Ramp test seems better to me because you don't have to worry about pacing

That said, if you aren't well trained, I could see you putting out a higher number in the ramp test than you can actually sustain for an hour. At the end of the day, it's an estimate...

My ramp test was 9w lower than 60 min effort.

N of 3, currently. That being said, i have been doing more 30s-5min interval training recently with tempo/recovery between efforts, so i suspect that has helped my short duration peak power.

I know a lot is mental, and i have no fear of suffering... but not going to happen for 1hr. Not now at least. I will see how long i can do it and report back...

For me, at the moment I'd say it's fairly accurate. Last test result was 329W, I did a 1 hour TTT a few weeks later with NP of 319W, and that probably wasn't the best I was capable of - had some periods of coasting.

But, I'm also coming off the back of a big block (3+ months) of mostly sweet spot and endurance work. Lots of volume (12-14 hours most weeks) so my aerobic base is big and I haven't done a lot of work at or above threshold level. I've had similar results from the Ramp Test off lower volumes with more intensity, where my anaerobic fitness has allowed me to "cheat" the test, and where there is no way I could hold that number for an hour.

The usefulness of the Ramp Test is that it's easily repeatable, doesn't take long to recover from, and in my view is more consistent than the longer tests as motivation and pacing are less of a factor. But need to remember that however you do it, tested/estimated FTP is just a rough guide for measuring fitness, pacing and setting training intensity. Everybody's power curve is different anyway (and the power curve for an individual will vary depending on their training focus) so a single number to use for setting training efforts for everything from long endurance to VO2MAX and sprint intervals clearly isn't perfect. But it's a nice simple introduction to structured training, and works particularly well for triathletes who do sustained sub-threshold efforts in races and have 2 other sports to get their heads around.

Slightly different ramp protocol, but there is an ongoing thread on trainer road where some users are attempting 1 hour efforts at their newly tested ftp via the ramp. There are a few who only made it to 30 minutes or so but a fair proportion have made it pretty close to an hour.

It all depends on your power curve of course, but it does seem like a good starting point for setting workout targets.

My ramp tests tend to be a lot lower than a 20minute test. I think that you can only compare like for like.

my ramp test matched my 20 minute test. I preferred the ramp test as the time of suffering was shorter and pacing was not a concern.

Good post. FWIW the ramp test from Trainer Road matches my hour power nearly exactly as well.

Using Rouvy's Ramp test I get the same results you do, and it I use that FTP for any type of FTP based workout I fail miserably. I always go back to whatever FTP feels about right.

I think it has to do with where your strengths lie. I race Crits so high power short duration efforts are what I am very good at. Surges and jumps are along the same lines. A steady state long duration effort, not so much. I think a ramp test allows people like me to "game the system" for lack of a better description.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

The jist of what I'm learning about the different FTP tests is just this. An individual who is more anaerobic focused will tend to find that ramp test overstates your FTP. This newish podcast that I just listened to talks about the different types of FTP tests.

https://soundcloud.com/...ts-doc-1-ftp-testing

I would say, whatever metric or test protocol you use: pick one, and stick to it.

---

29 years and counting

Seems funny worrying about the accuracy of a particular measurement when the thing being measured is kinda inexact.

Honestly, FTP tests don't really mean that much. The amount of power can be held over a long duration tells me a lot more than a single test (or two) for long course triathlon. The power that I can average over a 3-5 hour ride is far more meaningful than testing for short efforts.

Now, that said, I've done a bunch of FTP tests over the years. I've done close to a 1 hr test - it was broken into four 14 minute efforts with 1 min easy spin - average power came out to around what I expected for my FTP at the time. I've also done both of the Zwift FTP tests - I feel that the 20 min test was almost spot on and that the ramp test was a bit low. I had around a 12 watt discrepancy at the end (350 per the 20 min test and 338 per the ramp test), but overall they were quite close.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

Exactly.

Before you can decide if the estimate is a good one, or not, you first need to establish exactly what you are trying to estimate.

Are you trying to estimate approx 60 minute power or FTP?

If you are trying to estimate FTP, which definition of FTP?

As with all single effort tests used to estimate FTP and which are significantly shorter than the typical duration one can sustain FTP, they will result in an FTP estimate that falls within a typical range. For good incremental protocols that typical range will be about 6-7% wide.

Different incremental protocols result in different typical ratio ranges but it will still be a range and there will still be outliers.

I would not rely on such a test alone to establish an estimate of one's FTP. Rather it's a guide, somewhere to start. Such tests are good for establishing your performance in such tests, e.g. use a MAP test to establish MAP. To nail down FTP a bit better, supplement it with another suitable estimation method, e.g. a TT effort.

As a guide, nailing FTP to be within a +/-5W range is fine. That's about the level of precision you'll attain in lengthier lab test protocol for say MLSS as an example.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

I think people out way too much stock in a single day test. If you have never ridden or used a PM, ok, but after that, it is just a guide. If you think the number is too low, “label” your FTP a slightly higher number. Think it’s too high...”label” your FTP a little lower. Your workouts that follow should give you the info you need to figure out if your tested number is about where it should be.

Fair enough. Shit in = shit out. What you had for breakfast probably matters more. But even still, my mind likes to logically think of the the biases that such tests generate. The mathematical assumptions of ftp tests of various lengths are all based on bell curves of some form to approximate reality.

My hypothesis was that shorter ftp tests favour people with more anaerobic capacity, and the longer versions favour the aerobic types. So one can “game a test” based on how you have trained reciently. Or more accurately, how you train will be more reflective of which test will be a more accurate of your performance. I.e. endurance riders will get more accurate data from a longer 1hr ftp, vs a someone who rides a lot less miles a day with training focus on short hard efforts.

I would take things with a far bigger grain of salt if i was using ramp test data, or even 20min ftp to help plan wattage in a 3hr tt.

I agree about gleaning info from tests that are relevant.

I suggest doing tests which enable one to reasonably parse out an indication of both abilities (as well as those specifically applicable to target events).

The testing method(s) chosen should be:
- Readily executable for the individual given their unique circumstances. This makes them repeatable.
- Suitable as a means to provide additional insight into current capabilities.
- Insights sought should be relevant for the goal event(s).

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

I recently did my first ramp test and this one was built into PerfPro. I am not sure what to think of it, but this time around all things seem to jive and for where I was a few weeks ago it was sort of a starting point into structured training again. When I completed the test result was 10 watts higher than what my mFTP was in WKO4 and what I perceived in riding and trainer sessions. When I imported the ramp test data into WKO4 my mFTP popped up close to the test result. Nothing else had been impacting the mFTP and in fact mFTP had been dropping based on my inconsistent training. I raised my sFTP in WKO4, PerfPro and Strava to this test result.

I was skeptical of using this number to govern my PerfPro training intensity levels, but I thought why not give it a try. The first sessions were using this number (sFTP) were standard 2 x 20 at 91% of that test result number. The session was definitely challenging and yet I was able to do consecutive days of this. A couple weeks later and I am doing 2 x 25 at 94% of that number in consecutive back to back days. Now my mFTP has come up to almost matching that sFTP number.

Does this mean anything at all? I have no expertise on this, but I think I will give the ramp test another few tries and see how things play out. Although those last few minutes of the ramp test were crazy difficult and left me sitting in a chair shaking and heart rate going nuts, I really liked this test compared to trying to pace a 20 or even 60 minute steady state effort.

The only thing I care about is training hard enough and training consistently (train, recover, adapt). I don't compete so I have more freedom to screw things up if I don't quite get it right. :-)

The whole post is great and is right on. Test but verify! ;)

Just did my first ramp test yesterday, result was pretty close to what i was expecting. 8 weeks ago I did a traditional 20min test for a 241w ftp, been pretty constant with my training last 2 months and workout were indicating a 250-260w ftp. Used to have a 265w ftp 2 years ago and power number were starting to look alike.

Worth mentioning that i did the test somewhat tired, i swam 4k a few hours earlier. I did this kind of on purpose to avoid overestimating the ftp, I rather keep it in the lower side to prevent overtraining.