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!