Ramp Test, Automatic Adjustment to Rider Profile?

That’s why I am suggesting a broader review with respect the power curve of the rider, specifically in the recent history. I am not talking about missed or problematic workouts from outside issues.

I am talking about a broader, systematic inability of some riders to perform workouts with the 0.75 derived FTP. Many people “overtest” and have to reduce their FTP based on repeat issues with multiple workouts following a Ramp test and the new FTP.

There is some level of introspection needed for any test. We see the same considerations for the 1x20m and 2x8m tests, where people may need to fudge the final FTP up or down a bit. They do it with respect to the test itself, but also from their prior knowledge of similar tests and the workouts that followed.

We need to do this even with the Ramp test. My suggestion stems from the apparent large number of people where the 0.75 value is not the best one. People have either ditched the Ramp, or determined a “fudge” factor that they use on the final assigned FTP.

My thought was to consider the rider power profile, as at least one factor that may point to a better prediction of an appropriate multiplier, when the 0.75 is not “right”.

2 Likes
  • My bet is that the avoidance of pacing is a bigger factor. Doing a proper test effort in the 1x20m or 2x8m tests is far from easy and something of a learned skill.
  • New riders have little to no idea how to do one properly, and end up with a “bad test” in many cases until they get a few under the belt. Those bad tests require guessing to interpret an FTP when they aren’t performed well.
3 Likes

Really cool idea Chad and I will happily pass this on! With the work we are doing into “smarter” testing and progression, this could certainly be something we look into :+1:.

9 Likes

Thanks for the consideration. :smiley:

1 Like

I don’t mind the idea of a “Full Frontal” Test and would love to see if TR wizards could figure out good ranges from it.
The issues I see when it comes to best 5 minute and 1 minute power is that they are all relative to other work. I mean one could go all out get a 5 minute PR but then immediately get punted out the back.

I think the potential for messy and incomplete athlete power curves may make implementing such a system difficult.

I actually think The Sufferfest might be on the right track with their “Half Monty” test, which there was a big thread about recently. It gives you a similar ramp test to TR, then asks you to cycle for 20 minutes at a particular heart rate (which will be a % of the max you achieved on the ramp). It then uses the power you achieve at that heart rate to measure your steady-state ability and adjust your FTP accordingly.

I don’t know if they have the data or the science to back up the number it produces, but the theory seems fairly sound to me.

Edit: alternatively, go the other way and follow the ramp test with a max 1min effort to determine your anaerobic capacity and repeatability under fatigued conditions…

2 Likes

There’s a novel idea.

I would love to see someone like Lionel Sanders do the Half Monty SufferFest test. On the bike my HR rarely ever tops over 170. I understand that know test is perfect just would be interesting to see how it does.

Yeah for sure. There’s a lot of factors which can influence test results as much, if not more, than a rider’s power profile. Given that, I feel like it’s more appropriate for the individual to make their own adjustments as needed based on their own judgement and prior experience. Obviously that doesn’t help on the first few tests, but I’m yet to hear of a way of determining FTP that doesn’t become at least somewhat more accurate if the rider has more experience with the testing protocol.

I also think it’s really common for people to second-guess a ramp test result if they’re weak at a particular sort of workout, which more often than not is the one they haven’t trained as much because it’s not as enjoyable. I feel like these situations are often more indicative of an area that needs to be worked on than an inaccuracy in the FTP value, and that in itself can be helpful.

1 Like

in particular if you are only doing TR indoor workouts

3 Likes

How about simple method like… if someone failed(or paused a lot) 2 or more consecutive threshold or ou workout, TR automatically detect “possible overestimate of ftp via ramp test”. Then notify one to adjust his ftp or edit that 0.75 multiplier…

Yes, this is my story. once I used ramp test result as it is, I barely finished SSB LV when I was newb to structured training. Never bailed during workout but have to pause in order to finish the threshold or ou workout and the trend kept on. I eventually hit burnout and stopped training a while. Now I took 0.95 to ramp test result(roughly 0.72 multiplier for ramp test) and happy with current progress on my SSB MV.

I wish TR has some way to adjust ones multiplier based on ones workout history or let person to choose the value. for example, I might set my custom multiplier as 0.72. When I loose pedal in ramptest, TR prompt me two possible ftp estimate. one with 0.75 and the other with custom value of 0.72. Then I accept one of them. I know I can manually adjust my ftp value but this seem provide a little bit of seamless user experience(I think). After all, one’s ftp could be 0.7 ~ 0.8 of MAP.

If ftp is overestimated, it will affect subscribers loyalty as “I’m not fit to TR” and bail. In reality it’s simple as adjust down ftp value and you can see your progression. But that knowledge(adjust ftp!) require some time in structured training. Feature of adjusting multiplier would be good for both UX and loyalty of newbs.

2 Likes

this thread looks very interestings, if there will be a automatic, i think it would be helpful to syncronise your body weight too from external sources like Garmin Index scale, or?

1 Like

you mean like the 4DP Profile?
SUF acts as if they had invented it, in reality it is just a special type of marketing, but an implementation in this direction could be very interesting, because it helps you find out your weaknesses easier and of course TR could offer workouts for these weaknesses (by automatic or so), or?

1 Like

it could be a combination of 2 Tests (linked together), you have to ride on 2 different days or so, as soon as you have finished both tests, the final power profile can be calculated or so?

Before I forget, a power profile should also take into account the age, I have not seen it often, but in WKO5 or intervals.icu you can see it quite nicely age adjusted, so the driver type should also be able to be determined, such as:

All-rounder
sprinter
Time trialist
Climber
Steady-state rider
Pursuiter

I also like the evaluation in power-Meter.cc

1 Like

I don’t think weight is a particular factor in this idea. Power available on a given test day and the recent history power curve are what they are regardless of rider weight.

We do have an open. Feature Request for weight tracking and sync with smart scales. So that is already covered.

I would like to see the AI move in the direction of not needing tests all the time. There would need to be an initial test and possibly 1 or 2 throughout the year, but if TR is looking at our workout/ride performance it already knows what we’re capable of. I would like to see FTP adjust based on performance. Not performance of a single workout/ride but of numerous recent efforts (14-30 days).

Much like how TR has a pop up after a ramp test to “Accept New FTP”, this could be worked into the software to do this periodically. An example: “Based on recent TR Analysis we recommend a new FTP of XXX Accept/Reject”. TR could go into further explanation and give data points on how they derived this “new FTP”. Then the user could determine if it was accurate representation based in stress, sleep, fueling, etc.

6 Likes

I think they should do both of these, or something similar.

The goal would be to figure out the % changes in ramp test derived FTP to set the right targets for 1. Threshold/SS work and 2. VO2max work.

You’d do the ramp test to get a baseline, and then these two additional tests to tweak from there.

You’d only need to do the set of three tests periodically - maybe just once per year - As the longer you ride with TR, you get to know how you respond to different workouts, and you get an understanding of how to best adjust ramp test FTP to inform targets for different workouts.

And you could do the ramp test more frequently by itself, and use the adjustment factors from the initial set of three tests.

The additional two tests could in fact be incorporated as actual workouts early in each plan. That way they would feel like workouts and not tests.

This is imminently doable - it’s just a question of priorities, and having the right combination of data analytics and understanding of physiology to design the best approach.

I take the ramp test FTP and reduce by 5% for example. And TBH, I don’t do the ramp test very often, because my FTP does not change much up or down, and I’ve gotten used to adjusting workouts targets manually if things are too hard or easy.

interesting for a Power Profile over a longer period, for example a avg of the last 42 days?

1 Like

I hear you on that! My simple mind can’t get around how to approach this, though. For example, I like to look at efficiency factor on some types of intervals and I think it could be a good indicator of progress, but a lot of people don’t use HR. And absent other physiological stuff I can’t perceive how completing intervals would necessarily indicate growth, especially for people who don’t have a ton of outside data where they might set some PR’s for wattage over time. Having something that accounts for incomplete data/limitations is hard from my point of view, but I’m sure smarter people than I are working on stuff like this

Most of these “problems” would disappear if people weened themselves off of erg mode and got comfortable doing interval workouts with range/zone watt targets instead of being locked into hitting a single number thrown at them by a computer.

You don’t need artificial intelligence if you just develop your own :wink:

6 Likes