I see, so that would mean ideally you could ride at your Ramp Test derived FTP for 30 minutes at 80-83% of your HR max.
No - different ramp test to TR.
1 Like
Martin is correct. This is a different ramp test. The TR one is 1 minute steps. This one is 3 minutes at each step.
Actually ideally you would be able to ride at 75% of MAP power for an hour or more with your HR at 80–83% of max. It’s not about the power only. It about holding that power without your HR climbing into threshold and Vo2 ranges.
4 Likes
Yes, this is a good point.
There is a very big difference in how one trains when they want to be as fast as they can be for this season vs. how they train when they want to reach their potential over the course of their career.
3 Likes
Yes, but most MAP tests get you “close enough” to each other, that’s why ppl like them so much. It’s the “take 75% of MAP to get this other value” (FTP) that everybody gets bent out of shape about (for good reason, IMO). So you could likely use a recent TR ramp test (the MAP value, not the FTP) and be pretty close. If not, use a recent best 5 min effort. Using MAP to measure aerobic capacity is no really controversial. It’s deriving threshold from that value that is the stretch.
But as you point out @Bikeguy0, he believes it’s really about getting that 30 min sub-threshold heart rate capped test to start to get closer and closer to MAP (so improving fractional utilization). What does he prescribe to achieve this? Tempo and endurance with HR caps. Maximize sub-threshold load. He also likes athletes to regular test MAP to prove to them that yes, you can in fact improve maximal aerobic power without doing any sessions above threshold.
To put that last sentence in TR terms, if you’ve ever done Sweet Spot Base Vol 1 (I think that’s the one with pretty much only sweet spot work) and you’ve seen your FTP improve, what you’ve actually improved is MAP. Same thing.
2 Likes
I do think that depending on your anerobic contribution the TR ramp test will give a higher MAP. As an example my max 1m power on the TR test is around 380 watts pushing almost 400. On the Steve version it is 350. That is a huge difference.
That is why I like Steve’s more. Due to the longer steps it ensures a more level evaluation for people with high and low anerobic capability.
1 Like
Curious to know how your HR trended over that 1:03? Damn impressive effort!
I’m not all that familiar with the history, however my understanding it that 3-minute stages are a Canadian Cycling Association standard. And 20+ years ago Hawley and Noakes published classic paper that used 2.5 minute steps, and it included the Hawley-Noakes equation to estimate VO2max from MAP.
Thought this was an interesting read:
Different protocols (1-min, 2-min, 2.5-min, 3-min) have been studied, and all sorts of interesting things have been found depending on who is being tested, the length of stage (1-min vs …), and even the length of the test. See paper above for a quick overview.
Regarding use of MAP to estimate FTP, I’ve seen a fairly broad range of multipliers for “average” cyclists, and that doesn’t include outliers as discussed in this thread. Just like other field tests (e.g. 8-min, 20-min) that avoid lab testing of lactate, there seems to a lot of individual variability in using MAP to estimate FTP.
4 Likes
@tshortt yes, I agree, pick a protocol and stick with it. I’m using TrainerRoad’s protocol, only wish we had a Hawley-Noakes equation for vo2 estimation from TR’s 1-minute ramp test. I’ll continue using 5-min power from TR ramp as best (one-time, not repeatable) vo2max 5-min power. More than good enough for benchmarking and measuring performance.
In doing non-ramp tests for FTP, even something as simple as a TR threshold workout, it becomes immediately clear if TR ramp test estimates for FTP are good or bad. I’ve had mixed results due to age and being a diesel, sometimes 75% is good estimate of FTP and sometimes not. So I’m finally going to give the Kylie Moore baseline test a try. So far I’ve been really happy with WKO (and Intervals.icu) estimates, assuming I do a long enough hard effort which naturally happens with the type of outside riding I do as soon as February.
1 Like
I’m very intrigued by the perspectives given by Steve Neal and Bob Seebohar, currently looking into metabolic efficiency testing locations in my area. The concepts to me appeal to the individual nature of training/nutrition based on differences in metabolic efficiency. Personally I’m going to pursue these ideas further, an off-season ‘project’ if you will.
Started at 153 BPM after warm up…finished at ~175 BPM. Max HR is about 183.
It depends, he had me doing 1 min steps with 10 watts increment
I donno, my trainer road ftp seems to be about exactly what I can do for around an hour based on my race data.
Found flo a few weeks ago. Ive listened to your whole library already! Awesome content and structure and keep up the great work EH!
3 Likes
If you go back to your latest TR test, what is your average power from the last 5 minutes of the ramp?
My 1min power on the last TR test was 363, and my 5min power was 333. That sounds roughly in line with the difference between your 2 tests, so I wonder if 5min TR power might be a decent estimate of MAP?
1 Like
@batwood14 Thank you for all the answers in this topic. A lot of useful information.
I would like to ask you one more thing. Has your diet changed after the end of the racing season?
Interesting question: 326 watts which is exactly what I’ve scored on the 3m step version. The reason I said 350 in my original post is I was only 10 seconds away from holding 350 for that last step. So yeah it looks like it may be a comparable number at least in my case.
2 Likes
So you held 350 for 50 seconds but it didn’t count because you couldn’t hold it 10 seconds more? Kind of seems unfair that you get the same score as someone who failed 61 seconds into 325 watts…
Happy to hear you are enjoying the show. We’ve got more episodes on the way!
3 Likes