Home General Training Discussions

New FTP test

Just found this new test protocol on TrainerRoad.  It's called the Ramp Test X.  A graded test such that the resistance increases every minute until you hit failure.  Anyone tried it yet?  Just so happens, the Nov OS folks are testing this week - Bike test scheduled for tomorrow!   I may have to give it a try.   From the instructions for the test:


This is an experimental test that won't generate your FTP automatically, and we will be constantly updating our process as users participate in this assessment.
This assessment should not require any extra warm-up, and please stay seated during the entirety of the test.
Following a few short minutes of warm-up, the test begins at around 50% of your FTP. Use any cadence that suits you, but continue to pedal as long as you can throughout the test - every second counts!

The watts increase every minute on the minute, but there is no requirement to finish your final minute to get a proper FTP estimate. Even lasting a few seconds into your final step will influence your new FTP estimate.

The test is complete as soon as you are unable to pedal or your watts begin dropping, and there is no benefit to continue pedaling once your watts start to fall.
Good luck!
Tagged:

Comments

  • edited January 31, 2018 12:52PM
    So I did the test this morning.  The program does not automatically calculate your FTP, since it's still beta.   To get the FTP, you can join the Facebook trainer road beta tester group.  Let them know you took it and they say they'll get the results to you in about a day.

    So if you already have you're FTP set in the program, it's starts with about four min at 50%.  Every min thereafter, it automatically increases another 6-7%.  You keep going until you can't push any further.  My FTP is currently at 258, set in week 10 of OS.




  • Super interesting, please post the results when you eventually get them.    I'll bet those last couple of minutes must have really sucked!   

    Out of curiosity, how did your HR at the end of the test correlate with your HR at the end of your last "regular" FTP test?

  • Ramp tests are used frequently for FTP and running blood lactate tests.

    Run a while on the treadmill or ride at increasing intensities, increasing speed, incline and/or resistance, prick the finger for blood, run/bike some more. 
    By the end, just like our standard FTP tests, feel like you're going to puke! Sweating buckets! Huffing and puffing. 

    Good times!
  • This is similar to a VO2max test done on a treadmill/bike where the speed is set but the incline increase on the treadmill and the bike watts are increased at regular intervals.  

    Unfortunately I missed your post but would probably have cautioned against doing this test.  Why?  You want to repeat the same test over the OS to better compare results.  Having not done this specific test I can't say how I'd perform versus the 5' 20' test we now do or even the old 20(2')20 we've done in years past.  
  • @Gordon Cherwoniak - I appreciate your comments.  I understand the rationale for repeating the same test - comparing apples to apples.  However, we all know how dreadful those 20 or 30 min TTs are.  My thought is that IF this were to be a valid measure of FTP and is consistent with repeat testing, I would continue to use in the future. 

    I wouldn't say that this test was necessarily easier than the standard TT programed into TR, simply shorter. 

    The guys at TrainerRoad just told me that they would estimate my new FTP at about 280.  I'll get a final number in the next day or two.  That compares with 258 in Week 10, 4 weeks ago.  And 215 in Week 1.  Now both of those tests were with the EN 20 min test in TR.   I was on the Ben and Jerry's truck in the month or so before starting OS so maybe that much of an FTP increase is accurate?

    @JohnWithrow - My HR for the Ramp test was just two beats below by max HR on the previous 20 min test.  Not sure if that helps to validate it or not....
  • Or buy WKO4 and use their modeled FTP.  I still like doing long TT test so I do a 60 min TT.  My results are always within a couple watts of the WKO4 modeled FTP.  Your mileage may vary though.
  • I just had a short discussion with @Chris Knighton here  https://www.strava.com/activities/1383224329
    about this test....
  • @John Wolfe  It's always good to have additional ways to estimate the FTP so I don't think this was a bad thing.  Just like any estimate you just have to figure out how it computes to your actual FTP.  

    I recall people on slowtwitch talking about a very short 8' test and what percentage you take of that number.  For me the shorter efforts I can tend to over estimate my FTP.  For me I'm talking about the 5/20 versus the 20(2)20.  I've never done anything shorter.  In the OS we are always looking to extend the FTP and even VO2 intervals so something shorter in duration is probably not what I'd be looking for.

    It looks like you got 8 steps above your FTP and 11 steps >200 watts which is solid work.
  • So the final result from TR is 282 - I almost don't believe it.   Gain of 67 watts in 14 weeks of the bike focus OS.  I've never had an FTP quite that high (270 two years ago) but I just celebrated my first year with EN, last week - you guys get the credit!  I guess the proof will be in the next few weeks as I transition to the bike focus block and try to tackle those workouts.  

    I know the CTS (Carmichael Training System) uses an 8min x 2 FTP test.  I never tried it, though.  @tim cronk I couldn't get into that Strava Thread - must require membership to read?

    Well, this was an interesting TT.  I just may have to give the 5/20 TT another go some time in the next week or two for comparison.  I'd like to hear from anyone else who tries the Ramp test.
  • I agree that the true test will be doing the FTP and VO2 workouts with your new FTP, @John Wolfe and see how they go. If you are able to do the intervals, and don’t fade towards the end, then I’d say the number is valid.
  • Just looked at @Chrisknighton 's test posted by Tim.  HR profile looks valid.  Also, note that when you get a brand new shiny FTP, one that is improved, those first 2-3 weeks of interval work can be an adjustment period.  Give yourself some slack there, be consistent, hold the line and it will all come together...

    SS
  • From Andy:

    Jan 30, 18 17:41
    Post #18 of 68 (2361 views)
    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. 
  • Yes, I've been following those threads on Slow Twitch.  Coggan tends to recommend using power files in his WKO software as the most accurate.  As mentioned by @Shaughn Simmons, 20 min power test is also subject to limitations.  To get my FTP, I had to join the FB group Trainer Road beta test group, and I've been following the post there.  It seems that most of the men/women using the test find it to be close to their expected FTP.  

    As I seem to be battling some respiratory infection right now, I haven't had the opportunity to try one of the TR workouts with the new FTP.  I agree with Alicia, above.  

    Honestly, I found the 20 min tests to be rather brutal, particularly, indoors.  Minnesota winters don't allow outdoor rides until well into March or April so having a repeatable, indoor set up for testing works best for me.   Personally, I like the ramp test better than the current TR and EN FTP testing workouts.  Hopefully, it will prove to be close to, if not as accurate as the others.
  • Disclaimer- Alex Coggan is a jerk.  Pick any thread you want on ST and read what he writes to get a feel what he thinks of himself and how he talks to others ... So its no surprise he finds fault with TR, Sufferfest, Hunter Allen, STRAVA, Golden Cheetah, and Dr Phil Skiba to just name a few who have done work in this aread. He is very intelligent and has probably done more work developing training data analysis than anybody but that does not make him any less of a jerk...

    Coggans 7 deadly sins listed below . Which I have read/studied and agree with 95% .... Another link written by another Alex has TONS of GREAT info and goes over these 7 deadly sins quite well is. 
    http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/05/the-seven-deadly-sins.html

    Original source: http://lists.topica.com/lists/wattage/read/message.html?mid=910290920
    Andy Coggan wrote:

    ..er, ways of determining your functional threshold power (roughly in order of increasing certainty):

    1) from inspection of a ride file.
    2) from power distribution profile from multiple rides.
    3) from blood lactate measurements (better or worse, depending on how it is done).
    4) based on normalized power from a hard ~1 h race.
    5) using critical power testing and analysis.
    6) from the power that you can routinely generate during long intervals done in training.
    7) from the average power during a ~1 h TT (the best predictor of performance is performance itself).

    BTW, another method that could be added to this list would be to do an incremental exercise test to determine 'MAP', then estimate functional threshold power as being ~75% (range 72-77%, using Ric Stern's guidelines) of this value. You could then use this estimate as is, or if necessary/desired, further refine it using one of the methods described above (e.g., by doing a TT).

    BTW, the reason this approach works is because in trained cyclists, LT falls within a fairly narrow range as a percentage of VO2max, and there is tendency for those with the highest LTs to have the lowest anaerobic capacities (and therefore a slightly lower MAP relative to power at VO2max), and vice-versa. In any case, at the very least knowing your MAP will help 'bracket' what could be considered a reasonable range into which you expect your threshold power to fall.


    My thoughts?  

    In a nutshell, most of us (very few exceptions like @Dave Campbell)  are running around with an estimate of our FTP which is a percentage of some interval... Most of these are going to be optimistic... There is not a one size fits all estimated FTP for everyone because we are individuals with different strengths (95% of 20min may work for some and 92% may work for others)... Heck if you read Coggans current work he is developing mFTP , sFTP,  TTE , and lots of other acronyms.  FTP used to be defined as- "FTP is the highest power that a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state without fatiguing for approximately 1 hour. - Now even that is not true if you read Coggan... I think he is now saying 40min to 75min depending on individual... So it is no longer 1 hour ish...so much debate over a fictitious number....So much of this is semantics...


    What is not a fictitious number?  simple the watts you rode for any one interval or length of time.... wow sounds easy huh?  you either rode those watts for those minutes or you did not... If someone gave you a Power Meter and you had ZERO info on all those silly acronyms, you would go ride a whole bunch, and probably do intervals in different lengths of time, we could then review all that data and come to easy non debatable facts based on that data... It would look like this.

    my 1 minute power is xxx

    my 5 minute power is xxx

    my 20 minute power is xxx

    my 60 minute power is xxx

    my 5hr power is xxx

    you would also have a w/kq associated with each of those time frames that is again not debatable, you weighed that much, rode those watts, for that length of time.

    That way when we compare data to ourselves or other you simply compare 20min power and w/kg at that 20min or whatever timeframe you choose...

    Personally I like the idea of many different tests, but if you are in a block of training like OS designed to lift FTP you should pick one and stick with it for repeatability and tracking purposes... 

    FTP- means nothing to me, it is merely a number for which I can set in my Training Peaks to then track TSS, CTL, ATL etc...

    The same confusion exists in running/swimming as well..  We test vdot via a 5k race, someone can run a 5k in 15 minutes and someone else can run a 5k in 30 minutes, how is that a similar test?  Shouldnt we test via time frame not distance?

    What do I USE?  For FTP I have tried 2 x 8 , 5/20 , 2 x 20 , and 1hr, I have not tried the ramp .... I do the best at the 2 x 20 , but if I complete any of the others they usually end up with similar results...

    Bottomline- I like to use what I can do for 40'-45' in any sport.... So a 2 x 20' for cycling, a 10k in running , and either a HIM/IM swim since they are both pretty close... this number/pace sets my pace/effort levels but most importantly sets my Training Peaks numbers.

    Every Year there is extensive discussions on FTP here ST and everywhere... I'll refer back to Coggan Deadly Sins #6 to be the most valuable to me...  6) from the power that you can routinely generate during long intervals done in training....If you cant do the same 2 x 20' week after week than your FTP calculation is wrong.



  • Tim, interesting that you posted those links to alex-cycle, and the others.  I had just read thru those a few days back. And Dr. Coggan does come across as an arrogant ass, at times.  

    At the end of the day, it boils down to race performance (for me, anyway).  How fast can i complete that 56 or 112 mile bike ride and yet still run at a competitive pace?  And how do I structure my training to accomplish that goal?   From what I understand, T-pace, running pace, and FTP are simple metrics that a.) define training and racing zones, and b.) serve as a benchmark for my progress, i.e. am I getting more fit.  

    My understanding is that EN members track and aim to elevate FTP, vDot, and swim T-pace during various periods of the year with the expectation that this process will result in improved performance.  I also use FTP to track my TSS, etc. in Training Peaks, but are you really not using it to plan your bike training sessions?  I guess that's what I thought to be most valuable about FTP.  

    I work with a couple of Cat 2/3 cyclists and another guy who runs around 5:15 pace for half mary's.  None of these guys uses a HR monitor or seems to really structure their training.   "I just go out and push myself on every ride/run."
    I wonder what they could pull off if they had coaches and a formal training plan.   Or maybe, there's more to just going by feel and throwing the sciencey metrics out the window?

  • @John Wolfe
    {At the end of the day, it boils down to race performance (for me, anyway).  How fast can i complete that 56 or 112 mile bike ride and yet still run at a competitive pace?} ....

    absolutely getting from point a to point b on race day faster than your competition is the goal , something a lot of people need to think about, specially when you read threads that beat training metric semantics to death...

    {My understanding is that EN members track and aim to elevate FTP, vDot, and swim T-pace during various periods of the year with the expectation that this process will result in improved performance.  I also use FTP to track my TSS, etc. in Training Peaks, but are you really not using it to plan your bike training sessions?  I guess that's what I thought to be most valuable about FTP. } 

    absolutely again , I am all about EN structured training, it just goes back to the things that dont really matter... Like what is FTP?  Coggan cant even define that anymore as far as I am concerned...  But we all have a 20 min power a 40 min power , 60 etc that is not debatable... It just is.... The terms or labels we put on these things like vdot , ftp , etc 

    again I like rule #6.... when I have done a 2 x 20' FTP wko once per week for 4 weeks straight and the numbers come in within a few watts of each other I know exactly where I am.... FWIW every 2 x 20' or similar wko is like an ftp test for me IOW 100%, I will hardly ever purposely target what I believe 95% to be....

    Running and HR - opening up another can of worms... I wear HR but never look at or use it... just correlate later... Since I'm focussed on Ultrarunning right now HR/pacing/ etc is very difficult due to terrain. My last race pace was in Z1/Z2 and HR was in Z3/Z4... I am somewhat using GAP and HR after the fact to correlate to what I think I did to make sure my effort for my intervals match the stimulus I was looking for?  Maybe someday the running PM will be the go to but I dont think its there yet...

    Back to this test... I think its great... Look forward to doing one when I get back on a bike :-)
  • Thanks for your thoughts @tim cronk.  I've been screwing around with triathlon for about 12 years.   I was never a great athlete growing up and took to triathlon after a running injury in the early 2000s.  Slowly, but surely, getting a little faster each year - it may be due to a better understanding of how to train, rather than from the training itself.

    i appreciate your thoughts on this stuff.  I've been lurking on slowtwitch for several years and I'm amazed by the conversations.  Many outspoken athletes and it can be hard to sort out what's actually fact.  Seems like a better rounded group here.  Good luck on your upcoming year.

    BTW, I just finished Icarus on Netflix - worth watching!
  • Interesting conversation. The first and foremost issue for comparing tests is having had a good test when @john wolfe reports a 31% increase in FTP via this new test, aside from questioning the test, I also question the validity of how hard you actually went in your prior test. Particularly when you state that you have difficulty with and don't like the lenght of the 20' test.

    Like @tim cronk I've found that the 2x20 is my preferred test, and yes, it IS brutal mentally, but that's what we are training for. 
    I also learned this year that FTP is only one number as Tim points to. I entered LP this year with a significantly lower 5 hr power # than the year prior as a %of FTP, goals this year are increased FTP as always, but a highly structured plan to increase 5 1/2 hr power. 
  • I agree that this is a fascinating discussion.  My personal $0.02 is that some folks (in particular, Dr. Coggan) ascribe a certain level of precision and accuracy to this whole endeavor that I'm not convinced is there.  I believe that everyone's FTP (or whatever term you want to use) changes day to day.  If I do a hard 'FTP test' today, my FTP (the actual power I can sustain for xx) will be lower tomorrow simply because I'm tired from the test.  So the act of testing FTP actually lowered FTP in the short term.  Similarly, if I then take a recovery day my FTP the following day will be slightly (perhaps imperceptibly) higher the following day as a result of the rest and training effect of the hard workout during the test, so the act of testing subsequently raised FTP in the medium term... and so on and so on.  So when folks argue whether the 'correct' number is 275 or 278 or 272 I have to laugh a little bit.  

    Adding to that, I'm not convinced that I could actually feel a difference between say, 272 and 275 watts.  If I were to set up a Zwift workout with blocks that alternated between these two numbers I'm not sure I would perceive where one block ends and the other starts.  Add further to that that we usually are operating at some % of FTP, and then difference then becomes almost irrelevant.  So, while Coggan et al are splitting hairs over which test gets the 'correct' number down to the single watt, I'm quite happy if I've got something that's +/- 5 watts from where I think I am at the moment.  After all, that likely won't be the 'right' number next week anyway.
  • Another ST thread - It's long but just reinforces the ongoing debate on testing protocols.   There are 4 or 5 "physiologists" arguing about why their process is better than the others...

    http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Blood_Lactate_Test_vs_FTP_like_I_am_a_3_year_old_P6516419/ 
  • Back in the early days of Crucible Fitness and then EN(think 2004/2005 time frame), seems like I remember Coach Rich saying our test to determine FTP was an hour, riding like someone had a gun to your head.  Take your NP for that and use it as your FTP.  Plan IM and 70.3 off that as a %.  I got used to doing those 60 min hard efforts.  So, I still don't mind doing them.  I think you also learn to pace better on those than a 20 min test.  Maybe I'm just Old Skool, but I've found this test and the modeled FTP that WKO4 spits out to correlate well.  And I understand that not everyone wants to do a 60 min test or has the ideal road to do it on.   I'm lucky to have a 20 mile loop in the country with 3 right hand turns that 99% of the time do not require me to stop for a full hour.
  • @Dave Campbell... that is, word for word, the CF advice.   It’s encouraging to see it standing the test of time in Coogan’s ranking!
  • Thoughts running through my head as I've followed this thread:
    • Currently my preferred method of determining how hard I can ride for an hour is to ... ride for about an hour in a race on Zwift. As long as my VI is 1.01 or less, I can use the resulting NP to guide my effort level in subsequent workouts.
    • The value of knowing this number, as Johns K and W, and Tim C have mentioned above, lies in determining how to structure training and strategize (shorter) races. No awards are given anywhere I know of for one's "FTP" or "w/kg" numbers. The name of the game is racing, and getting ready to race.
    • So after proper training, how to determine how hard to race (in a triathlon)? For me, I am currently finding value in three methods. [Caveat: I *really* race using RPE as my primary metric, but I find it helpful to use FTP as a "whip" to keep me honest.] For shorter races I use 1.0 as the target for sprint, 0.92-0.95 for Oly. For HIM, I use a different metric: the power I can hold for a 2.5 hour constant effort, which is usually set on a long mountain climb. For an IM, the answer is much more variable, depending on how long the course will take (elevation dependent). That's the subject of a whole thread by itself, and its a little to easily in the year to go there.
    • Bottom line, FTP is a totally artificial construct, which proves useful when training in 45-90 minute chunks, and when racing in a similar time frame. There are other methods, building on FTP, which have additional value for the longer TTs followed by runs which most of us are interested in.

  • @john katsoudas  - "My personal $0.02 is that some folks (in particular, Dr. Coggan) ascribe a certain level of precision and accuracy to this whole endeavor that I'm not convinced is there." 
    I could not agree more, that said, every year I come back from Al Camp and do 4-5 weeks of 2x20s as my Thursday FTP wko, and I do it as an FTP test with the same bike, course, time of day, etc... I get 4-5 data points incredibly close that they validate the data point.

    @john wolfe - the problem with ST is that you don't really know the sanity level of whomever is posting. There ARE some good people in there but much of it is a lot of chafe. 
  • Al - are you sure you stand behind the statement that “FTP is an artificial construct?”      I think you could say that about the various tests that are proxies of FTP, but FTP itself (at least using the def’n that Tim includes way above) is, from my read, a concrete, repeatable and valid measurement.   Or is it a artificial construct compared to, say, LT or another physiological measure?   

    (Not to split hairs ... but that’s inevitably what starts to happen in these discussions!)
  • @Dave Tallo "Artificial Construct" in the sense that it is not a natural metric, like height or weight or speed or grade. Something that scientists devised in an attempt to help standardize the artful world of cycling training and racing. The point I was making is that it is not the be-all or end-all for training and racing. I think it is primarily useful for guiding training efforts of 30-90 minutes, and for the TTs that roadies do, which are usually 30-60ish minutes long. Even for road racing cyclists, other numbers are also useful, like the shorter power metrics for determining how to manage breakaways and sprinting. Each of us has a different correlation between FTP and, say, 1 minute power. That's why some folks are "naturally" better at sprints, others better at steady time trials.

  • edited February 7, 2018 11:48PM
    The book came out yesterday; today it is the top-selling title on Amazon in individual Sports.
  • Al - what’s the book?   
  • @Dave Tallo Alex Hutchinson;s Book which includes the chapter leading off another EN thread (which tells me I posted this in the wrong place?)

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0716GZX33/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title

    I'm half way through. Well written summary so far of what we know about how to measure an endurance athlete's capabilities. Second half has six chapters with (presumably) advice on how to deal with these limiters: Pain, Muscle, Oxygen, Heat, Thirst, Fuel. Third half is: Training the Brain, Zapping the Brain, Belief.

    You'll be glad to know there are summaries fo two smile studies. One showed that just looking at pictures of someone smiling improved one's performance in endurance events.

    So far, I'm satisfied with my purchase for my Kindle.
Sign In or Register to comment.