My own 4DP test results, just for fun :)

So alongside TrainerRoad i’m also using a free trial of Sufferfest, just to see what it’s like. I was curious so this morning I did the 4DP fitness / hardness test, and the results are here:

The test suffers from the same problems as any test–it’s sensitive to pacing, it’s just a “snapshot” in time, you probably maintain a level of psychological arousal that you really can’t maintain for training purposes, etc. It’s definitely more sensitive to pacing than, say, something like the ramp test. Using WKO4 and periodically doing a variety of max efforts is probably the best way to get a power profile.

But at the same time, it offers a quantum of actionable insight that other single-test protocols don’t, and you can use it as a stopgap when you don’t have enough max efforts for the WKO4 profile to be meaningful.

For example, I always knew that I was punchy and used this to my advantage. I never had a great sprint, but if you dragged me to 5k to go, you might be in trouble. And, i knew that my 20 minute power overstated my MLSS when using 20 mins x .95 test protocols.

I thought that meant i had poor endurance but good Vo2max, but i can see from this that i was wrong. Rather, i have pretty poor Vo2max ability but a strong anaerobic capacity that was propping everything up. Granted, i probably could have gone harder in the 5 minute test (this was more about early-season lack of confidence vs. consciously trying ot save something for the 20 mins), but still.

It also probably reflects training focus. I just spent an off-season doing mostly easy rides plus lifting weights. Heavy weights might be mostly ATP-CP but i think it’s clear that like, sets of 12 at 65% 1RM are strongly anaerobic (my guess is that the body back-fills from the next-most-quickly-available energy source after running out of CP). I’ve done hard rides but they were mostly chasing strava KOMs, which of course, when you do that, you’re not training your weaknesses but rather using your strengths. So, i’ll be curious to see how this changes over time after doing some hard intervals that are 2 mins or longer.

For comparison, WKO4 puts my FTP somewhere around 270. I may or may not be able to really compare a recent ramp test because my ramp test might not be a valid result. I.e., my only ramp test was a few weeks ago and I got 237. It’s possible that low Vo2max scuttled me before AC could take over, but it also could be that I had just spent a week skiing at elevation and was all goofed up from that.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know TR has a power profiling workout but the team should consider publishing knowledge base articles / blog entries about how to use the insights from that to (very carefully) modify TR’s plans to individualize them, if warranted.

1 Like

How does this differ from Allen/Coogan’s power profiling?

Probably not that different tbh. off top of my head, they interpret it for you, they base it off of a different population (i think the Coggan et al data includes people like track sprinters so an average Joe’s 5 second power could be off the charts low, making it harder to get any result besides TTer :slight_smile: ), plus they do it all in one workout vs. collecting maxes.

If memory serves, there is no “attacker” phenotype in the WKO4 / Hunger Allen / Cogan model. So my results would have put me into TTer, probably, which would hide some of the insights.

Looks good and gives you data beyond FTP which I think is valuable. Great work!



I’ve not spent any time looking at “amazing new 4DP profile” features, however I am using WKO and there is a LOT of info in WKO5 including age adjusted charts like this:

and easy comparison to previous seasons, lets compare this season to my best season from 3 years ago:

A lot of headroom to grow :slight_smile: this year, plus ability to customize any chart to your liking. A bit of a learning curve with WKO5, but I suspect the feature set is unmatched.

1 Like

I think that’s right that the WKO5 feature set is the gold standard. And you can design your own charts and functions to do things like, what’s your 1 minute power AFTER having done XYZ KJ of work, or whatever you want (because that’s another part of the SufferFest test–the 1 minute power isn’t really your “max” because it comes at teh end of the test, etc.). And then design workouts to “test” these things in the field, later when you analyze them with the software. I have 4 (haven’t upgraded to 5 yet) and it’s pretty dope.

It’s just less user friendly. LIke if you thought of it on a continuum, where TR + ramp test is the most accessible and easy to apply, and WKO5 is the least user-friendly but deepest features, SufferFest would be somewhere in the middle.

I think WKO4 touts a new-fangled power-duration profile based on Coogan’s model. I was really wondering how your 4DP results compare Allen/Coogan’s classic power profiling, which has been around since at least 2006 (just checked the 1st edition of their book).

WKO4’s power duration curve has been superseded by that used in WKO5. It’s far better.

Yeah, I’ve heard that it gives you a higher FTP.

Me, I’m still using WKO+.

Read as paunchy, as was very interested how you did that :wink:

1 Like

I’m not sure that’s true, and that’s also not why it’s better. They did a lot of work to smooth out the impact something like a short sprint will have to FTP…