Good point. It'll be interesting to see if I can push high watts in the TT position. Whenever I'm training, threshold and under efforts I do in the TT position, but all vo2max efforts (stuff above 110%) I usually just sit up, as I can't really manage to push 300W+ in the TT position. I'll see how it goes.

Sure can, I tested 309 in TT position and 330 in road 2 days later.

Jonathan (MTBer with basically no TT experience) tested with 252 on TT and 293 on road.

We're both going to spend more time on the TT bike (we hadn't really spent any on the bike yet) and re-do both tests after we think we're adapted.

It will be interesting to see if:

1. TT power gets closer to road power
2. TT and road power go up the same amount
3. TT power goes up, but road power stays the same or goes down

I think the difference in power is a combination between adaption (not spending any time in the position) and how aggressive your position is.

---

CEO at TrainerRoad
Co-host of the Ask a Cycling Coach Podcast

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.

Test it and report back. My n=1 is this: I test lower on the Ramp test than I do on the 8-min test. I test higher on the 8-minute test vs the 20 minute test. I found this a few years ago when the TR workouts were not as I expected -- and experimented with the 8-min test. That test just seemed to work better for me and subsequent workouts.

The other tests (8min and 20 min) are not going away, based on TR comments in the facebook beta group; they just may not be the primary testing tool in the future.

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...)

I did ramp test for the first time today. 6 weeks ago I did the 20 min test at the beginning of a trainnerroad plan. my ftp was 4 watts above 6 weeks ago which I think is reasonable. I've been using TR for years so not expending any huge leaps in ftp. I feel like I always paced pretty well on the 20 minute test so I think the ramp test is pretty accurate for me. I much preferred it over the 20 minute test. Legs just die at the end like you said as opposed to gagging for air during 20 minute test.

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'm also glad to not just feel totally trashed after a test. I definitely feel like using trainner road for a few years, knowing my ftp going into a test helped with pacing. It's not like going into the test I would be expecting a 20 watt increase in my ftp so I could always start modest for the first 5 minutes of the 20 minute block and move up after that. But the ramp test was much less soul crushing. Plenty of other TR workouts later that will bury me.

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.)

It definitely is just not for as long as with the 20 minute test. I know for me those last few minutes were brutal.

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 did it a third time & got the same result as run #2.

This time whilst the eventual failure was still muscular I was beginning to struggle for air, but the room was a few degrees hotter & id not had a haircut in a while.

It’s just not a long enough time over ftp for the breathing to get really ramped up, having said that if I can get the muscular endurance sorted then I’ll be over for a longer time & breathing would become more of an issue.

It's automated now that it's out of beta.

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.

So heart rate isn't redundant or confusing then?

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.

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?

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?

chiming in from the peanut gallery here, but isn't this a case where you don't know your power?

Not now, always: I have never suggested that measuring heart rate during an incremental exercise test is worthless. On the contrary, I have pointed out multiple times that one indication that someone is approaching their VO2max is that the rate of increase in heart decreases dramatically.

(Note also that the perspective here is that of an external observer, which tends to undermine the utility of perceived effort. Sure, somebody can give you a number, but you can't actually feel what they are feeling, as would be the case during self-guided training.)

Coincidence: WKO4 uses a much more complicated model to estimate mFTP than just taking a fixed percentages of what in the scientific literature has long been called 'Wmax' (i.e., maximal 1 min power at end of incremental exercise test).

There are numerous possibilities including the quality of data available to models estimating FTP but the FTP:MAP ratio can certainly vary as a result of training.

One possibility is the fractional utilisation of VO2max at threshold is somewhat malleable/trainable.

Another is the substantial minority contribution to MAP of non-sustainable energy metabolism (a variable which is not a feature of FTP) is also individually variable, and also trainable.

There is still a decent correlation between them since the aerobic system supporting FTP also dominantly supports MAP. So while there will be a population average for any given MAP test protocol, any individual may be a handful of percent either side of that population average ratio.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

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.

Here are a few comments from you, no mention at the time, that those comments only apply to quantifying training.

"If you know your power output, then knowing your heart rate is at best redundant but at worst deceiving. "

"If you know your power, then at best heart rate is redundant, but at worst it is misleading."

It is not my fault that you apparently don't know how to read in context.