I’m not talking about FTP. I’m talking about mean maximal power at various time intervals. You can’t know your five-minute MMP from your ramp test. It’ll be low by a significant amount. Some things you just have to go do.
Assessment ≠ training
The purpose of ramp tests and progression levels is to prescribe the right workouts for you. The ramp test determines your MAP, which serves as the base line for the power levels. Progression levels are then used to fine tune things. That is because TR adapts your workouts not with respect to your all-out power levels, but with respect to the power levels at which you can consistently do the workouts as prescribed. It is important that they are lower for otherwise you would kill yourself during training.
What you describe is an assessment of important points on your power curve. Its purpose is different: you want to see whether you have improved what you chose to improve. If your goal was to lift your <=5-minute power, then you can see whether it did.
And is for most people not necessary, because they can obtain the data points on other rides. E. g. I obtain all my sprint power data from TR workouts and my <=5-minute power PRs from smaller climbs nearby. On longer climbs I do it the other way around, I compare my power relative to my FTP.
I disagree, but again, not willing to invest in this discussion. I’ve stated my opinion across two threads. Best of luck to you!
1 Like
Highly likely the ramp test is not accurate for you having a flat power curve (I assume). I’d suggest doing 20min test. In fact, for many people I’d say this.
mFTP in my experience is much closer than a ramp test. This is based on what you have done vs a ramp test being highly influenced by anaerobic capacity. All tests have flaws, but for people good at steady state, and poor short power, ramp test has more flaws than the alternatives.
Maybe try using 300 and seeing how ‘Lamarack’ goes.
You simply cannot make an assumption without a tremendous amount of data that a multiplier of 1.07 is in anyway accurate for anyone else but you.
Even if it is true that there is a multiplier between indoor and outdoor FTP, which I do not believe to begin with.
Unless you are using the same power meter inside and out, you have a few percent on the trainer power meter and bike power meter. Even if YOU are using a crank based power meter, where you are getting data from the same device inside and out. Others are not, and others are using different power meters.
So to come up with some factor like this you would need high quality measurement equipment that you have many subjects come and use the same equipment so that you take devices out of the equation and leave it entirely up to the human generated power.
I’d also suggest that there are many environmental factors that can come into play. Such as fans, inside temperature and humidity vs outside temperature and humidity, wind, sun etc…
Also, outside if you are riding with friends and you get pushed mentally more to hold onto them. While inside you don’t have the mental toughness to push yourself on the trainer. You can find yourself finding that your ‘FTP’ seems different, when it is not different at all.
Have you read the comments in the following post?
Granted, the information is self reported and could have some various errors, but most of the respondents indicate a lower indoor FTP relative to the outdoor FTP.
People don’t perform based on physiological ideals. We perform based on the situations we ride and variables present. Outdoor situations and variables most of the time lead to higher power outputs relative to indoor situations and variables for most people.