jsk

Any of the recent Garmins can use a BT connection to auto-upload your ride through a smartphone when you're finished. Actually I think Garmin's have had that feature for a couple generations now, I know my old Edge 510 had it.

aaronmcd

I may just jump on the Garmin bandwagon. Do the garmins last and does the mounting system last? My Joule lasts forever and works 100% perfectly at all times, but the mount wears out after a couple years and I am now wrapping electrical tape to hold it on. Also does the Garmin have too many buttons or is it pretty simple to operate one handed?

gerundium

What kind of ramp rate does this protocol use?


i am now testing my fitness also using a ramp test with the protocol taken from the "topcompetitie wattmeister challenge". This is a competition of elite cyclists in the netherlands with the winner last year getting a stagaire contract at Katusha. Fun part is that you can benchmark yourself against the best riders if you use the same protocol, results can be found here: https://www.topcompetitie.nu/wattmeister/


protocol used is start the first block at 1.6 w/kg and add 0.4 w/kg every 6 minutes. This is a very slow protocol so quite good to dermine your base pace, tempo and threshold zones but you will probably not reach high max values on it. I found it a lot less mentally draining because it's basically a long tempo session with a short supra treshold effort at the end. And it has been very useful for guiding my training in the base period focussing on tempo and endurance rides mostly.


EDIT: oh and the results have intermediate values as well. basically they take the fraction of the time you held the latest block and interpolate between two. so if you fail 4 minutes into the 5.6 w/kg block your result would be 5.2 + (4/6)*0.4 = 5.466

rubiksoval

My Garmin 510 died like a couple of weeks out of a (one year) warranty. I tried a Joule but the screen drove me crazy so went back to a 520. It does what it does very well, but the buttons are a bit annoying. Regular operation is one-handed, but changing any settings is a slow operation that either requires two hands or complete re-positioning of one hand because the select button is on the top right and scroll buttons on bottom left. That obviously gets really annoying really quickly if riding somewhat fast/hard.

I got mine before the Wahoo little Bolt came out (whatever it's called), so if and when my 520 dies (so far much better than the 510 in that regard) I'll go to that because I think Garmin is lacking in software (some glitches from time to time with updates) and customer service.

But so far my 520 works really well, and the BT with the phone is a nice feature.

hubcyclist

i tried that trainerroad ramp test this morning, somehow I find a way to keep failing tests lol It's a great test, for sure. In my case, my legs gave out before my lungs, I'm really bad at making my legs go when things get really hard. Also, I've only had my morning latte so I'm not sure if fueling plays a factor (can't really imagine not having the reserves for a short hard effort). The other thing as I hyper-analyze is whether my not normally working anything about threshold affects my ability from a muscular perspective to do anything over threshold.

But the test seems to align with my current ftp (270) was hoping for 275, I think I'm getting there but the legs didn't have it, and alls you can do is alls you can do.

TheKillerPenguin

Trying out a 4 week block. Usually do 3 before a rest week, so I'm curious to see how the last week goes.

hubcyclist

did my planned workout, 90mins w/ 4x15 sweet spot CTL is 69 (giggity)

oddly enough, my earlier ramp test gave me an all time 5min power (316w), hopefully something I can repeat with some regularity this year

caloso

3'@120%
3 x (5'@110%)
3'@120%

TexMac

Been 12 days so was able to get in 50 minutes on trainer this AM before work and just glad that's all I can get while taking care of sick mom (stroke). Now I kinda of understand it when people say they don't have time . Need to find an efficient training routine for 1 hr.

Ttoc6

I made it 19 minutes, 12 second (so 15 steps + a bit after the 4 minute warmup). Equated to 30 TSS if you use my old ftp to calculate it.

Not 100% sure. It's a 4 minute warmup at 50% of current ftp. From there it steps up about 5.5% per step. So by 12 minutes in you're at current ftp.


The protocol I had used before (on my own) was the one detailed by Shane Miller (https://gplama.blogspot.ca/2016/07/h...-pb-hptek.html). I liked it too, but 25W steps every 2.5 minutes takes a while lol. Your test protocol seems hard. I think the idea behind the TR one is you can tack it on before a workout if you need to assess without putting a ton of stress on the body. I wouldn't want to do vo2 work afterwards, but I felt just fine doing an aerobic ride post test which would never happen with a traditional 8 or 20 minute test protocol.

Ttoc6

Both times I've done ramp tests when you're done.. you're just done. It's weird, like metnally I'm still there but my body just decides it's all over for one reason or another..


Anyways, today was vo2 work (again). 3 sets of 7 by 1 minute at 127% with 40 seconds rest. Was supposed to d about 40 minutes of aerobic riding at the end, but I pulled the plug. Needed to get some food. I did the hard part of the workout, so not a huge loss.

tetonrider

0.4 w/kg is a pretty big gap, esp for 'average' size riders.

interpolation is pretty common, but if you've got large steps it's not so great for level-setting.

a long ramp is quite useful, but the steps should also be pretty tight. sounds like this is supposed to be an MLSS test of sorts, but without the lactate testing (which is very useful).

i like ramp tests (taking them and administering them). 3' steps and 20w increments is something of a standard, to the degree that there is one.

tetonrider

that's a short test. sounds like it's more of a MAP test, vs a RAMP test to determine threshold.

yes, people try to predict FTP from MAP tests, and there are some ROTs, but since it is so short (1' steps) a rider who has a large anaerobic capacity is going to have a far different result than someone whose anaerobic capacity is lower.

IOW, large st. dev. makes it tough to use as a predictor, util you have a bunch of data on yourself from similar tests.

my advice (not that you asked): once you've picked a protocol stick with it. for years. seriously.

gerundium

0.4 w/kg is a pretty big step indeed for your average rider. I think it's determined because of the elite population they wanted to use it on. Test time would be around 1 hour in total for them.


i liked the slow protocol of it though, your heart rate and RPE could really settle in during a wattage block. This for me gave me the idea i could really tell quite accurately at which block i went out of endurance and where my threshold was at. i have some decent anaerobic power so with a lot of tests i've tried i had the idea that i would overestimate threshold and here i didn't have that feeling at all.

tetonrider

unless you're ~60kg I wouldn't really find all that much value in the testing.

i'd prefer a shorter protocol with tighter steps for the amateur riders i work with.

i can see applications for this, but adapting what elite riders do to the general population is not always desirable.

gerundium

curiously i am around that weight, why do you think that scaling by w/kg is unfavourable?

tetonrider

because the steps are too big. for many riders, there are subtle but key differences that emerge just below, at, or just above some break-points.

shorter, tighter steps are good because much can be learned about a variety of zones.

longer steps are fine, too (they reveal different things) if one has time. if one doesn't have time and has some ideas about their zones, it would be better to use tighter zones (even tighter than 20w) concentrated around those breakpoints.

the rest of the steps are often not terribly interesting.

most people want to use these tests to figure out VO2max (MAP testing) or FTP.

yeah, if you want to find LT1, LT2, VO2max, everything in one test, i guess it might be useful. i still think it is a compromise. even in those cases interpolating between larger steps (35w for a 185# rider) is FAR less desirable IME than narrower steps.

better to do multiple tests.

gerundium

alright that makes sense. In my case i found this test to be a decent workout in and of itself and gained some valuable info while not dreading the workout itself so that lends itself to repeatability.

tetonrider

fair enough.

that's a fairly low bar.

repeatability is quite important; i agree with you there.

jsk

I'm really more of an all-rounder, maybe pursuiter depending on the type of training I focus on. VO2Max-type efforts are my strength, so for me, the shorter the FTP test, the less accurate it is. Even the 20 minute test is not ideal, I tend to use long intervals (30-40') to estimate my FTP.

I understand why TR is wanting to do this, the new test is shorter and easier, so people will be more inclined to test regularly. I guess if the test is repeatable/consistent and the resulting training zones work for somebody that's OK (certainly better than nothing). I wouldn't necessarily try to pace a 40K ITT based on that FTP estimate, though.

caloso

First Zwift ride in a while. I was surprised how few riders were on at 6:30 PST. I would have thought that there'd be swarms.

ntnyln

My new coach has had me testing every month over the winter during FTP work and we switched to a ramp test because I couldn't imagine the mental toll that months of indoor trainer work combined with a 20' FTP test every 4 weeks would take. They have been so much easier to digest and have been fairly accurate.

TMonk

lol

furiousferret

FTP has been sliced up so many times its not even a measurable standard amongst cyclists. Does it matter two riders technically have the same FTP but one did a test that matches his strengths so his is 50 watts higher? If they're teammates absolutely, otherwise probably not.

There's also the exhaustion effect of FTP that people completely ignore which is a huge factor. Some can hold threshold at 70 minutes, some at 45 minutes.

There's the standard 20 minute test, 30 minute test, hour test, the 20x2 test, the 8x2 test, Strava estimate, WKO estimate, GC estimate, the new TP standards; and I'm probably missing about 15 more.

Right now my FTP swings 40 watts depending on what standard I use. In WKO its low, the Strava marker is high, Golden Cheetah and 20 minute testing is somewhere in the middle. I haven't focused on anything over 5 minutes for the past few months, so the modeling is off and not really something I concern myself with; that's the other issue.

TBH, I just set my FTP to what zones feel right in training and is far from accurate (which is why I don't advertise it). Devil's Punchbowl (UCLA RR) is in 5 weeks so that's going to change tho.

hubcyclist

yeah, the whole ftp=hour has been said so much that people believe that's the case, but I see Dr. Coggan push back on that on other forums

2hrs for me today 130tss with 4x18 sweet spot intervals, CTL cracked 70, woohoo!