Ramp Test increments

Training and Performance Fundamentals
#1

Dear Alex
I hope you’re well. I did a TD ramp test recently and it got me thinking about the increases in the steps/ramping.
Having looked into it a little it seems that there is a variety of approaches taken by different platforms; 20w increases, 6% increases and TD’s own 10% (presumably of the FTP you’ve already inserted in the app, not 10% of the previous step).
I’d guess that these would give different results as some people would find a 20w increase harder than others depending on their actual FTP (hence using a percentage). Conversely, small 6% increases mean you’re pedalling longer at higher intensity before you reach the really hard ramps, which might tire you disproportionately quicker.

  • how did you settle on 10%, just curious.
    Thanks for the insight (and app)!
#2

So our app is 100% percentage based. I can’t remember where I found the 10% number but a ramp test is not super accurate in general for predicting 40-60 minute sustained power. Even a 20 minute test can be off but usually more accurate. I am on the extreme end of inaccuracy. My last ramp test was 230 watts but my actual FTP was probably closer to 200. So I know this about myself. I have a strong anaerobic contribution to a ramp test, especially the worse sustained biking shape I am in.

So one aspect of a ramp test is getting you in the ball park for training percentages but our perspective it does not need to be perfect although at some point doing both a ramp and 20 minute or TT race or something to figure out your conversion factor is reasonable but we feel the more important value from testing is just monitoring progress and a ramp test is frequently more accurate than a 20 minute test in repeatable performance. Pacing can totally affect a 20 minute test. Also a ramp test is less painful for most so more easily repeatable and less disruptive.

Coach Andrea has been doing lab ramp tests for 20 years or something and he always uses 25w steps with pros and elite athletes. My finding is 25w and 10% end up producing similar results.

You can design your own ramp tests in TD. Anything with “Ramp Test” in the title will automatically be treated like a ramp test in our app. So if you repeated start the test with the same FTP, you can create 20w increments in our editor and it will always be 20w increments, but even as your FTP changes you need to change it back to that original value. Either than or keep updating your test as your FTP changes. Let me know if you need more info on how to create watt based ramp tests, or if this answers your question.

#3

Thank you as always for the quick response.
Agreed that, from what I have read, you’d need a variety of tests to get an accurate result.
I was wondering primarily about your experience (actual or research etc) regarding the best increments in the ramps. If they are a set 20w, then the jump might be too big for smaller riders and they won’t last the final jumps, so the test shows a smaller FTP than actual. If smaller jumps, 6% say (of the pre-set guessed FTP inputted to conduct the test, right, not 6% of the immediately preceding step), but you happened to have a big FTP, then you’d be at a higher power for many more minutes before you reached the level at which you fail. Interesting that you find that you can basically sprint to skew the result.
So which is fairer?

Perhaps an example might help. Say the FTP is 220w and that’s put into the turbo control to carry out the ramp test:

10% increments: 1 minute at; … 110w, 132, 154, 176, 198, 220, (and then approx 20 seconds of the next step 242w, to give the 0.95 x best minute = 220w FTP)

6% increments: 1 minute at; … 110w, 123, 136, 149, 162, 176, 189, 202, 215, 228, (and then approx 20 seconds of the next step 242w, to give the 0.95 x best minute = 220w FTP).

In the second, you’re doing more work, longer time, and in the latter stages at a higher intensity.

#4

In our test it does not matter if you finish the step because we take last 1 minute average power so the longer you go on any specific step the better. This is pretty standard approach. I was thinking like you but my personal testing shows it does not matter. If it changes a couple watts in results or even 5 watts by changing step size it does not offset the fact that your test is likely off by more than 5 watts anyway from 40-60 minute power and changing your training by 5 watts rarely matters. So all you need is consistency and a conversion factor (optional for most people).

I don’t think there is any research on this because a ramp test is not accurate enough that a step size will make much difference. Percent based actually evens it out a bit as lower FTP guys get smaller steps than bigger FTP guys.

Also ramp tests are highly individual depending on your MMP (mean max power curve) that what is research going to prove? Andrea has tested thousands of elite cyclists (multiple every day for 20 years) in the lab and says his last minute power and it falls between 70% and 80% of that to match LT. They also test non-elites… We just use 75%.

Now we are talking about elites and pros that are much more consistent genetically, training wise and physiologically. He can’t accurately predict the difference just by looking at someone. If he looked at me, he could easily see I am more likely to be at the 70% or less :slight_smile: More muscle mass, less in shape (fatter)…