So I just did my FTP ramp test in the app. Last time I did one was over a year ago before started to proper train using TD. That was 268W.
This time around I got 305W. Thats a huge increase IMHO and complete BS. There is NO WAY I could maintain that for an hour. Not a chance. 20min maybe, MAYBE, but I am not going to try lol
So my question is, do I keep this value and proceed with training to see what happens OR do I lower this number?
Thoughts?
Dont get me wrong, I was working hard to get faster and stronger, but did not even expect that much increase. So I am VERY happy with the number, I just know its VERY unrealistic 
1 Like
Awesome result, your max aerobic power is improving! What did you do to make the gains?
Dave
1 Like
Congrads!!! A ramp test is a a good indicator of progress and obviously less painful than a 20 minute test, so you improved, which is the most important thing.
Muscular i.e. people with big anaerobic contributions tend to see bigger discrepancies between a ramp test and actual sustainable wattage. As painful as it is, doing a 20 minute test to compare to 1 time is good if you want total accuracy. In my case, I can have up to about 20% difference (more muscular with poorer aerobic). So if I tested at 230, I would know I am more like 190. For training, I would use the 190w value.
I don’t feel total accuracy is usually that important for FTP based training. You can cross reference what you feel like you could sustain in a race for 40 minutes. If that is say 270w… use that for training.
Anyway unless you are trying to push yourself to failure most workouts high precision in FTP for training is not that critical. Different people have different failure points even with the same FTP. Dylan Johnsons latest video brings up the concept of durability being more important than FTP. And suggests doing a 1-2 hour “hard” zone 2 ride followed by a 20 minute test… We ultimately want to improve our durability. FTP is irrelevant if you can’t sustain high wattage for your desired race or ride time. So again, I am just pointing out you can set your FTP based on RPE of how you think workouts should feel.
1 Like
Nice progression. You did well.
Although I agree with a lot of what Alex says, I would recommend using this number. This is the result of the test, so for short, high-intensity intervals, I would use this number.
As long as you remember that the longer your training, the lower your power needs to be to sustain your effort.
That is why I’m a fan of split testing. Using and FTP to set zone 4, 5 and 6 (zone 7 is just max power) and a different test for zone 2 (zone 3 is in between).
As soon as you start training you will understand what this number means anyway. I find that I an sustain my FTP during short interval sessions. The longer my ride is the less I look at FTP.
I watched the Dylan Johnson video, too. He explains it really well. That’s why the interval sessions in the beginning of the training schedules I ride are at the beginning of the training and later move towards the end of the training.
First you want to build power, than you want to build fatigue resistance or durability.
Just start training and see if this is the number you can put on the pedals during your short intervals. That is what you tested, so that is what you should use it for.
Have fun
I think the problem for amateur cyclists is the ramp test FTP often does not return a result that is MLSS. It only tells you what your MAP is.
If you use a falsely high FTP for training zones you’ll be at risk of training the wrong energy system and cooking yourself.
I personally like long form tests if the goal is to find an approximation of MLSS. 30 minute tests are not easy, but they are not that hard either and they teach you what sustainable feels like.
Dave
1 Like
Not sure of your FTP Dave but realize the higher your FTP the harder it is to sustain it… I know that seems a bit counter intuitive at first but ultimate is a “similar body” producing significantly more energy. Andrea says pros would basically never take a 20 minute test and that zone 2 is essentially hard training for them.
I do agree with the idea you are suggesting though which is if you are doing sweet spot efforts or longer threshold intervals for workouts then you can easily cook yourself if your FTP is too high and modifies the purpose of the training. Remember there are only 3 physiological zones and if you don’t believe in training below AeT then there are really only 2 physiological zones… so I would say “energy systems” becomes a bit theoretical… for sure he won’t be doing sustained 30w over his actual lactate threshold for very long It’s more about getting variety which also can get even if your FTP is too high.
1 Like
My FTP stinks.
I haven’t done a ramp test in a while. Results vary but with the TD type protocol and fast ramp rate I think I would have about 200W based off past history.
My long form tests are quite a lot lower at about 170-175W.
I’m reasonably confident I could do 10-15 minutes at my proposed FTP and be able to tell if it was close or not.
Dave
1 Like
Yes, so for him doing a 20 minute test is significantly worse than you or I. My FTP from a ramp test would also be about 200w right now but my durability sucks so my actual FTP would be much lower. So he said he has not done a ramp test in a year… unlikely he will want to do 20 minute even though I suggest he could for complete accuracy… but I agree you can just do a few sustained efforts and realize pretty quickly the likely hood of completing say 40 minutes in a race. He could try 250w, 275w and 300w for 5 minutes each with a longer break in between and see which one feels like 20-40 minutes and estimate FTP from that.
1 Like
I wanted to share another alternative – this is Joe Friel’s FTP Confirmation Test. Basically, if you know your LTHR you follow this simpler workout and the power where LTHR occurs is your approximate FTP.
I took another poster’s workout and added duration to it at a higher % of FTP for these who have increases.
Workout: Trainer Day - Workout: Friel's FTP Confirmation Test
Joe’s comments: Joe Friel's Blog: FTP Confirmation Test
Dave
1 Like
The only problem is LTHR would and should raise over time if you are training well. So I guess if you obsessed with testing and did CP30, or CP20 to estimate LTHR, 1 time per year and this test more often it would be reasonable.
Generally I like it, just not sure for how many people it really helps. Protocol for any HR tests needs to be very locked down. I know what you eat before an Zone 2 HR test (MAF test) will make a big difference, and obviously temperature, stress… I would assume that applies to LTHR also.
Anyway thanks for sharing. I had not seen that one.
1 Like
Thanx all. During the test I maxed out at what I recall 172HR (my max) and at 409W which is what I saw through the bloor lol
I did not want to update anything here before I start another training block, which started yesterday. I used the new FTP value of 305. I completed 1.5h trainer rider without much of an issue. This was HIIT A #5 consisting of 16x20/40 and the 2x5m Z2 and 2x7m Z3.
I will keep this on and see what happens.
What I did notice is that my HR did not get above 145bpm, even during the intervals, which is z2/3 everyday riding for me.
Also, for the first time using CJ plan, I did not click the the + button to increase the workout 5-10% which I used to do.
So in short, this is working. Consistency is the key. I never miss a workout, and the only time I failed a workout was the FTP test haha
2 Likes
I don’t think LTHR changes over time, that’s why Joe Friel proposed this as a possible test.
Regardless the OP has a solution and plan.
Dave
1 Like
Oh for sure it does. Just google or ask ChatGPT…
Here is example quote from TP
As you train, you become more efficient at using lactate as fuel, meaning that you can actually run at a higher heart rate and produce less excess lactate. Therefore, as you get fitter and do more zone 2 training, LTHR should be HIGHER than previously measured. What has happened is that you can now run at a higher intensity (increased heart rate) and uptake lactate more efficiently.
Once you are at a very high level (close to your peak) it becomes much more stable so it’s possible most of Joe’s students are at a very high level so for them it would likely be pretty stable.
EDIT - Yes Joe states it here “Once you are in decent shape.” I would re-word that and say once you are at a top level shape after years of consistent training… then it’s likely to stay stable within a given season (he says this).
1 Like
Watch this.
1 Like
If someone wants to use it then use it.
If someone doesn’t then don’t.
I just gave a reasonable suggestion for any easier way to check numbers from a reputable coach. No more and no less.
Dave
1 Like
Oh yes. I have great respect for Joe and I appreciate you sharing… Just mentioning some of the down sides. But it’s still better than repeated 20-30 minute tests…
1 Like
Yes, I watched Coggan in a different interview that he said basically the same thing. It’s interesting. There is potentially some missing nuances to this but I agree with the core idea. He also helped facilitate that sweet spot was the best way to train (via maximizing your weekly TSS) and Dr Seiler discusses flaws in Coggan’s thinking in this regard. So like everyone Coggan can get things wrong too but still worth listening too and in this case it makes total sense to me.
Even when I said above their are potentially 2 zones… I would argue he is saying there is 0 hard line physiological zones, unless these zones could over lap… So again I think it is all more nuanced. I think the value of zones is partially to make sure you are getting some variability in your training and zones helps keeps this concept simple.
It’s interesting he says lactate has more variability than HR… He also points out how small of power differences relate to a 10% difference in steady state time… This is very interesting. I would like to look into this more. Meaning at 300w FTP 303w would decrease duration from say 40 to 33 minutes? Hard to believe it is that tight but I never tested this.
Anyway, the way CJ workouts are design having the perfect FTP setting is less of an issue. If you were doing sustained, sweet spot or sustained threshold that is where having closer to your CP40 to PC60 power makes a big difference.
I would say Andrea, Coggan and Seiler all give zones a lose definition. It’s more like variability and time vs power…
1 Like
I agree with that, Alex. I see an unhealthy drive to hit the right number and a lot frustration when they don’t with many cyclists.
It takes away a lot of the fun. The first thing I always tell them is that the numbers aren’t exact. They are guidelines.
Your FTP is just a moment in time. Maybe you were good, perhaps you weren’t at your best. It is just that moment.
Some days, you will be better, and some days, you won’t be able to reach that target. Your body is not a precision machine.
Pro’s go to extreme’s to understand that precision and even they get it wrong, sometimes.
So, with all the limitations of our irregular cycling lives, we can’t expect numbers to be so accurate that they are the same every day.
Not to mention that we all have different bodies, and we do this for fun.
1 Like
Andy Coggan is obviously a very clever man and was also a successful competitive time trialist, but his methodology is as much of a 180 from the TrainerDay philosophy as anyone I can think of. He believes very strongly in intensity:
-
He cites the Hickson protocol – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/838658/ – 3 days 6x5 VO2 intervals and 3 days max efforts running – absolutely brutal. It works, but again, absolutely brutal training regimen. They did this crazy training for 10 weeks and no one wanted to continue after that.
-
He personally tried “Unimodal” training with nearly daily 1-hr workouts a week at sweet spot FTP. He made gains doing this, but who could actually recover from this level of intensity?
Dave
1 Like
Yes, I agree he is smart guy and I would say he contributed or even created our understanding of endurance stress related to intensity. Inventing PMC / TSS, the world “owes” him for that. The only problem was it was later wrongly reverse engineered to the idea that “everyone should be doing sweet spot all the time…” While PMC has problems, I still believe it is incredible.
I also agree that most elite endurance athletes are insane recovery machines and can get away with things normal humans can’t, especially aging humans… Coggan did it right because it’s very important to create simple ideas for people to follow even if they are partially wrong (TSS != TSS for example). I would even argue 220-age, provided some value. It shows that age contributes to HR decline, but we know now it’s highly dependent on our health.
1 Like