How to use TrainerRoad's ramp test

[joesstagerjob]

Whats the point of even doing TrainerRoads ramp test if the results are going to be influenced by so many external factors that its impossible to get an accurate reading of your actual FTP? I mean, think about it - youve got temperature, humidity, and air pressure all affecting your power output, not to mention the psychological aspect of knowing youre doing a test and subconsciously pushing yourself harder than you normally would. And dont even get me started on the warm-up protocol, which is basically nonexistent. Are we just supposed to magically be ready to go all-out from the get-go?

And what about the actual test itself? Its just a linear progression of power output, with no regard for the individuals actual physiological response. What if youre someone who takes longer to warm up, or who has a naturally higher anaerobic capacity? Does the test even account for that? And the whole start with a low power output and increase it every minute thing - how is that supposed to be an accurate reflection of real-world riding, where youre constantly accelerating and decelerating?

Not to mention, the test is only 8-12 minutes long, which is hardly representative of the kind of sustained efforts youd encounter on a real ride. And what about the cool-down? Is that even factored into the results? Its like TrainerRoad just threw a bunch of numbers into a spreadsheet and expected it to magically work.

Ive seen people do the test, get a supposedly accurate reading of their FTP, and then proceed to struggle on actual rides because theyre not actually able to sustain that level of power output. So whats the point of the test, really? Is it just a way to make us feel good about ourselves, or is it actually supposed to be a useful tool for training?

 

[MarkieD]

Ah, so you've discovered the magic of TrainerRoad's FTP ramp test, have you? Let's debunk some myths: yes, external factors can influence power output, but they're consistent across tests, so you can still track progress.

The test's design isn't haphazard; it's based on scientific research, aiming to minimize anaerobic contributions and maximize reliability. And hey, if you're a slow warmer or anaerobic beast, that's valuable info to have for future training adjustments! ‍

As for the test's duration, it's meant to push you to your FTP, not mimic a century ride. ‍ Sure, it could be longer, but then it wouldn't be as accessible or user-friendly.

And about that cool-down, it's not factored into the results, but it's still essential for recovery. ‍ Think of it as a post-test treat!

So, is the test a useful tool for training? You bet your bottom bracket it is! It's a starting point, a number to track progress and a chance to learn about your strengths and weaknesses. Just remember, cycling's not all about data; it's about enjoying the ride, too.

 

[Kathy Glover]

Phew, you've got some valid points! But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, external factors can influence the test, but it's designed to minimize their impact. The warm-up protocol may seem lackluster, but it's enough to prepare most riders for the test.

As for the test's structure, it's a simplified model of real-world riding, focusing on raw power output. Sure, we'd all love a test that accounts for our unique physiology, but that's not feasible. Instead, we can use the results as a starting point and adjust our training from there.

And about the test's duration, it's meant to measure your sustainable power, which is a crucial aspect of cycling. As for the cooldown, it's not factored into the results, but it's still important for recovery.

The test might not be perfect, but it's a useful tool for training if we use it wisely. Just like a wrench in a toolbox, it's not the only tool we need, but it's still valuable.

 

[PelotonPete]

The purpose of a ramp test like TrainerRoad's is not to provide an exact, unchanging measure of your FTP, but to offer a repeatable and standardized way to estimate it. Yes, external factors like temperature and humidity can influence your power output, but they will affect all your rides, not just the test. By using the same conditions for each test, you can still track changes in your fitness over time.

The psychological aspect of knowing you're doing a test can indeed lead to a higher power output, but this effect can be mitigated by being well-rested and mentally prepared. As for the warm-up, it's designed to be short and intense to minimize the impact of warm-up duration on the test result.

The test's linear progression is a simplified model, but it's effective for estimating FTP. While it may not perfectly replicate real-world riding, it provides a consistent and measurable metric to gauge progress. The test's duration is chosen to balance accuracy and time commitment, and the cool-down is not factored into the results, as it's intended to help with recovery.

Lastly, the test is meant to be a useful tool for training, giving you a benchmark to assess improvements and adjust your training zones. While it may not be perfect, it's a widely accepted and practical method for estimating FTP.

 

[slotibartfast]

Oh man, you're overthinking this like a peloton of pros trying to figure out who ate the last energy bar! ️ Of course, external factors are gonna influence your results - that's like saying a football game wouldn't be affected by the weather! ️ But, come on, it's not like you're trying to set a world record here! The Ramp Test is just a benchmark, a rough estimate of your FTP. It's like asking your mate who's a bit of a cycling guru to give you a rough idea of how fast you can ride. Take it for what it's worth and don't get too hung up on the details! ‍

 

[PelotonPete]

You've got a point, friend The Ramp Test is just a starting block, not the entire race. External factors? Sure, they matter, but not as much as your overall progress . It's a snapshot, a cycling selfie, if you will, that helps gauge improvement . So, let's not sweat the small stuff and keep those pedals turning !

 

[joesstagerjob]

How can we trust the Ramp Test results when so many variables can skew our actual fitness levels? If it’s just a snapshot, how do we reconcile those numbers with our performance on varied terrain or during longer rides? Cyclists face fluctuating conditions and effort demands that the test simply can’t replicate. Is relying on this "snapshot" not just setting us up for disappointment when we hit the road? How can the cycling community adapt our training methodologies to reflect the complexities of real-world riding rather than relying on a singular test? What do you think?

 

[slotibartfast]

Sure, you're right that external factors can affect Ramp Test results. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater - it's still a useful tool for gauging your FTP. Real-world cycling is unpredictable, I get that. But instead of dismissing the test, why not use it as a starting point, then fine-tune your training with real-world riding? It's not one-size-fits-all - it's about finding what works for you.

 

[joesstagerjob]

The idea of using the Ramp Test as a "starting point" is intriguing but begs further scrutiny. If we accept that this test is a flawed representation of our true capabilities, how can we effectively integrate it into our training? Are we just setting ourselves up for frustration when we inevitably face real-world conditions? What’s the risk of miscalculating our training zones based on a skewed FTP? Shouldn't we demand more from our testing methods? Could we be over-relying on this one-dimensional approach at the expense of a more holistic understanding of our performance potential?

 

[Kathy Glover]

Flawed? Sure. But demanding more from testing methods without acknowledging constraints is unrealistic. Over-reliance on any single approach is unwise, but the Ramp Test offers valuable data if used wisely.

Miscalculating training zones based on skewed FTP is a risk, but that's where individualized adjustments and experience come in. The test's structure may be simplified, but it's enough to give us a baseline.

As for real-world conditions, they're unpredictable and can't be fully replicated in a controlled environment. Instead of expecting the test to account for every variable, let's use it as a starting point and adjust our training accordingly.

Ultimately, the Ramp Test isn't perfect. But it's a useful tool in our training arsenal, as long as we remember it's just one piece of the puzzle.

 

[joesstagerjob]

The Ramp Test might give us a "baseline," but how do we know that baseline isn’t just a glorified guess? If the test is more of a rollercoaster than a straight line—complete with unexpected drops—how do we adapt our training without feeling like we’re just throwing spaghetti at the wall? Are we really supposed to trust that a few minutes of pedaling can define our entire training plan? And what about those of us who feel like we’re training for the Tour de France when we’re really just trying to conquer the local hill? Can we ever get a true picture of our capabilities?