Looks like you picked the red pill 
single sided I presume?
The more rapid the increase in power, the sooner you will fail, but you should hit a higher limit.
Yes. I’m considering getting the right sided one so it doesn’t get so lonely. Though I’m not sure it would have made any difference in this particular endeavour.
Maybe. would be interesting to see. But I think it’s well known that the left/right balance of your legs can shift with different effort levels. At least that’s what immediately popped into my mind , when I read this:
Of course it’s hard to tell without having access to a bunch of different power meters at once 
It’s an interesting idea. I might look into it as I did used to have a dual-sided power meter, could be interesting to see how L/R balance looks. Could of course be another rabbit hole of uncertainty, inconclusive evidence, and confirmation bias, but I’ve got the time, so why not?!
Below is a graph of my Quarq PM (dual side), showing independently my Left, Right and power from my Kickr Core (“Virtual Left” in graph in blue). There are times when they all agree and others where the Left vs Right of the Quarq is a 20 watt differance. That being said, in the end they tend to have a very close average power.
ah supercool. Interesting how your dominant leg switched a few times. Have checked the last minute of the test? would be interesting to see, if the FTP came out the same with the two power sources.
I didn’t realize that a Quarq can measure each side independently? How does it do that, when torque from both legs is applied to the spider?
So I looked into your suggestion. Here’s the best minute from a couple of ramp tests (different protocols) last year, from a pair of double-sided Garmin Vectors:
So it does seem like I my left leg tires a little bit more when I get to the pointy end of a ramp test. And if my power from my left-only Stages was 345, but my left leg was only providing 47.2% of the overall power, then my actual last minute power would have been (345/2)/0.472. Which = 365.
Or in other words, 
There you go 
1 Like
I see the same kind of differences when looking at the L/R from my assioma pedals. Overall balance is generally pretty good, but I see significant swings in balance for “short” periods of time. Short here being 10s of seconds, so this isn’t just a few pedalstrokes. Doubling the left numbers from the graph you posted would give some very different numbers.
Yup 
@old_but_not_dead_yet, @iamholland. I don’t believe it’s “fake” in the Quarq as each crank arm attaches to the spider at a different point and has separate strain gauges associated with it. It measures both crank arms simultaneously and then adds them together for total power. At least for the Quarq, there are no “assumptions”. This is all way over my head but that’s my understanding.
Yep agree with a better power profile integration. I love TR but after every ramp test, I have to adjust down 10watts to make the longer sweet spot/ftp intervals achievable, and avoid burn out after the first 2 weeks. My test is too much influenced by my VO2 power and muscling through.
1 Like
I think you can argue all day about which protocol is best or suits you better. If you continually fail your intervals then the FTP is too high. If they are consistently too easy then it is too low. You can then just manually tweak it.
1 Like
I don’t really care how much time TR spent on the ramp test or how good they think it is. It isn’t good for me. I have 5 minute power that is good compared to my FTP. So, the TR test always overestimates my FTP. VO2Max workouts afterward are always easy and I always struggle on FTP intervals. The half Monty looks at heart rate decoupling as well as the ramp test. It ends up raising my 5 minute power by 10W and lowering my FTP by 10W. After the test both FTP and VO2Max workouts were difficult but just doable. So, for me, it is a better test. Your results may vary. I also would rather do a test that gets good results for me rather that manually adjusting things myself I still do TR workouts but I use the SF numbers.
4 Likes
Agreed. I think what’s interesting and what lots of coaches are acknowledging is that the two systems anaerobic and aerobic are working differently. In ftp number we would look at aerobic endurance whereas the ramp test ends up in the anaerobic. This always baffles me.
Sufferfest is the Burger King of Indoor Training Platforms. They wait for McDonalds (TrainerRoad) to do all the R&D, Product Testing and Marketing AND then they simply copy that. It is a business model that works, as proven by Burger King, BUT you will always be running second place.
1 Like
Not really accurate. SUF added actual Strength Training, Yoga, and Mental Training as integrated parts of their program. TR has slowly added bits of Strength Training, but lacks the others.
SUF and their 4dp integrated adjustments are something TR doesn’t offer. People can argue about how much any of these matters, but they took some effort and time to make this part of their system.
Much of this comes from differences in approach and priorities. The connection between TR and SUF from the co-founder Nate and Reid is an interesting one. But I think it’s unfair to paint SUF as some sort of copycat.
11 Likes