Enjoying TR while FTP goes up?

You might be on to something. I’ve been eating enough - but not sure whether I’ve been eating the right stuff. I think I need to dig into the nutrition side of things. I do pop the odd GU Roctane get on the bike to give me a kick, but that’s probably not the same as topping up the glycogen stores in advance.

Thank you

As per another post: I’m thinking I need to pay more attention to nutrition.

Thank you for the feedback.

Very possible. I did Short Power Build and never made it to Specialty Phase as the outdoor season started. But to help maintain fitness during the outdoor season I focused on VO2max workouts…so ignored SS altogether. Thanks for pointing that out.

Is that a “TR approved” way of addressing this issue?

Thanks Chad. Based on the feedback, I think I will address this in the following order:

  1. Optimize nutrition, if still struggling then…
  2. Do “Lamarck” at 95% of current FTP to see if I can pass.
  3. If 2 is yes, I might keep the current FTP because maybe I can “adapt” to Lamarck over the course of the Base phase, if not I’ll adjust FTP down.

Thanks again.

Chris

2 Likes

No… but I hope the guys would acknowledge that the ramp test FTP is a bit of a blunt tool. They’ve tested it thoroughly to get it at a level that’s going to work for most people, but there will be some outliers. And I honestly don’t believe that a single test can guarantee to give you the exact right numbers both for 10+ minute SS/threshold intervals, and 30-60 second anaerobic / vo2 bursts.

1 Like
  • They already acknowledged (in the podcast that debuted the Ramp Test) that it is not perfect for everyone. They admitted from the outset that there are and will continue to be outliers. Nothing new to claim or acknowledge.
  • As with ANY test, they will work for some people better than others. That is the reason they maintain the 1x20 and 2x8 tests in the catalog, so people can substitute and use them as they see fit.
  • The Ramp is the default for them because it is good for a large number of people and easier to perform in some ways, when compared to the other tests.
  • TR makes no “guarantee” like that, because it’s simply not possible. There are too many variables to have a single test capture all of that.
  • That fact is part of the reason they spend time educating about the need to review test in the first place, as well as consider and apply workout intensity adjustments for some workouts (like VO2max and Anaerobic) to suit the particular feel of each rider.

Agreed… my post wasn’t intended in any way as a dig at the TR guys or product. But if you’re a fairly casual user who doesn’t listen to podcasts or spend a lot of time on the forum or reading geeky stuff about training zones, it’s easy to expect the ramp test to work perfectly for every rider in every situation.

1 Like

Enjoying TR :rofl::joy:

1 Like

I wish more people were capable of manually adjusting their FTP or the workout intensity based on their varying fitness and capabilities - but absent that level of self-knowledge the tests make sense as a proxy.

Frankly - if you die once on a workout that’s fine, try whatever is next for you. But if you are dying on every workout just lower the FTP setting. You don’t need to retest, you have it set too high for you to complete that workout

I’d go a bit further - if you’re failing or feeling particularly stressed and burnt out on workouts with an IF as low as Mount Field you probably need to lower the setting until you get back ahead of the curve

1 Like

The same could be said for any test, any training plan, and just about any aspect within this realm of training and racing.

Nearly everything is much more complicated than it seems at first and more than we hoped it would be.

The axiom “We don’t know what we don’t know” is ever present here. Nothing is really simple or easy, sad to say.

Here’s a thought, combining this thread with the discussion over on the Steve Neal Flo Podcast thread.

Maybe the TR guys could introduce HR recommendations into workout descriptions. Like Steve tells his riders they shouldn’t go over 83% of HR max on a 3x20min session, it might be useful to have something like “aim for x - y HR range during the intervals”, so if you’re going way over that, you know you’re overcooking it. You’d have to know or estimate your own maxHR, but for those of us who use it, it could be a useful little extra instruction.

IMO RPE estimate for workouts would be better than HR.

Lamarck with a properly set FTP should feel like a 7 out of 10. Mount Field is probably a 5 out of 10.

1 Like

Different coaches have different opinions. I’m firmly in the power camp, based on two years of HR intervals followed by three years power-based intervals. I spend a fair bit of time reviewing data and learning what matters for my training. Your mileage may vary.

1 Like

Yeah, I didn’t get 5 out of 10 on Mount Field yesterday.

I wonder if I might have “overtested” the Ramp Test because I know the break-even time. It provides just that little extra motivation to push further that you don’t have on SS workouts.

The other possibility is that I do my workouts on indoor Stages bikes in the gym. Each has its own power meter…

LtS

Rpe is a bit subjective, especially it goes up with duration but most people probably don’t know their true max hr either. Also hr should be thought of as a cap, and not always a target during an evenly paced effort.

1 Like

Sure, definitely subjective, but it’s generally less variable than HR and is more transferable across individuals.

Main point I was trying to make is that if Mount Field feels like an 8 out of 10, you are either having a terrible day or your FTP is set incorrectly.

2 Likes

i agree.

Just did Mount Field today, by coincidence. It was maybe 6 or 7. But then I did a road race on Sunday so my legs are a bit on the sore side.

While I was pointing out that your RPE scoring might be a bit more tailored for you, I was still agreeing it was probably better than HR. :+1:

1 Like