not a TR workout, it came from a member of the Over 60 Team. My recommendation is to go outside and do it, or turn off erg and use resistance/standard mode. Challenge yourself and do it old school. Read the article, you are suppose to self-pace and develop a feel for working at your threshold. Its not suppose to be an erg workout.
I will give it a go outside. It’s difficult to maintain consistent wattage (say, within 20 watts +/- of goal) outside, but on outside TR workouts, I have a screen with 20 min avg. that I monitor and adjust to get close to the goal.
Let us know how it goes. On my Garmin 530 my preference is to use 10-sec power, lap average power, and real-time color coded power graph (it shows ~90 seconds).
I am 65 going on 66 later this year. In great shape and been riding for 2+ years and training with TR for about 6 months now after doing 2 years of somewhat intense training with a privately coached riding program in the Chicago area. It was owned and operated by a former pro rider from the US Post Office team. Gave that up after too many crashes during the outdoor rides. Anyway, love TR but agree that designing workouts for “masters” riders would be beneficial. I think a combination of more frequent recovery weeks and more time in-between our intensity workouts would be great. I train 5 days per week TR and wish there was a 4 day per week plan in the Plan Builder also. I know, I can always delete on workout from the typical 5 day plan presented to us but hard to do for us type A athletes who always want to finish each week’s workouts. Those are. my thoughts and thanks for listening Nate, Chad, Amber and Jonathan.
I haven’t done the Kolie Moore test yet, but have more incentive. On today’s 45 mile group ride, with a fair amount of climbing (2.5 hours; 17.3 avg), my normalized power was 214, which is higher than my FTP, and the IF was 1.05. That’s a first for me.
Here’s the case I made back in March last year for a PUSH DAY. This functionality would relieve the rider from a strict 7-day program (or 8 or 9) by allowing the insertion of an additional recovery day without interrupting the rest of the program or having to skip workouts. At 62, I generally am good with a 7-day plan but when need an additional rest day I have to perform calendar backflips. I LOVE the push week–I always push (and thus clear) the following week to the one I’m on, allowing me to drag and drop things into that week to accomplish the push day or two. It’s a lot of fiddling which could be solved with a push day. Of course that push would only affect workouts and would retain my races and other manual insertions into the calendar. I still think this is a capital idea that would allow the athlete to follow the plan and the body more closely. I just went through a bout of gastroenteritis (four days of diarrhea) and would have simply pushed my workouts out one day at a time, then resumed when my body felt ready. The push week is already one of my favorite tools in the TR calendar. The Push Day would be a more finely tuned and more convenient feature for all riders, but especially for people whose lives don’t necessarily operate on the classic 7-day cycle.
So, I did the inside Kolie Moore test as revised in the over 60 group. The new version test portion is 39 minutes long and goes from 96% to 115% FTP. My average was 221 watts, which (as I understand) is my new FTP. My last TR Ramp test was in July was 207. This result supports my belief that the VO2 Max focus of ramp test may inaccurately measure FTP in senior cyclists. I completed the entire test without hitting exhaustion and could have gone longer, so I still plan to repeat outside when the weather cools a bit. https://www.trainerroad.com/app/career/davidwms/rides/88535284-kolie-moore-baseline-test
nice 35 minute effort! Did you like it? Yes, based on that test your estimated FTP is around 221W and possibly a little higher (could have gone longer). And your time-to-exhaustion is 35 minutes, and possibly a little higher (could have gone longer). Would be interesting to compare to a Ramp Test within the next week.
Thanks. The pain was longer than ramp test but more bearable. On balance, I prefer it to the intense pain of ramp, but I didn’t experience TTE here. I will try to do a ramp test to compare early next week. (I also use intervals.ico, and it showed an eFTP of 219 after the test.)
well you didn’t exactly follow the protocol so both eFTP and TTE are likely floors. One of the goals of the protocol is to get people out on the road and learning what it feels like to ride around FTP. So if you do it inside again, be sure and take it out of erg and just use TrainerRoad to show you the target. Don’t be focused too much on hitting an exact target, learn to pay attention to how it feels if that is something you’ve never done before.
Recently revised? Looks like it’s a little different but I didn’t look very close a couple of weeks ago.
Revised = TR workout created by a member of a group.
I did indoor ramp test today and my suggested FTP was 209, which is about same as my last ramp test in July of 210. I went as hard as possible to the point of nausea at the end. Based on my NP of 214 on long ride and the truncated Kolie Moore test of 221 ten days ago, this adds fuel to my belief that ramp test does not accurately assess FTP for over 60 cyclists. Based on my actual power on long rides, I am certain that my FTP is at least 221. And I know of at least one other over 60 cyclist who left TR because ramp tests showed no improvement. I plan to write TR customer support with details and ask if they can get Chad or Nate to chime in. Granted, the ramp test is one alternative and designed to be time efficient, but maybe it should come with disclosure that it may not be accurate for masters cyclists.
FWIW my wild guess / hypothesis is that its related to FTP as % vo2max. When I lose my top-end, FTP often climbs above 88% of vo2max. Thats when I start seeing unpredictable and weird ramp test results. While that may impact more older cyclists, it can happen to younger cyclists too.
I understand your point but you are but one example. I dont dispute what you say as I myself have not had my FTP increase but can definitely ride longer and harder at age 60 then I could at age 57-59 with my now current lower FTP per the ramp test. The one problem here is TR hasnt focused on older athletes. They have the data that would help in assessing this but we are not privy to it.
Chads comments in the past have indicated older rides do well if they just maintain their FTP. I do wonder if this is in part from the data and a test that may not lend itself well to those who are older.
I tried an outside Kolie Moore test today to assess against current FTP of 221 based on earlier indoor KM test. After warm up, I did three blocks: 11 min @ 210; 15:25 @ 232; and 15:04 at 248. I didn’t hit TTE (needed to save something for MTB ride with son this afternoon) but I was getting close. For that three block effort, my NP was 237, which is good bump from 221. Should you use NP or avg of 231? Further evidence in support of my theory to write Coach Chad and crew. https://www.trainerroad.com/app/career/davidwms/rides/89605632--kolie-moore-baseline-ftp-test
Yep, my only real gripe with TR, which I otherwise love. A few in the forum have said, well, it’s their data (i.e. property), so we’re just whining. Nah. Lawyers aside, we created the data, not TR – and by our sweat, literally, not theirs. Also, they know how old we are, but we don’t (unless we go out of our way to inform each other on the forum), so even our own attempts to help ourselves as a group are basically anecdotal. Sorry for the grump. Over a week of no riding, socked in by smoke. Finally lifted, and that’s good. Out I go, for a better mood.
Thought it was average power?
I think that’s what I read. I will go back and confirm. Probably a good idea to keep it avg. anyway to see if can do workouts based on increased targets!