Even Coggan published stuff outside of training peaks, which would have been the intellectual property of where he worked. Nothing Coggan did was revolutionary.
Take a bow. You sir, just won the TR forum for 2020 in my book. 
1 Like
I love the Sufferfest 4DP. I don’t even really do that many Suff workouts in their app but it is my preferred testing protocol. I do 4DP and also sprinkle with max efforts of various durations to keep the power duration curve accurate. 4DP does test certain true maxes but the value it provides vs. doing a “testing week” (and letting something like WKO extract the curve) is a different thing. But for example, your “true” 1 min max is actually less representative of what you can do at the end of a hard race than your 4DP one min. You’re misunderstanding the point of it if you think that a WKO-style testing week is somehow “more valid” than 4DP because they don’t test identical things; they have a venn-diagram overlap but it’s not coterminous. You could pick one or the other but you also could do both.
And FWIW I would be willing to bet that (i) plenty of elites use something along the lines of 4DP, at least sometimes and that (ii) it does have physiological backing (just because some other high-level coaches have a different philosophy doesn’t mean the first is wrong, otherwise we’d be in trouble).
This is a good discussion of the debate, definitely worth a listen: Fast Talk podcast, ep. 33: Is FTP dead? - VeloNews.com
I have no opinion on the SUF ramp test vs. other ramp tests, btw.
You didn’t answer my question? What have you seen that was like it before?
Rohan has does the FF testing protocol (though out on the road, same duration efforts and recovery though) at least 2 times a year for the last 6 years. Source: I have worked with Neal for over 10 years and have seen the files from a handful of them.
4 Likes
We actually use the power:heart rate ratios across 3 different sections in this test to enable us to make an accurate estimate of your sustainable power output. That’s why the 20 minute has a constrained heart rate goal, and no power target at all. This is been the culmination of many years of work, lots of data, lots of tests in the lab, and a lot of number crunching. I’d suggest you (and everyone here) give it a try just to see for yourself. The 14 day free trial means you won’t have to pay to try it out.
2 Likes
We have been fortunate to have access to large datasets of many different athletes. We are also fortunate enough to have a lab where we have been able to conduct this protocol (or slight variations of it) on dozens and dozens of athletes, measuring O2 consumption, CO2 production, substrate utilization, lactate, and of course power and heart rate which allow us to determine Efficiency and Economy amongst many other things.
Our biggest (Neal Henderson and myself) concern with implementing a ramp test is the fact it can significantly overestimate an individual’s FTP, especially if they are newer to training, or are more anaerobically inclined. That is why we have incorporated the heart rate constrained section, as it gives a picture into an individual’s ability to produce power aerobically. We can do this by taking 3 different sections of the test and looking at the power to heart rate relationship across what is essentially a recovery effort, a submaximal effort, and a 9+ minute maximal effort.
Figuring all of that out, and then gathering and analyzing enough data to validate this method is why it’s taken us well over 2 years to get a ramp test into the app. So there is indeed lots of data and science going into this one!
2 Likes
That’s because it was a silly question. It’s like answering someone who demands to know why the world is round or worse global warming is real.
2 Likes
You made the claim? Are you saying that you just made it up?
Guys, I can’t even be bothered to read up to the start of the argument, it sounds so tiresome. If I wanted to read squabbling about Coggan, I’d go to the wattage forum.
There’s actually an interesting discussion here that’s in danger of getting lost in this pointless bickering.
7 Likes
Hi Mac. From the video, it looks like the SF ramp test is actually fairly similar to Trainer Road’s - 1 minute steps, with the jumps depending on your expected FTP. And then you’re compensating for the potential anaerobic contribution with the HR element of the test.
My question is, where do you get MAP from? From what I’ve heard, MAP is usually derived from a 5min all-out test, or the best 3 minutes of a ramp test with 3min long steps. And neither of those appear to be used here.
I appreciate the offer, but I’m good. I’ve been doing this long enough not to put too much value in any one single test result (of whatever format). I prefer to adjust my FTP numbers based on my workout trends, not how I did on one test on one day.
3 Likes
Yes, that’s exactly what I did. Training peaks are gods and you are a genius. Now I’m going to hurry out and set fire to some 5G masts.
No, you can’t say that. Now you must sacrifice your first born to the gods of Training Peaks or a plague of locusts will descend and eat all your cabbages.
2 Likes
You know there’s an ‘Ignore’ function? I tried it. It works. 
1 Like
I didn’t actually. Thanks for telling me!
1 Like
Here, I did your homework for you. Straight from Coogan’s mouth.
"4dp is nothing new…back in 1999, Friel proposed essentially the same approach, but with (IIRC) eight “dimensions” (i.e., reference durations), spanning from just a few seconds out to many hours.
The problem with Friel’s approach is that it is too cumbersome, and fails to recognize that muscular metabolic fitness (for which FTP is a surrogate) is the single most important physiological determinant of performance over any duration longer than a few minutes.
Because of the above, in 2000 I described training LEVELS that use FTP as an anchor point. As I emphasized at the time, and have pointed out numerous times since, such LEVELS (not zones) are meant to be primarily descriptive, not prescriptive.
Despite my efforts, many (including Sufferfest, at least up until now) have naively and mistakenly used my system to PRESCRIBE training, often via “canned” programs/workouts that don’t entail direct input from a coach/direct interaction with the athlete.
Since FTP is a surrogate for the single most important physiological determinant of performance, this last approach still actually works, at least across most intensities/durations. However, issues can arise during supra-FTP efforts, since individuals can and do differ in their resistance to fatigue under such conditions.
To try to fix the problems created by their own initial, naive mistake, the folks at Sufferfest now claim that “FTP is dead” and that they have invented a novel approach that is better. In reality, however, all they have done is wind the clock back to the end of the previous century, prescribing workouts based on reference maximal efforts of the same durations I originally used to construct the power profiling tables. Not only is this a step backwards, it fails to fully recognize that, e.g., a maximal 1 min effort does not represent the same physiological strain for all individuals. (This is why iLevels, which provide individually-optimized targets for both power AND duration, were invented)."
1 Like
I don’t think this is the right way to think about. TrainingPeaks is a very different beast than Sufferfest or TrainerRoad, its fundamental design, strengths and weaknesses are very different. And to say Sufferfest ripped them off I don’t think makes it justice. Moreover, there are so many ideas that are just good, like power curves that show you best power on the y-axis and time on the x-axis. This is just a good idea, but nothing that should set one product apart.
Sometimes the justification comes after the fact, and you are only able to validate your claims, because you started measuring it. I think it is good that Sufferfest tries something different than TrainerRoad here. Because in the long run, I think it will be important to take more than your FTP into account, and somebody has to try it before it is accepted as what you should do.
2 Likes
If you’re going to quote the messiah I hope you’re wearing the special hat
No, just my temple garments (seriously).