When the Ramp Test doesn't track well to FTP

Sorry: High Volume Sweetspot Base.

Thanks Chad. I am going to do the ramp test ā€œblindā€ next time. I took the 20 min test on a Friday and then did the ramp test on a Sunday. Interestingly every ftp test I have done 20, 8 or ramp has given the same result within 1 watt. When I did the ramp test I quit because I freaked out that the test would give me too high of a result. I stopped. I know I could have gone about 30-60 seconds longer. Not sure how that would have impacted on the result. I like the idea of doing it blind.

1 Like

Is that potentially just one of the main issues here. I e read in other threads that the high volume plans are really that - high volume. Is the overall work in the week just too much for right now?

I donā€™t think the high volume is the issue since I felt like I was above sweet spot from the very first day. I did go into the ramp test very well rested and prepped for max effort similar to how I did the old test.

Thought Iā€™d chip in here with my experience. I did the 20m FTP test and got a result that was in the ball park Iā€™d estimated from riding along side my power meter equiped cycling buddies (they were putting out 250w and theyā€™re similar size & build to me and last year I did a WattBike FTP test). I completed a specialist programme (Road Race Climbing Race med volume). I completed that plan, did my race (and performed well).
Re-tested my FTP this time on the ramp test and it fell by 5 watts a small %age, BUT I was expecting a small increase.
OK numbers donā€™t lie. Iā€™ve just completed Ericsson & Mountfield at the new (reduced) FTP and I was toying with it HiCadence >110 and low cadence 60rpm too just for good measure and I bounced off lively and energised. Whereas prior workouts left me gasping & hoping for an electrical short circuit to put me out of my misery.
So Iā€™m going to redo the FTP test but do a 20min one to see what has really changedā€¦if anything.
I think that holding 105% FTP for 20 min suits my distinctly non-sprint type performance whereas hitting FTP 125% for anytime brings me out in a cold-sweat! Iā€™m a grimpeur not a rouleur! (well I was when I was a lad, now Iā€™m a geriatric-eur :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

My first ramp test scored 230, after two weeks i had to take it down to 220 and it worked a lot better. On sunday i did a 20 min ftp with a score of 217 (garmin picked up 227 from this test), did a new ramp test on tuesday with a score of 243 (garmin picked up 235). I have done the sweat spot base mid and are now going to continue with low volume and add 1-2 pass/week. I started cykling in august so it is pretty new to me, but i cannot understand the big difference i get between 20 min ftp and the ramp test.

FTP is the power you can hold for 1 hour your 20 min value is normally around 5 % higher . So if you do a 20 min test all out deduct 5% form this value and you have your FTP .

It seems to me that the ramp test is just stage one of the two stage process of arriving at your true* FTP.

Stage 1: Ramp test
Stage 2: Do sweet spot/threshold/VO2 workouts and adjust FTP accordingly.

Also, note that if you do the ramp test in ERG mode at high cadence, gear selection (and therefore flywheel speed and the resulting ā€œhelping handā€ of inertia) is critical and means that:

(a) Higher gear = easier to keep going at higher wattages = higher indicated FTP

(b) Lower gear = harder to keep going at higher wattages = lower indicated FTP

  • for ā€œtrueā€ read, ā€œas close as you need to get for the purpose of fixing the intensity of TR workoutsā€

EDIT: none of the above is actually a problem, the point is not to get too over-obsessed with the actual number of the FTP, as long as itā€™s right for your own training plan and you use it consistently then all is good and the TR system is fantastic.

6 Likes

Darkgerbil,
I use a dumb trainer so thatā€™s not really a problem. I set it to 5% incline and rode it according to power (i.e. speed) demands.
My concern is that if I base all my activity henceforth on the lower TR FTP figure Iā€™ll regress. Last nightā€™s session was a fine example of that my TSS was 26% greater than suggested and the IF was 11% greater. And I wasnā€™t drained.
I think the FTP test needs redoing and this time use the 20min variant.

Consistency within the TR universe is critical, all other things will follow.

1 Like

When youā€™ve been training with power and or undertaking structured training for a while then Iā€™m pretty sure you will know your FTP within 5W. This would only really be outside of that if youā€™ve done something different or havenā€™t had experience of what the training effect might have been.

If youā€™ve been doing longer sweetspot / threshold intervals, letā€™s say over 30 minutes I would imagine at least 95% of trainer road users can identify what they can hold for an hour based upon that. The tests, whether it be ramp or otherwise should just be a confirmation of what you already (think) you know. Iā€™ve had my FTP set at 300W for a while, I havenā€™t really done many longer efforts but I know how my body feels, I know roughly what I could do so much so in fact that I havenā€™t done an FTP test in about 2 years, Iā€™ve based it on efforts Iā€™ve done whist riding my bike, Iā€™ve not been working on increasing my FTP until now.

I signed up for TR a few weeks ago and have completed 3 ramp tests, 297, 296 and then 298 to start my plan. That tells me, that personally for me the ramp test should be a good barometer of my actual FTP. Iā€™ve just come off a hill climb season of short high end efforts and also a slight cold, I would imagine after a few weeks training I could do another ramp test and complete that next ramp. Iā€™ll finish the SS base low volume 1 before I do that though.

1 Like

Iā€™ve been doing some research and it seems the problem is we are using ONE number for FTP for all intensities and duration of intervals. In most cases this one FTP will not line up across all outputs. This is not going to be fixed by changing the testing protocol as long as we insist on using one number.
By using real world performance based numbers we can see our true abilities and then use those numbers to build custom FTP zones based on target performance durations.

If my real world best 60 minute power is 230, then I feel I can use an FTP of 230 for training similar length intervals. If my best 6 minute power is 320 watts, then thatā€™s my FTP for VO2 max intervals. I take my best 1 minute power and use that to build on my 1 minute power intervals, and my 2.5 hr power for aerobic training, etc.

By tracking these efforts across time we can see real world improvements, and not base all our success and failure on one perhaps not always relevant test result.

Not a fan of the ramp test. Maybe I just donā€™t test well? We have a pretty popular 4.5 mile climb that I have at the time no problem burying myself for those 20 mins or so.

Testing inside and outside are two VERY different things, even if you attempt to ā€œdo the same testā€.

Comparing a ramp inside to a steady-state outside are worlds apart.

I understand. I was just mentioning how I canā€™t put myself in that dark place during the ramp rest. iI also feel my stages and kickr with relation to TR just didnā€™t feel right. Maybe I should do it with a blindfold.

1 Like

I test blind, with only cadence shown. I get better (higher) results by focusing on pushing as long and hard as I can compared to fretting about numbers in the test.

Others can use and even thrive on watching the numbers. So I feel itā€™s a good idea to try both ways (and possibly blends with different combos of data) to see what works best for them. Then apply that for all future testing to get consistent results.

The number that pops out at the end of the ramp test isnā€™t set in stone. Iā€™ve found that, based on my own physiology, the ramp test consistently underestimates my FTP by a little bit, so I always end up bumping my FTP up a bit each time I retest.

You should know whether your FTP is close based on how hard/easy the workouts are to completeā€¦thatā€™s always going to be a good indicator of your true FTP in my opinion. But I do get that it takes some experience to figure out what should ā€œfeelā€ right.

Overall, I just donā€™t understand why people get so hung up on FTP tests. Just freaking change it if it doesnā€™t feel right! :slight_smile:

8 Likes

Tom,

I think youā€™re muddying the waters a little here by talking about different FTPs at different durations when what youā€™re talking about is Critical Power at different durations. These form the Mean Maximal Power Line.

There should only be one number for FTP based on whatever protocol you think best represents the physiological state for you. All of the tests have issues:

Because MLSS varies in time to exhaustion depending on how well trained you are, from maybe 35 to 40 minutes for an untrained athlete up to 70 minutes for a very well trained athlete, doing a test of 60 minutes can actually seriously underestimate your MLSS as an untrained athlete is going 50% longer than they can hold MLSS. Less of an issue for well trained athletes although it could overestimate if you can go longer.

The 20 minute test has the same issues due to the variability of time to exhaustion. Add to that the assumption that what you can hold for 20 minutes is a set percentage of MLSS, you can see that there will be added variability.

The ramp test is almost entirely defined by the amount of work you can do above MLSS. This relationship is even less well defined than that between 20 and 60 minutes.

Having said all of that, the gist of your post is correct in my eyes there need to be individualised power targets all across all durations.

The limitations of the Coggan Classic Zones is that they are only anchored at ZERO and FTP with everything defined as percentages of these numbers. It takes no account of strengths and weaknesses of individual riders. No matter what your lactate profile tempo will always be at a range around a set percentage of FTP - same thing with power at VO2max.

To fix the problems associated with this, Coggan developed Individualised Power Levels (ilevels) which are implemented in WKO4. In essence, these training zones take values from your own Power Duration Curve (A best-fit curve through your Mean Maximal Power Line) and set them according to your own abilities at critical point. Unfortunately this is only done for zones above or at FTP - all the sub-FTP zones are are just set percentages of FTP.

Hereā€™s a screenshot of the iLevels chart from WKO4.

And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that we should be looking at improvements all along the Power Duration Curve rather than just at FTP.

Mike

5 Likes

I have had similar problems with inside turbo training but I tracked it down when I bought the p1 powertap pedals and found a huge power discrepancy between the towā€¦I think a lot of turbo trainers will over measure your power output. My FTP went from over 250 to 213 using a different power source.

Use the Lower gear (slower flywheel speed inertia) and you will see that your FTP will be lower.
I checked this few times is ERG mode. When I use Big Gear, I could do longer workouts easier. The same about FTP Ramp Test - it was just easier to achieve higher results.

a) With High Gear I have had 280 FTP watts.
b) With Low Gear like 34t x 28t (slow inertia) I have had 256 FTP watts.

Then I stayed with workouts on Low Gear because I am MTB rider and even if my FTP is lower, I feel much more tired training on Low Gear.

3 Likes

For me, the ramp test overstates the FTP by at least 5%. After several years of training and racing I just know where I am at a given moment, or where I certainly am not. Maybe Iā€™m the VO2max type, except Iā€™m probably not, because numerous 2-minute repeats at 120% of FTP (the actual, lower FTP, not the ramp test one) are still a tall order for me.

1 Like