Yes, that looks it, thanks for the info.
DonĀ“t know if this article has been discussed on this forum already, but IMO it fits quite well in this thread.
Can you trust the FTP test to give correct threshold power?
The article describes the results from this research paper:
Basically, the study compares the results from the 60min and 20min FTP tests, as well as a lactate testā¦ and I quote:
āThe authors highlight that their results correlate well with the FTP model on a group level. However, when looking at results of individual riders, the situation changes. In other words, the average results fits well with the FTP model. But the results of individual riders often did not.ā
So yeah, no wonder some of us either under- or overperform on the ramptest 
There seem to bunches of similar studies out there. I think the bottom line is that NONE of the various tests of āthresholdā are truly interchangeable. The only choice is therefore to pick the one that best serves your needs, and stick with it.
3 Likes
Hi @briansteve77 The progressions arenāt really different from those that you have seen on TR or elsewhere. Iām just pointing out how I come up with a target intensity.
For example,
MAP - 400.
I might do 85-90% MAP for a set of longer intervals (4 mins on, 4 mins off, for example). The progression would still be ādo more next time to build time in zoneā. And of course there is the whole discussion about 90% maxHR, but donāt want to derail the thread. Again, itās just a way to come up with a sensible target and then adjust if needed.
In the example earlier, if Iām doing 30-30s, I would need to go higher intensity than the longer intervals, so 100% MAP for 30s on, 30s off (or maybe 15s off). Even when you based the intensity off of MAP, you still need to adjust a bit. But I find I have to adjust much less than when basing off of FTP, and most importantly, Iām not adjusting that intensity and ALSO adjusting my FTP-based intervals.
Summary: if you have to adjust intensity for HIIT intervals, that shouldnāt necessarily change your sweet spot intensity. And having the two numbers gives you that flexibility. Itās poor manās iLevels.
2 Likes
For 30 / 15 intervals I found that around 105% of MAP got me to around 91-93% of max HR by end of third interval set of 3 x 13 x 30 / 15 with 3 min recoveries between sets.
I found that by just tweaking the interval intensities till I was in that ballpark. If I was reaching 95-97% of max HR by end of third set of intervals it wiped me out. So I dialled it back.
I didnāt want it to become a hero workout. So yeah you did one big session but then it killed you for the rest of your sessions for the week etc,
1 Like
I did a lot of 30 / 15 intervals in 2020. My progression was
3 sets of 8 x 30 / 15 with 3 min recovery
3 sets of 9:x 30 / 15 with 3 min recovery
3 sets of 10 x 30 / 15 with 3 min recovery
3 sets of 11 x 30 / 15 with 3 min recovery
3 sets of 12 x 30 / 15 with 3 min recovery
3 sets of 13 x 30 / 15 with 3 min recovery
Works perfectly with two high intensity a week with a three weeks on, one week recovery cycle. Ramp retest then start again at 8 intervals per set hopefully at new higher intensity.
I ended up at 105% of MAP. I did try 108% but that pushed me up to 95-97% but that was too much. So you need to experiment with the number of intervals, the intensity, and the balance of work to rest.
Despite the on / off nature my HR looks like this during the workout. Short recovery doesnāt allow the HR to drop much during a set.
3 Likes
@GoLongThenGoHome there are riders like you on the TR platform. Congratulations to you for finding a solution. I often wonder what that cohort are doingā¦athletes on the other end of the distribution are probably more vocal. Athletes in that 80% to 85% range are probably just cranking out workouts & not getting the gains they could. (or maybe no gains? Iām not sure)
I stopped using the ramp test after a few ābadā results. The ramp test appeared to work more times than not, but the inconsistency was unacceptable and easier to go back to other tests.
Yeah I donāt know.
If I have three sets of VO2 intervals calculated back up from ftp I want it to feel like
First set. This is bloody hard but I can do it
Second set. Still not fully recovered , itās harder, but I can repeat what Iāve did in first set.
Third set. Even less recovered. But I just need to do this one, then Iām done. About halfway I want it to feel like Iām going to falter. But Iāll dig in count down the next minute etc and get there.
Maybe HR increase 1-3% across the three sets.
So I want that progression during the session. If itās not happening then maybe ftp too low. If itās getting much harder too quickly maybe my ftp is to high?
I wish more people would not be afraid to change their ftp up or down outside or after testing. Plus have that feel and / or review after a session. How did the session go, did it feel too hard or too easy and at what point did that kick in?
Itās why I have a regular workout to calibrate if the ftp number feels about right. If you have a regular workout you get a feel for how it should feel and progress over the series and sets of intervals.
Similar to @GoLongThenGoHome, when Iāve compared my FTP was hovering around 82% of MAP. I did two ramp tests and gave up on it because I was already doing threshold intervals about 10% higher than what it said my FTP was.
I think we hear more about people who āovertestā because it leads to them imploding during workouts or over the course of a training block. If I wasnāt as experienced or in-tune with my body and what āthresholdā feels like (or compared with a 20min test), I might not realize that the ramp test was underestimating by quite a bit. I would just go through the workouts and maybe they werenāt putting me in the right zone, but it wouldnāt cause me to implode by being too easy. So not optimal for progress but not causing a catastrophic implosion like over testing could.
1 Like
I totally agree. I think the hard part is doing this for new cyclists or cyclists who might be new to structured training. New cyclists might not know what threshold āfeels likeā. Or if they arenāt used to longer intervals might not know what threshold āfeels likeā when your 15+min into an interval and a couple intervals deep.
1 Like
Okay I just completed a ramp test ahead of restarting a build.
My highest 1 minute power came out at 317.5 watts. Which is 238W FTP via the trainer road formula. But I tend to set the ftp to 0.8 of that valueā¦ In May 2018 a lung function study showed my LT2 at 81.1% of VO2 max. That gives a ftp of 254 watts.
Last July it was set at 252 watts and Iāve been in maintenance mode since then. Just one high intensity session a week. So seems the maintenance has been successful and Iām now ready to kick off another build off a much higher base than last year.
Build under polarized for me means two high intensity sessions a week. A three week cycle and recovery and retest every fourth week. I then have 4 low intensity rides a week on top of that.
As above if VO2 max workouts scaled off ftp 254W prove too hard. Iāll bump it down. I have no problem with that. I am just interested in scaling the intervals appropriately.
1 Like
Of course the range of 5% is not a 2-3% error, the error needs scaled by 4/3 to get it relative to 100%. Mind you, if we say that the range is Ā±3% (because 75% isnāt in the middle of the range!) then the actual error is still only 4% for the majority of riders. Not sure I believe that given the range quoted for a 20 minute test, when this is, in effect, a 5 minutes and 30 second test.
Mike
The problem isā¦when you read papers where people are actually asked to ride for an hour at 75% of MAPā¦this distribution is much wider than 97% of people in the 72% to 77% range. Iām just thinking about Gollnick, Coyle, Coggan. All that data is much more dispersed than a 5% range. Even for experienced cyclists. And of course the data I already linked in this thread.
Not that āsome guy said it in a blogā isnāt absolutely bullet proof data. Iām sure it is.
Hmmm, I made a lot of money in the stock market off āsome guy said it in a blogā recommendations so I thought everything on blogs was ātake it to the bankā rock solid advice 
3 Likes
Has anyone else seen the video on Seilerās youtube channel where he reviews some research into decline in VO2max and FTP as athletes age?
One thing I found interesting is that FTP does not decline as quickly as VO2max because fractional utilization increases / improves. That has got me thinking that as one ages the ramp test is going to increasingly underestimate FTP as over time FTP will increase relative to power at VO2max / MAP. And older athletes are increasingly likely to āunder testā on the ramp test if a static percentage of MAP is used in the calculation.
Baby. Full smash every time.
1 Like
Thatās interesting. I really struggle with VO2max intervals, Iām 61 for reference. Iām fine on intervals around threshold but itās as if everything is compressed once I get much above that level.
Iām soft. It happens. Need to hang that HTFU sign back on my seat and get busy smashing vo2max twice a week for the next year.
Hereās the video, jumping to the part I found most interesting:
