There was some discussions here a few years ago about a 2-minute FTP test. I don't know if it's the same. Basically you start with a full sprint, and at every second you give everything you got. Power will decline quickly and then stabilize at around your FTP. That was the general idea.

There was some discussions here a few years ago about a 2-minute FTP test. I don't know if it's the same. Basically you start with a full sprint, and at every second you give everything you got. Power will decline quickly and then stabilize at around your FTP. That was the general idea.

Why don't you ask them on the Traineroad thread? They are on their all the time answering questions and giving advice.

It's a MAP Ramp test.

Is it supposed to be performed in ERG mode until you simply grind to a halt?

A ramp (incremental) protocol will tend to overestimate FTP in individuals with above-average resistance to fatigue during supra-FTP exercise, whereas it will tend to underestimate in those in whom the opposite is true. This is precisely the same limitation that exists when applying a fixed correction (i.e., 95%) to 20 min power.

As for what is more tolerable, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and all that, but for me at least a truly maximal incremental test leaves me knackered for hours. That's not really surprising, though, since as a whole-body physiological stressor such a test is far more challenging (at least acutely) than, e.g., major burn injury, trauma, etc.

Thanks Bryce, any idea when it is likely to be available with automatically calculated FTP?

Will definitely be giving this a go.

I thought FTP was dead?

Does TR automatically determine when to end the test of me? Is this something I would determine when I can't maintain needed watts?

How many people have done it old-school - 60 minutes on a trainer?

How many people have done it old-school - 60 minutes on a trainer?

I think I've read Nathan (TR CEO) write somewhere that the FTP would be 77% of your highest 1m interval.

I would think a track rider or road sprinter would get a highly optimistic FTP if they based it on 77% of their 1 minute power number.

So in ERG-mode. Would I simply ride until I see my cadence drop from let's say 95 to 60 and then manually stop the workout? Will the TR Agent message automatically or do you have to submit something? And if so, where?

Thanks, for your help!

The goal of this is not only to require less TSS during testing, but also to eliminate the feelings of dread and anxiety surrounding testing. It also eliminates the factor of pacing and just allows you to ride hard :)

After having experimented with this type of testing, I've found it to be far more psychologically demanding than an 8 or 20-minute test.

I think I've read Nathan (TR CEO) write somewhere that the FTP would be 77% of your highest 1m interval.

Might I suggest - in the name of safety - making the cool-down non-optional?

As I like to emphasize to students, plasma catecholamine levels at the end of such a test are several-fold higher than what you find after, e.g., major burn injury, serious trauma, a heart attack, etc...IOW, it is a significant physiological stressor. Not a good idea to then just stop cold.

But it would also help to hear from the creator as to why they think it is accurate.

I think I've read Nathan (TR CEO) write somewhere that the FTP would be 77% of your highest 1m interval.

Might I suggest - in the name of safety - making the cool-down non-optional?

As I like to emphasize to students, plasma catecholamine levels at the end of such a test are several-fold higher than what you find after, e.g., major burn injury, serious trauma, a heart attack, etc...IOW, it is a significant physiological stressor. Not a good idea to then just stop cold.

After having experimented with this type of testing, I've found it to be far more psychologically demanding than an 8 or 20-minute test.

It's exquisitely painful after about the first 15-20 seconds. It's a 2-3 minute pain threshold test. You're bumping right up into your max pain threshold for as long as you can. That makes 2 minutes feel reaalllly long. While an 20-minute test is uncomfortable and an 8-minute test is painful, 2-3 minutes is like waterboarding. It's sheer brutality.

It's hard to get "up" for. It's the kind of thing where you want a buddy pimp-slapping you and talking about your mother right before the start. You really have to be in full rage-mode to face your maximum pain threshold for that long.

I gave up after a few months and was relieved to revert to just doing 40K tests.

But that's just me. Maybe others will find it easy and useful.

Indeed.

To give some idea of the potential variability in this approach: years ago I tested two subjects who, despite having sustainable powers of <300 W, made it to 500 W during incremental exercise tests to measure their VO2max.

One was a collegiate runner-turned-duathlete, who had sub 15 min 5 km PB despite weighing 75 kg or so (IOW, more of a mesomorph than an ectomorph).

The other was an even stockier fellow who mostly trained by lifting weights, but also did some of what is now known as 'cardio.' Perhaps more importantly, he had grown up surfing in So Cal, so had spent a lot of time paddling/swimming in his teens.

On the flip side, when I was young I could only make it to 425 W or so during such a test, but could sustain ~350 W (i.e., 82%) during TTs.

That said, most people will fall within the 72-77% range put forth years and years ago by RST Coaching...as with Hunter's 95% of 20 min power rule-of-thumb, though, there are exceptions (and for precisely the same reason, i.e., resistance to fatigue during supra-steady-state exercise can and does vary between individuals).

they've entered a whole new level of HTFU.

Over the past couple of years I've collected a suite of lies & tricks I use to get through intervals.

I'm pretty certain the last 20 min test I did was an actual physical FTP measure, as I lay quivering on the bike afterwards, but when starting out I simply didn't have the tools to dig that deep.

If the new test gives new riders a higher FTP than a traditional 20-min, I wonder how well they'll cope with their first plan when hitting longer sweet-spot/threshold intervals.

So - TR is now saying this is the way to go for all FTP Tests.

I'm about to move Base --> Build on Monday. I should use the Ramp to test Tuesday AM?

I find the "FTP economy" fascinating.

The ability to build a businesses around generic plans magically scaled by algorithms with coaches standing by to scoopi up thousands of hopelessly confused athletes between trips to the bank to cash royalty checks for books based on twenty year old concepts makes Big 4 consulting firms look like noobs.

The truth is that cycling, especially for triathletes, is no different than any other sport where you can get everything you need for free and in a useful format.

One need look no further than indoor rowing to learn everything they need to be a faster cyclist.

Edit - Case in point...

http://www.fitness.marines.mil/...016-12-15-105509-990

SteveM wrote:

Over the past couple of years I've collected a suite of lies & tricks I use to get through intervals.

I'm pretty certain the last 20 min test I did was an actual physical FTP measure, as I lay quivering on the bike afterwards, but when starting out I simply didn't have the tools to dig that deep.

If the new test gives new riders a higher FTP than a traditional 20-min, I wonder how well they'll cope with their first plan when hitting longer sweet-spot/threshold intervals.

If you don't look like this then you didn't go hard enough haha

did mine Fri night EST, received an email Sat night EST from TR support.

Wonder if the test can be skewed if the rider has a high anaerobic fitness, which we rarely train.

I can answer that :-D.

We're really lucky now that we're at a large enough scale that we can test things with our users fairly quickly.

With our new Ramp Test we've ran through 900 riders so far. We've got a FB group called "TrainerRoad Beta Group" where people are responding to the test.

Anecdotally, the response has been hugely positive (and you can read people's responses in that group). The goal is to put them at the right training levels as they start a TrainerRoad plan.

People usually fall into the following buckets:
1) This test is bang on what either my 8/20 minute test results were or where I've self adjusted to
This is the vast majority of riders

2) This test produced an FTP higher than what I'm training at...this can't be right...this test overestimates....oh wait, I just did 90 minutes of over unders at this new FTP...boy that was hard...okay so this is what real training feels like?...okay so this test is good.
I really like these responses because I think these people didn't pace well during the 8/20 minute tests and they've entered a whole new level of HTFU.

3) Your test underestimated my FTP. I've been training at X FTP and I know that's my FTP.
I've looked at each one of these people's workouts personally. So far every single one of them who trains at their "higher" FTP either turns down every workout or can't make it through 10 minutes of sweet spot without two back pedal breaks. I suspect in this situation it's a bit EGO of wanting that higher FTP (I've been there too!).

4) I did 90 minutes of sweet spot training at 8pm with my new FTP and it felt great. Then I woke up at 5am, didn't eat breakfast and tried to do 90 minutes over unders and I couldn't make it past 45 minutes. Is my FTP too high?
This is a general bucket of external stressors, workout spacing and nutrition. If you're on a keto diet anything glycolytic is going to hurt more than normal. If you try to do highly glycolytic workouts with low glycogen stores it's going to hurt. If you put two harder workouts close together it's going to hurt. If you're up with a sick kid half the night your next workout will be much more difficult than if you didn't. This makes me think that we can improve education to inform riders how to set themselves up for success on every workout.

For the data side of it we're seeing if we can quantify the improvement. There are many external variables so it might be hard but we're going to do our best to do that.

If you have any other questions let me know.

(Prediction: a year or so from now, there will be a lot of people scratching their heads, trying to figure out why their performance in triathlons hasn't improved even though their ramp test results have.)

If someone does a ramp test, then trains for 26 weeks following a structured, well thought out training plan, their triathlon performance will should improve.

The fact that they measured themselves with a ramp test doesn't shouldn't influence their training.

haha, yes, nothing is absolute.

Are you agreeing with me (including your edits)? Or maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks for the reply.

That’s where I disagree. If you do a test (any test) and then do a triathlon plan, then do another test, you should be a faster triathlete AND perform better on the test.

What it sounds like both you and Dr. Coggan are arguing is that people will train to maximize their test results rather than the discipline they are trying to be fast in.

I also want to say that our Ramp test is not 100% perfect and it will not be the panacea for all riders. But based on the data it puts a vast majority of people into a better starting point for a TrainerRoad training plan compared to the 8 or 20 minute test.

I don’t think you take the test, regardless which one, to just get better at the test. You do the test, atleast within trainerroad, to get your zones for the plan you choose. I don’t think you can argue what trainerroad is doing doesn’t work. If you’ve done the plans you know they work. Of course it’s not exactly perfect for everyone but it’s more than adequate IMHO.

I only have one question or concern. How does it help establish your goal output for a given race? For example, 90% of that tested number for an Olympic race or 80% for a half?

(Prediction: a year or so from now, there will be a lot of people scratching their heads, trying to figure out why their performance in triathlons hasn't improved even though their ramp test results have.)

Some argue, that improvements over shorter durations, anaerobic durations, even suppress performance over longer durations.

I will say I much prefer the new test. The 20 min test was a nightmare for me, so much so I usually just estimated it. I'm happy to the the new test regularly.

Would you also suggest a warm up protocol before this ramp test like any other test? TR says no other warm up needed, but I find that hard to believe.

I'm too lazy to read through this whole post, but I have a question with regards to TT position and ramp test:

Are you guys doing it in the TT postion to get your TT FTP? and then separately on say your road bike to get your road position FTP?

I haven't done an FTP in a long time, and in preparing for Santa Cruz 70.3 I want to get my numbers, but should I be doing it in the TT position?

The guys discussed this quite in depth in the last podcast. They are testing both their road bike and TT bikes via ramp test to see what (if any) differences there are.

Why wouldn't you do the FTP test in the position you are going to race in? Meaning: on the TT, use your position. Otherwise, the numbers could be different -- and if you use those (different) numbers for your pacing, either you will be too hard or too easy on the ride.

I'm too lazy to read through this whole post, but I have a question with regards to TT position and ramp test:

Are you guys doing it in the TT postion to get your TT FTP? and then separately on say your road bike to get your road position FTP?

I haven't done an FTP in a long time, and in preparing for Santa Cruz 70.3 I want to get my numbers, but should I be doing it in the TT position?

I think the former might apply to me. I can produce a much higher 'FTP' with an 8-minute test (x2, mean x .9) than I can with a 20 min test (mean x .95). Or is this more an example of failing psychologically with a 20-min test? Might be interesting to see how my 8-minute test compares to the TrainerRoad ramp test.

I think the former might apply to me. I can produce a much higher 'FTP' with an 8-minute test (x2, mean x .9) than I can with a 20 min test (mean x .95). Or is this more an example of failing psychologically with a 20-min test? Might be interesting to see how my 8-minute test compares to the TrainerRoad ramp test.

I've done the ramp test twice now. It's certainly in the ballpark but I think for me it's coming out a little low.

For the past couple of years I've done almost no training above FTP, so both ramp tests resulted in sigificant all time 5-minute peak powers.

The failure is very different, legs just die, not like the 20 minute test where I'm gagging for air (I far prefer the ramp failure...)

This morning was my first ramp test as well and it was only 4 watts lower than my hour power I established in the past few weeks. I'd say pretty damn good. I think for a beginner or those who have issues with longer FTP tests this is fantastic. After all of these years I know how to test well, but I will admit it is nice when the legs just give up instead of torturing myself through longer duration tests.

I've done the ramp test twice now. It's certainly in the ballpark but I think for me it's coming out a little low.

For the past couple of years I've done almost no training above FTP, so both ramp tests resulted in sigificant all time 5-minute peak powers.

The failure is very different, legs just die, not like the 20 minute test where I'm gagging for air (I far prefer the ramp failure...)

If your ventilation isn't significantly higher at the end of an incremental exercise test vs. a constant intensity, submaximal (as in, below VO2max) effort, you didn't push yourself hard enough.

Another indicator of the above would be heart rate - it should be essentially pegged at maximum for the last couple of minutes.

(Note: I just did my first VO2max test in about 15 y last week. I managed to get within a hair's breadth of 60 mL/min/kg, but I was wiped out for the rest of the day as always.)

If your ventilation isn't significantly higher at the end of an incremental exercise test vs. a constant intensity, submaximal (as in, below VO2max) effort, you didn't push yourself hard enough.

I just did the ramp test again today (first time in a couple of months, third time overall) and noticed that the test automatically spat out a new FTP number for me at the end of the test. Is the FTP number generation process now fully automated in TR, or is the 'real' number still sent to me as a comment later on?

I will simply repeat what I said. If you are not "gagging for air" with your heart rate within a couple beats/min of maximum during the last couple of minutes of an incremental exercise test, you did not push yourself to your true limits.

Go away, troll: we're talking about the normal physiological responses to an incremental exercise test*, not how to quantify training intensity.

*I could have just as well have mentioned, e.g., plasma catecholamine levels, but you need more than a heart rate monitor to measure them.

You have consistently argued that when you know your power, heart rate is at best redundant but at worst misleading. Are you now claiming that opinion only applies to quantifying training?

I have a question for the genius in the room- Ive done this ramp test twice now and get FTPs that we’re 10+ watts lower than wko4 calculations. I’ve estimated wko4 putting ftp at 78% of max 1 min power and TR putting it at 75%. Is this calculation difference proprietary or based in literature somewhere? Is it purely my training history driving this? The difference seems big enough to me to affect training. Any thoughts?

Go away, troll: we're talking about the normal physiological responses to an incremental exercise test*, not how to quantify training intensity.

*I could have just as well have mentioned, e.g., plasma catecholamine levels, but you need more than a heart rate monitor to measure them.

This is a new test for me. my coach has me doing 3x12 minutes with 3 minute recoveries between. its really torturous. is this step method a good substitute for that? My legs are useless after the session and still have to survive my day in real life.

I just did the ramp test again today (first time in a couple of months, third time overall) and noticed that the test automatically spat out a new FTP number for me at the end of the test. Is the FTP number generation process now fully automated in TR, or is the 'real' number still sent to me as a comment later on?

Yes! No need for someone to email you now.

Let's all thank our TR employee Juliana who did over 6,000 emails to tell people their ramp test results while we were in beta.

If this is in the wrong section let me know and I can address it .

Started the 20 min FTP ( results attached) and it felt like death which all in all is an ok thing.

Equipment Used: Wahoo Kicker 2017 in EGR
Power : P1 Pedals
Heart Rate: N/A
Position: Aero

Impressions : Test was worked until I could no longer turn the pedals from the aero position ( which again was a horrible experience)

Results: Listed in attachment
First ride after FTP: Ericsson which is also attached . These results make me think I can't possibly be using the tool correctly.

Ongoing Training: Training with the next round of workouts from TR was extremely difficult and I had to lower the intensity to 60%

Question: Should I switch the trainer out of EGR and focus on something that I can maintain for a constant 60-90 min set?

Looking for guidance/ reassurance I am using this tool correctly this way I can give the experience a fair writeup at the end.

If your ventilation isn't significantly higher at the end of an incremental exercise test vs. a constant intensity, submaximal (as in, below VO2max) effort, you didn't push yourself hard enough.

Another indicator of the above would be heart rate - it should be essentially pegged at maximum for the last couple of minutes.

(Note: I just did my first VO2max test in about 15 y last week. I managed to get within a hair's breadth of 60 mL/min/kg, but I was wiped out for the rest of the day as always.)

If your ventilation isn't significantly higher at the end of an incremental exercise test vs. a constant intensity, submaximal (as in, below VO2max) effort, you didn't push yourself hard enough.

Another indicator of the above would be heart rate - it should be essentially pegged at maximum for the last couple of minutes.

(Note: I just did my first VO2max test in about 15 y last week. I managed to get within a hair's breadth of 60 mL/min/kg, but I was wiped out for the rest of the day as always.)

I don't agree with this comment.

If someone does a ramp test, then trains for 26 weeks following a structured, well thought out training plan, their triathlon performance will improve.

The fact that they measured themselves with a ramp test doesn't influence their training.

the ramp tested ftp sticks stubbornly at ~285W.

Problem is that once I get to ~380W the legs just die, given that in the past 125 hours of training only 5 minutes was at or above 380W (ignoring the ramp test itself) it doesn't seem that surprising. ie. If I want to improve my ramp test results I likely need to do some work at 380W+.

I'd bet a beer you're a tri-centric or TT centric rider and not a bike racer. It is ST, but that'd be my guess.

I sharpen my knife for a different fight than triathlon. I think I spent 5min at 380w or more on just my last group ride.

I spent 12min at 400w in a minute on/minute off workout a week or so back. I'm at a 20min number of a bit over 280 right now.

I say that junk to get at, I'd guess that you're right.

Can you select which type of ftp test you want to do n TR or is it just the ramp test now?

Well with one season of bike racing you are an expert, now. See you at Nationals, I assume?