With all due respect mate, your a fully grown adult and we should all know better than to talk trash back just because they said it first.
2 Likes
No doubt. I miss the NBA.
1 Like
Honestly who even tests anymore? 
2 Likes
I thought this video was fine. The TR ramp test is a good protocol and that’s why Zwift and Sufferfest have since copied it. The TR ramp test works for most (80-90%) of people but there will always be outliers. What’s wrong with other programs trying to fine tune a proven method?
I’ve had the TR ramp test be too high for me (following Traditional Base) and then later in the year being spot on. This season the ramp test again was too high starting SS Base but is now spot on for SPB.
5 Likes
Yeah, I hardly do and I (mostly) get along fine. Having a decent history of HR/Pwr I can see shifts in HR and that gives me a good indication of where to go. Coupled with the fact that any changes aren’t going to be much more than 5-10w it’s pretty easy to just make adjustments without getting oneself worked up over testing protocols
4 Likes
I’m not a Sufferfest fan or even a Sufferfest user, but from what I understand, I think people misunderstand the point of doing the Full Frontal efforts on the same day. They’re not always looking for your maximum possible power for each duration.
The 5 minute power IS your maximum for 5 minutes, to get your MAP (Maximum Aerobic Power).
BUT it also serves the purpose of depleting your anaerobic reserves, so that your 20 minute test is aerobic only and gives you a more accurate idea of FTP than a fresh 20 x .95.
Then the 1 minute test isn’t so much a test of 1min max power, but of fatigue resistance and repeatability. Which frankly is of more use to a racing cyclist than a one-off, fresh 1min effort which tells you little beyond “how well would I do on a very short hill climb competition?”.
I think there are flaws in the test, not least the fact that it’s so physically and mentally taxing. But I can see the theory behind how it’s put together.
13 Likes
To me there is simply too much focus on test varieties and subsequent results. Everyone is trying to find a short-cut, more palatable way for all varieties of athletes (beginner to seasoned vet) to estimate the wattage an athlete can hold for approximately an hour.
I stopped doing TR ramp tests because I didn’t really feel like the result was useful in establishing an effective training plan for me. I have not done a TR ramp test since August 2019.
However, my FTP is up from the last TR Ramp test at 270 to 317 from a test I did yesterday. I think all of the tests from Zwift, TR and Sufferfest are essentially an attempt at recreating the wheel. They want their own spin on the same fundamental question. I don’t use TR ramp tests but I happily use TR every week. I just found a better way of testing (which is really just estimating) FTP for me.
As long as you can use something that allows you to train in a manner that increases your fitness and abilities which variation doesn’t really matter much.
2 Likes
Yes, but is there any scientific backing to the assumption that the test has any use? Doubtful.
The most important point I was trying to make, is that by doing so many different things all at once, you simply cannot get any good data with which to set targets for your training.
Frankly SF ripped off the folks at training peaks/WKO and are basically doing what those guys came up with. 4D sounds fancy but it really isn’t going to solve your training in some magical way. It still requires inputs from SF workout designers on how they read your power curve and assign time and power levels to your intervals.
The real question is whether 4D provides a noticeable amount of value over doing a single test. And I would say at this point they have not developed a very powerful algorithm or scientifically justified approach to take training to the next level.
These ‘Tailored’ approaches require a lot of customization by coaches or workout designers. One could just as easily move their target wattage up or down a few percent and hit their targets.
I also believe a lot of these people who are making posts saying they are struggling, are the same people who are trying to get their FTP artificially high. I think a lot of people do extra warm ups and take in especially good nutrition on their ramp test day. Then they don’t do anything before their regular workouts. I bet they are also giving themselves a few extra points onto their FTP wattage. Maybe rounding up to the next 5 watt numbers.
I think you can. With the caveat that I simply don’t know how much science they have behind it.
For example, remember that one of the most common issues with Trainer Road (acknowledged by the guys themselves) is that for intervals above 125%, the ramp test becomes less of a predictor of your ability. Some people (like me) really struggle with those intervals and have to reduce intensity. Maaaaybe a 1 minute test under fatigued conditions might actually be a better predictor for your capacity to complete such a workout?
Second example - the anaerobic contribution to the TR ramp test can sometimes mean that anaerobically-inclined athletes find that it’s set too high for sweetspot intervals. Maaaaaybe doing the 20 minute test after the 5 minute test depletes your anaerobic contribution and actually gives a better idea of your ability to do a 3x20 sweetspot session or suchlike.
8 Likes
I wonder when sites like TR/SF are going to start using better on-the-fly analytics. I mean use Xert, Inscyd, or WKO type analytics and apply them to every workout, with values for ftp and whatever changing day by day. If the system needs to test a certain scenario then insert it into the plan as part of a workout. It would probably help to tie it together with HR and power.
I guess this will be the future of these types of systems.
6 Likes
Training Peaks/WKO didn’t invent any of those concepts. They all existed elsewhere before. They just monetised them first.
4 Likes
WHile I do use HR and power, I think making day to day decisions on targets using these two is difficult and a bit misguided, just because there can be a ton of reasons why HR can vary. I look at longer term trends in HR in relation to power as a guide of how my training is but I don’t (and wouldn’t) increase interval power just because my HR may be a little lower or higher on a particular day in relation to a day or 2 ago.
1 Like
They aren’t targets for isolated intervals in most videos. Most occur during a hard session. The idea isn’t to set a target for what you can do when fresh but what they can get into a tiring session without causing people to give up and stopping them surviving the next bit.
I much prefer them because my sprint sucks so I would previously kill myself to hit the sprint power targets and be dead during the hardish bit after, even though those are the bits I’m good at.
Even most of the ones with discrete on/off events have them in series, so it stops being the obvious target zone after a while.
Where I think they differ most is in how they change so much between different zones in the same workout and it probably explains why they needed to do this more than others & why TR can get away with a global adjustment mechanism.
What existed before Coogan’s power profiling? In running you of course have stuff like Daniels’ V dot tables, the Mercier score, etc., but those aren’t really aimed at the same thing, are they?
1 Like
Same. I also don’t really get some of the tribalism around various apps or platforms. They all have advantages and disadvantages…trying to shit on one to bring your favorite up is silly…use them all and then you have a wider range to draw from and a better idea of what works best for you.
8 Likes
That will give you a decent FTP estimate on Intervals.icu! So long as its at least 3 mins. If you are good anaerobically then do a longer effort. My favourite is a 7-8m 9% climb 5 minutes from my house. Not quite enough warmup but still a test I can repeat whenever I like.
2 Likes
Hey lorin26100, I made a blog-style review of the differences between taking a single point FTP test and a multi-step test like the 4DP here (Rate yourself as a cyclist from 0–100! | by Alex Fastfitness | Fastfitnesstips | Medium)…but to summarise: the more points on the power-duration curve then the more accurate the profile of your physiology…theoretically 10DP would be better but impractical! You can extrapolate from any single point on the PD curve whether thats 20min or 8min or 60min but you are then assuming the curve shape is entirely typical for you (and that’s not mentioning whether the adjustment percentage is in itself correct eg 90% rule 95% rule 105% rule etc). We try and account for the curve shape differences (which are in reality infinite) by giving you a drop-down menu rider profile when modelling your power from a single point (FFT Magic Power-Duration Curve (FTP) Predictor [Link: fft.tips/curve] - Google Sheets)…however if you have the data on multi-point testing then our ranking calculator (FFT Rank My Watts as a Cyclist! [Quick link: fft.tips/rankme] - Google Sheets) gives a superior picture. Ultimately it’s a question of convenience vs accuracy. Most people want something quick and dirty within lets says 5% of the truth, but others want a very precise answer within 1-2% and are prepared to do the extra work to find it.
3 Likes
Ha I just watched the cam nichols video on my youtube and popped over here as I thought it might cause a stir!