Test and Regression Analysis of the Ramp Test...what's the r?

Hopefully I am not rehashing a topic here, but has TrainerRoad released the data they used to statistically validate the ramp test? Meaning, I’d like to see their charts, the sample size, the regression analysis, and the correlation coefficient of the analysis between all the variables. I ideally, I’d like to see 4 variables compared: ramp, 20min test, 2x8 min test, and 60 min test.

1 Like

How would they “validate”? Workout success/failure rates?

My best bet is that they won’t be sharing core data with anyone outside the TR org.


oh man…tough one. It’s only a guess based on my experience with ramp test, 2x8 and CP20.
I would hope for at least r=90 between the ramp test and CP20. Between ramp and 2x8 perhaps r=95. That may be wishful thinking.


Dream world? :wink:

Please clarify. I assume there is a test design that would yield reliable data. I don’t want to re-invent the wheel here and attempt to lay it all out, but let’s say you had a sample size of 50 cyclists, intermediate through pro (we would want to draw correlations from these sub-divisions as well). A simple test would have each cyclist do both the ramp and the CP20. There would need to be some recover time between tests (2 days? I don’t know), and some conditions laid out on when, how, etc. But the tests would be performed just as they would ordinarily be performed. We are comparing test protocols. If they follow the protocol, the test is a success. I am certain some sports physiologists have done this, but maybe not with the ramp test. I will keep searching,

I would be very suspicious if that were the case. In the world of peer reviewed science, that would disqualify any study on the spot. Legit scientific studies publish there results to be reviewed by the community.

X are the samples (cyclists), Y are the results of each test. But I pity the cyclist who would do this study! 4 FTP tests in how many days! Not feasible. Those aren’t real results btw. I was just showing an examples. That’s only n=12

Here is a study correlating FTP CP20 with maximal lactate steady state (MLSS). R=.91.

Now just need to find one comparing different FTP protocols.

Is this relevant?

This study compares the 8 min test with several other protocol (e…g, lactic threshold, VO2max). this one is promising as well, so both CP20 and 2x8m aren’t entirely ruled out.

I would need to track the source study down and study it. That’s an interesting one.

Isn’t that what Coogan has been claiming all along? I.e., FTP = power @ MLSS?


wow, a CP3! Check this thesis out. I have heard of a 3 minute FTP test before. Insane.

Suspicious of what? If you don’t like the ramp test, don’t do it.


TR’s not doing peer-reviewed science; they’re consuming peer-reviewed science and combining it with their own dataset and analysis to support a business model. Not only do they not have an obligation to release their data, but releasing it could easily breach their privacy policy.


Maybe a Moxy changes things but I wouldn’t trust just a 3 minute test, a longer one of about 10 to 15 minutes is also needed to get a useful value. Or if you don’t want to test at all just pick two max efforts from your “Personal Records”- chart and from the same time frame.

This is an easy to understand article about Critical Power over at www.gssiweb.org.

1 Like

Right, and as of now, TR’s use of the data is for their commercial venture. The data is reviewed and applied to their customers only.

They don’t appear to be approaching this as a study for broad consumption (non TR users).

If and when they choose to head that direction, I presume they would follow the appropriate steps. Until such a time, I don’t expect them to share it outside of their company. Great if they do.l, but I’m not holding my breath.


Poor assumption and misinterpretation of my post. Let be break it down for you. 1) I do like the ramp test, which has no bearing on my request for the data and research to support it; 2) any study that fails to publish and reveal its data is not a legitimate scientific study or credible for that matter. That suggests marketing motives, vs. informing athletes with evidence based research. That is the ground for my suspicion. I suspect that their data has some variation on correlations that might not support the zeal of their marketing behind the test. Does that mean I won’t use the test? No, because my own anecdotal evidence of the test shows a strong correlation with the CP20 and 2z8m tests. But one, nor even several anecdotal testimonies of a test does not justify the test for the community. These are two different matters.