this isn’t a slouchy schedule either. It just hits home to me, yet again, that there really truly is no alternative to riding volume. The schedule you mentioned is sort of similar to mine currently. What I find is similar - decent fitness (hell, even PR level fitness) but it fades really quickly, and my endurance on rides fades after 2 hours, even an 1.5 if I’m pushing it. No getting around it, if you want to truly improve and create lasting fitness you need to put in riding volume. This is where the SS method might be helpful, but still isn’t as good as crushing big hours on the bike.
My slight tweek to training is blowing off 2, (yes 2) structured training sessions per week in favor of a very brisk weekly group ride 2.5 - 3 hours on the mountain bike. I’ll still do one focused workout per week but putting my energy into riding longer when I can. We’ll see…
There’s talk here about the scale of the drop in FTP being a reflection of the testing methodology. In other words, using the FTP drop as a means to criticise the ramp test.
I seem to favour a longer test, but being objective I’ll ask: are there really no examples of a rider completing longer tests losing 10% fitness after a crash or time off? Or as @ErickVH suggests, has Nate just not spent a lot of time up at 370w yet in order to sustain that number after a setback?
I’m not leveling criticism at the ramp test, but you need to keep in mind what it is testing and consider that along with other factors that might result in the ramp showing a 10% drop.
FTP protocols are not an exact science. Your threshold and motivation will vary from day-to-day.
Right!? This is a good point. I’m yet to see an FTP estimate from the Ramp Test that I could sustain for an hour. But in the same breath, the test is so good for completing consistently and following your progress. I’ll take 25 minutes over an hour of suffering any day!
It’s not likely that your FTP swings up or down 10+% in a short period of time, but it’s quite possible your MAP swings that quickly and that is what the ramp test is really measuring.
The ramp test isn’t a great approach to estimate physiological FTP, but it does a decent job coming up with an FTP number to base my training zones on. I think it’s particularly good for setting v02 max zones since that is really what you are testing with a ramp test. That’s also the zone that I need help getting right since it can move quickly.
The ramp test might back into a “wrong” ftp because my FTP isn’t the typical percentage of MAP, but my V02 max training zones are still on point because the zones are set using the same typical (wrong) percentages.
Alternatively, I’d say the ramp test isn’t so great at setting zones for FTP and sweet spot work. From my perspective, that’s OK because those zones don’t swing as fast and I have a pretty good feel for them and can make adjustments at the workout level. If you are doing over/unders for example, you should have a really good feel for where your FTP sits.
Got the update from Chad regarding ‘Brittle Fitness’!
Simply, if your fitness builds quickly, it can just as easily dissipate quickly. Certain capabilities can be trained up rapidly, but they face a similar time course when it comes to their decay. That doesn’t describe Nate’s situation because he put in the time & consistency–his fitness is about as deep as it gets without doing 20- or 30-hour weeks. I think he mentioned that he’s dealing with a number of challenges, both on & off the bike, but none of them are a matter of brittle fitness.
I think that any time you are asking your body to ride above FTP you will see some variability in your abilities day to day.
Nate’s “ramp test FTP” is down but I would guess if he went out for a 2 hour spirited road ride today vs. a month ago his average power would be about the same, regardless of his ramp test FTP.
Daily life stress can really impair your motivation for ramp testing and your overall desire to suffer. That impairment looks significant in a ramp test but probably is nearly indiscernible in terms of his actual ability to ride his bike fast for longer efforts.
His fitness is anything but brittle but that doesn’t mean he is immune to a bad few weeks which can lead to a crappy ramp test result.
Im not sure it is a lot. Given how much talk of crash and recovery around Le Tour this year, I wouldnt be surprised to hear riders being described at 90% fitness, or people near their very peak of performance losing 10% after injury, when the body naturally diverts resources to recovery and discourages physical activity.
Yeah, I don’t think this is a matter of “brittle fitness”, testing protocols, or whatever. injuries happen, you lose a bunch of watts. You also get them back really fast- and IMO that initial ramp test is more useful to make sure you’re working at the correct level and give yourself the best chance of success as you bounce back, rather than as an actual measure of fitness.
If your training up until that point produced improvements, I don’t think there’s any point getting too deep into it or worrying about what you could have done differently. Sometimes a bad day is just a bad day.
Also kudos to Nate for putting his disappointing test results out there so we can pick it apart on a public forum.
It’s really great that Nate shares his assessments with us!
On the other hand, I’d love to hear a statement from chad to theses huge variations iN FTP.
My FTP is not even close to Nates (only 325@75kg (-> Triathlete) and I am not doing the sport for years or nearly as consistent as Nate. But my FTP Variations are more like 10W, so these 40W jumps seem strange…
I measure my FTP always with the ramp test, so it is not just a matter of the test protocol…
Nate must have been off the bike for approx 6 weeks.
You say you were off for a few days. That could be anything from 3 to 6 days. It does seem odd that you would have lost anything after as little as that… Unless your injury /illness has caused lasting effects?
I don’t know the facts, so can’t really comment on this, so it would be helpful if you were to expand on your info.
