for anything 20 minutes or longer
- Managed to hold target power for ~60 minutes the first time
- Found it less tough than a ramp test
I would say your FTP is lower than you expect. You should be able to hold it for at an absolute minimum 35 minutes, without issue, any day of the week.
Also don’t get too hung up on how you calculate FTP from the test - feeling it out takes precedence.
So you went too hard. Do it again at lower power.
Good news is now you know what you can do for 26mins. It’s not nothing, but I wouldn’t base training intensities off of it.
Were you able to hold 263W for 20m or was 263W the FTP estimate and you held 276-277W?
Nice 
Very interesting how everyone’s body responds differently. I found in Base, I had no problem and my FTP rose. In Build, I struggled (failed 1-2 workouts and generally felt much harder for all workouts), and my FTP stagnated. It wasn’t until I took some time to ride endurance that FTP started to rise back up.
Yea I think some of that is A. Because you’re carrying fatigue from SSB, and B. Because build is more TSS per week. Whatever works for ya
Did it again today at 295W for the middle 15min section, got to 35:42, with an average of 294W again. Now, my question is, how is this a better test than the first one if I’m getting the same watts? Is it just the length?
Also, some thoughts. Again, found this way harder than the ramp test. Both physically and, probably more so, mentally. I find the shorter length of the ramp test so much easier.
My other thought, or finding really, is that with this most recent test, I didn’t set a single power PR. 20min power was 11W lower for this test, 30min and 36min were both 2W lower for this test. Is that normal? Same power meter (Assioma Duo) used for outdoor and indoor rides.
Either way, I think I’m going to try 295W moving forward just because I like round numbers, so 6W lower than what the ramp test gave me.
To add, getting fitter is a simple concept but not always easy in practice. Do progressively more work over a specified time period. If you’re ever at a point where you start to fail workouts, the mind games start as we try to figure out why it happened. But a failure means typically workload was not met, and thus progressive overload will probably not happen for that micro cycle but may still be there for the macro cycle. This is why it is almost always better to err on the side of too easy as yiu can slowly ratchet up the training load.
The refusal of some here to see that if the metric to set your workouts isn’t based on your actual abilities then the goals of the prescribed workouts have then changed is just holding yourself back.