Why Ramp: It more accurately depicts your threshold power and therefore, proper application of prescribed intensity ( your zones ) This means proper load and stress during training because we have a more accurate starting point.

 

FTP is not an accurate indicator of performance, especially within a 4-15 hour race. For our pros, we place so little emphasis on it that they often NEVER do one of these tests. It’s more important for developing athletes as we see greater changes in fitness and variation so testing to get new zones is important! 

 

Time of year. Remember we just came off our “base” and foundational part of the season where we laid the groundwork for the real intensity which drives and sharpens fitness. That’s exactly what we’re turning to now- albeit with a twist, and less race-specific work. We will retest at the end of this cycle ( 10 weeks at the earliest) 

 

So put down the ego, remember. FTP doesn’t correlate to faster racing in many cases. Adjust your zones accordingly. We will come back to this and you will have your revenge.

 

Q & A Below:

 

Q - Matthew, could you please clarify for me your statement about the ramp test being a "more accurately depicts," statement.  I would love to hear more about this, you can just send me the research papers/data that you have and I can go through it so you don't have to fully explain, I just want to understand and learn more.  Coggins and others have made the statement about what type of muscle fiber/energy system you have impacts the ramp test or the 20 minute test or the Sufferfest Full Frontal Test among any test.  What test does PPF plan to use in the "retest in 10 weeks at the earliest."  Finally, could you shed some light on how testing FTP inside CAN give you different numbers than testing outside, and should we be testing in the environment we will be racing in. 

 

A - The ramp test is based on maximum ( 1 min) aerobic power. We have found as an industry  (British cycling, Canada cycling, and platforms. such asTrainer road,Zwift ) more and more lean into the ramp test a better correlation to threshold than the standard FTP test. We have found that we agree when comparing lab testing of our athletes to the 20 min test Vs ramp test. We find a greater variation with the 20 min test, this is usually because of the anaerobic contribution that comes into play. In a 20 min test. Most athletes can "cheat" the test if they have a greater contribution from anaerobic metabolism than aerobic. This distorts your true threshold as being higher than it likely is, because of this anaerobic contribution. This is also where muscle fiber type comes into play. More type 2 fibers, greater anaerobic contribution etc- more able to rig the test. Maybe you've heard you should be able to ride a 70.3 at 80-85% of your FTP. Many of use can't even come close, and this is why. As an event progresses ( anything beyond 5 mins) there are less and less anaerobic contributions.

I'll highlight what threshold is: Steady-state lacate in the blood, measured, the point at which lactate combustion=lactate production ~ at or around 4mml- This correlates to 1 hour maximal sustained pace/power on the bike or run. Or the rate at which you could sustain an activity for 1 hour.  That is the where the science has landed, this is called L2/VT2 if you were to do lab-based testing. 

The 20 min test was born out of an approximation to allow athletes to do 20 mins best effort and than take a multiple (.95%), trying to give athletes a "threshold" without going to a lab, or doing a full one hour of power all out. 

The ramp test is also an approximation of this Steady-state lactate - Both ultimately are shorthand approximations that allow athletes to measure we think lab testing would determine Threshold to be. Ultimately we think the ramp test does a better job of this approximation and allows for a better prescription for appropriate intensity.

We come back to this point again and again. It's simply a measure against itself. A benchmark to help guide training intensity, but less useful as a measuring stick of progress. The reason why we do it is that without it, we'd have either no ability to have a common language for intensity and zones, or we'd need every athlete to do physiological testing.

This brings me to last point: Outside v inside. We see variation both ways. Some athletes execute better outdoors, some indoor.

Whatever test you do, it might be a 20 min, or a ramp. They both do the job. ( we think the Ramp is a bit better, but we allowed both as options because they both are acceptable) Execute in the same environment, outside, or inside with temperature the same. etc. Whenever we test we ask athletes to perform in optimum conditions. Fan, good cooling, well. rested, hydrated, fueled etc. Keep as many variable constant as possible. I hope this helps!

 

Q - Hello and good to meet you. I did my run test today but had confused messages whether the last 10 mins I should have gone really hard which I did. When I read again your instructions it said to go at pace you can sustain one hour. Can you clarify?

 

A - We see this often with 20 min tests and usually attributed to incorrect execution or pacing. We see this from our pros down to AG. There are many variables to consider beyond that, but without seeing you test, knowing you intimately as an athlete that's impossible for me to tell. You'd also need to do a 20 min test NOW to compare to your ramp test as it's possible you are now more fit than when you previously did your 20 min tests. 

I would take confidence in this. Your FTP just went up. So maybe you're just more fit, or maybe this test suits you better. Adjust accordingly and see how the sessions feel.

Your 20 min tests told you this: Your best 20 min effort. That is all, and that's all you can really compare it to. I know that's pedantic but it's true. The reason these tests have some correlation is that they give a good total picture of an athletes capabilities in terms of aerobic ( v02max) and anaerobic ( glycolytic capacity) . What they don't tell us is how that power is composed, which is really the interesting part