I created a ramp test for my trainer using the Tacx Training app.
It starts with a gentle 5 minute warm up @ 100w then ramps up in 25w increments every 60 seconds.

I rode to failure at 425w which, if I understand it correctly, translates [75%] to an FTP of 318w (or 3.52w/kg @ my weight of 90.5kg).

This seems very high to me so could someone check my maths!

When I’ve done FTP tests in the past using Zwift or Wahoo SYSTM, even at my fittest, I’d be lucky to have an FTP of ~280-290w after many weeks of dedicated training, and I’m definitely not “trained” at the moment as I’ve done virtually no high intensity stuff in the last few months.

I intend to do a 20 minutes FTP test in a couple of days but was wanting to use the ramp test result to be my target 20 minute power – and I have serious doubts I’d be able to hold 318w…

Not an expert, but done a fair few.

I think usually they increase by 20w every minute, which doesn’t sound like a big difference, but adds up over 300w increase, an extra 3mins of pain.

Also, usually the average power of the final 60s is taken, so if you’ve just gone up a level it won’t be much higher than the previous level….if that makes sense?

Other than that, trainer calibrated? Spinach or Wheatabix for breakfast that day?

Yes, many people find the 1 min ramp test estimate is a bit generous, and remember to use the last minute you completed not one where you only managed a few pedal strokes.

Having said that my best 20min effort was better than indicated by any of the 1min ramps I’ve done. But I think I’m a bit of an anomaly.

I think usually they increase by 20w every minute, which doesn’t sound like a big difference, but adds up over 300w increase, an extra 3mins of pain.

Hmmm. Let’s see whether anyone else chips in but I may have to create a new test

Also, usually the average power of the final 60s is taken, so if you’ve just gone up a level it won’t be much higher than the previous level

I completed the full minute @ 425w then failed just about immediately it ramped up to 450w so that’s sufficient for my purposes

Other than that, trainer calibrated?

Yes, the Tacx app prompts to do a calibration test each time a workout is done. Granted, it’s a 5yr old Tacx Vortex so not exactly state-of-the-art…

Spinach or Wheatabix for breakfast that day?

Pizza for lunch 👍

It’s been criticised by many. If you have high strenght you get your result, if you have low strength (me) you get a low result. It’s more strength based and takes less account of endurance and abilities at continuous threshold HR as you might experience in real life, a 20 min or 1 hour test.

TLDR it’s a blunt-er tool than the other tests.

As written already, Zwift standard ramp test is 20W steps every minute and uses 75% of your best 60secs of actual power.

Been a while, but usually close to 10% too generous for me compared to what I can do for ~20mins.

I haven’t done the trainer road ramp test for a month or 2 (due one this week) – but I don’t think it ramps up 20w per minute – I think it’s less than that – 13w or 14w per step.

So the last one I did ended up giving me an ftp of 240w. The final minute I got through was at 320w after pedalling for 21 mins. The first 5 mins was at 104w and the first step started at 117w.

From experience I just don’t think a ramp test translates well to an FTP result for some riders. Some years ago I had one done in sports science lab (before power meters were easily available) and reached 484w after the final minute was excluded as per normal protocol.

That would have been an FTP of 363w which at 63kg would have been 5.8w/kg. I was pretty fit then but not pro tour level by a long way so I think the 75% rule doesn’t work for some people. It seems a bit of an arbitrary number.

In favour of a ramp test (and probably the reason for its popularity) you can do them regularly without hugely interrupting your training, it’s only a couple of mins of max pain really. The 20 min protocol is significantly more demanding let alone an hour test. So by all means use them to assess your training, just don’t read too much into the headline number and be aware it’s likely biased a bit high as compared to other methods.

Every ramp test I’ve ever done gives me a very generous ftp number compared to what I score on a 20 min test. Which is great for bragging, but not so good for setting accurate training zones

For me it tends to overestimate by about 5%, which doesn’t seem much but makes a massive difference towards the end of a hard training session

I’ve also found ramp tests pretty generous and now only do 20 min tests (or longer).

GCN did a chat on FTP numbers recently which was interesting. I think they said something like the average pro can hold FTP for 51 mins and your average trained amateur can only hold it for something like 35 mins.

I now round my test results down a notch or two to the point where it feels right and I reckon I could hold it for a reasonable amount of time.

Generous FTP numbers are great for bragging but nobody really cares at the end of the day 🙂

I’m more worried about my FTP being over-stated as most workouts I do are based on percentage of FTP (so will be too difficult for me to complete!)

I think I’ll modify my test to use 20w increments rather than 25w as suggested by @andeh

If you want to stick to the ramp test then you could try what I used to do –

Just create a continuously increasing “ramp up” block at the same rate over the same duration. That way the watts are continuously increasing every few seconds by a tiny amount rather than by a sizable chunk every minute.

That being said, I think knowing your FTP is more important for intervals at threshold and below. I think perceived effort is more valuable for Vo2 and above stuff. With this in mind I reckon the longer the FTP test (20+ min) the better.

The problem with taking 75% of the ramp test’s final minute is that it assumes you have an average anaerobic “battery” relative to FTP, which is just not true for many people. FTP is the *power* you can hold “indefinitely”, and the reason you fail in a ramp test is that you have drained your anaerobic battery, which is the *energy* you have available above your FTP. Thus, any estimate of FTP is basically working backwards from your anaerobic energy assuming you are average.
This is why Wahoo SYSTM and Xert are much better with their multidimensional fitness measures – they look at your whole profile (threshold, anaerobic & sprint power), not just a single number.
Of course, even these newer approaches are missing a vital extra dimension, which is the ability to recover from multiple hard efforts.

I think I’ll modify my test to use 20w increments rather than 25w as suggested

I had a quick look around after posting that and found contradictory and conflicting info on the subject. Some saying if you’re expecting lower final power, then use lower W/m, some suggesting the opposite: that elite riders should use 20W/m and non-elite should use 25W/m. Damned if I know, I’m afraid.

It’s an interesting one.

20m or 60m will suit diesel style riders better & may over estimate as it leans towards their attributes – ramp lends itself to more anaerobic style engines. I’m crud at 20/60m & my results are always lower than ramp. I tend to do ramp on sufferfest & then 2x8m a day or 2 later.

CTS Field Test: Why Two 8-Minute Efforts Instead Of One 20-Minute Effort?

https://support.wahoofitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404067414418-The-Half-Monty-fitness-assessment-Everything-you-need-to-know

IMHO if you want good accuracy the thing to do would be to do all 3 in 1 wk – obviously with a rest day in-between – & take the average. I personally can’t be arsed & only do SUF & CTS.

20m or 60m will suit diesel style riders better & may over estimate as it leans towards their attributes

Eh? I’m not sure that makes any sense. By its very definition, A full 60 min test cant overestimate ftp! (It could technically underestimate it though if you don’t measure your effort correctly)

If you are crud at 20 or 60 min tests but good at shorter ones then that’s a very strong indicator that the ftp number you derive from the shorter tests is not accurate. I know a good few people who’s ftp from ramp tests is far higher than what I’ve ever seen them get close to producing in real life, usually they are pretty good sprinters.

I would go with gut feeling rather than a ramp test…
If you got 290 on a 20 min test at high fitness, then aim to maintain 280 watts over the 20 min… that’s a pretty good target… your ftp with be (as you know) 95% of this…

It’s a good starting point

DrP

Arm chair opionion here. But i have read training lactate pulse-rate

The onset of aneorbic respiration can bo looked at in 3 ways

1. The power you can just sustain for 1 hour
2. The work rate where your blood lactate reaches 4 milli moles per litre
3. The power where your pulse stops changing linearly with work rate. I think this is called the inflection point

2. needs a lab
1. Takes a while so folks are often using 95% of what they can just hold for 20 minutes. Recent research shows tha this 95% is wrong for everyone. The less fit you are the more wrong it is

What is meant to happen in a ramp test is that every time you increase your power by say 10W you add the same number of beats per minute to your heart rate, provided you are working aerobically. This is because the extra oxygen for that 10W will be supplied by set number of extra heart beats per minute. However whrn you go anaerobic this relatioship breaks down. Your heart rate goes up by less than expected because you are no longer genrating all that extra power aerobically your using anaerobic respiartion instead.

However it looks like ramp tests of either sort don’t work well.

Ramp Testing: Yea or Nay?

Thanks all
The concensus seems to be that is not typical that ramp test results in the same number as a “proper” FTP test.

I asked the question cos I’m about to re-start turbo training for the winter and had no idea what wattage I should be aiming for during the “20 minutes of hell” when I take my first FTP test to establish a baseline.
In past years I’ve found it difficult to pace that 20 minutes – I’m usually pretty conservative at the start and end up ramping up dramatically in the last couple of minutes…

For sure, I won’t be blasting out the door at 318w but I’ll probably aim for 280w instead.

I think the article linked above said the ramp can be a way of setting a target for the 20 minute test

I think the article linked above said the ramp can be a way of setting a target for the 20 minute test

Sadly, I’m don’t have a PHD in Sports Science so most of that article went waaaay over my head 😁

That’s how I use the ramp test after some time away from training, although after a while you tend to know roughly where you’ll be anyway.

Also take a look at Intervals.icu which will give you a modelled FTP off a single maximum effort…the more max efforts you put in (of varying lengths) the more accurate your estimate will be.

I’ve found this is pretty accurate if you keep it well populated with a decent spread.

My first thought reading the OP was the steps are big so you’d spend less time at lower intensity accumulating a bit of fatigue.

In the past whenever I’ve been unsure of the outcome of an FTP test I’ve just done a workout with a short (maybe 5-7 min) interval at threshold in it. THat’s just long enough to get a feel for the effort and see if I’m in the right ball park. Then can just adjust up or down a bit to taste. I think trying to chase some platonic ideal of what your FTP is not very productive. Having a number that lets you hit the right zones and still finish your workouts consistently is the goal.

GCN did a chat on FTP numbers recently which was interesting. I think they said something like the average pro can hold FTP for 51 mins and your average trained amateur can only hold it for something like 35 mins.

As ampthill says that’s not exactly what they suggested. Those are the times riders can hold the FTP predicted from a 20 min test, which shows the “95% of 20 min test = FTP” figure to be inaccurate, wildly so for the less trained. I think that difference is part physiological and part psychological in that highly trained athletes are capable of hurting themselves more before quitting.

FTP is the *power* you can hold “indefinitely”,

No, FTP is defined as the power you can hold for 1 hour.

Just create a continuously increasing “ramp up” block at the same rate over the same duration

How do you then work out the power for the last full minute?

How do you then work out the power for the last full minute?

Don’t most ramp tests take your best 1 minute power, not the last 1 min block you completed? You you could complete 30 seconds at say 380w and all the 360w minute which would make your best 1 min power 370w, not 360w based on the full minute block you completed.

The issue with the 20 min test is that it’s very hard to pace correctly, tbh my ramp test results Vs 20 min FTP tests are very close, and they match TrainerRoad’s AI FTP and intervals.icu CP figures.

Don’t most ramp tests take your best 1 minute power, not the last 1 min block you completed?

I thought you were supposed to take the power for the last completed block.

I thought you were supposed to take the power for the last completed block.

This thread seems to suggest there isn’t a single agreed protocol 🤷‍♂️

I thought you were supposed to take the power for the last completed block.

Nope, trainer road and zwift both say it’s the highest 1 min power during the test.

Zwift will calculate your FTP once you stop pedaling. Your FTP Is calculated as 75% of the highest 1-minute power averaged during the test.

Of course, most people will finish at the end of a 1 min block as that next step up in power is normally enough to finish you off, but you don’t have to complete a block for it to count. Essentially it’s the last 1 minute of the test, no matter when you stop.

Soooo, OP here…
The ramp test I did suggested an FTP of 318w (which I thought was overly optimistic) but I’ve just done a dedicated FTP test using the Tacx Training app. Unfortunately, unlike Zwift, the app doesn’t tell you what it’s calculated the FTP as…
These are the results:

Looking at the same activity once it’s loaded into Garmin Connect:

Garmin seems to think my average 20 minute power is 310w so does that mean my FTP is 310w or 95% of 310w (294w)? Or something else???

(I think the FTP setting of 265w shown on the second screenshot is just from an old ride I did a few months ago where I had > 20 minutes of solid climbing)

For a 20 minute test it is normal to take 95% of the 20 minute average power which would put you at about 295w (0.95*310). I think the FTP setting is what it is set to within your Garmin Connect app.

I’d be curious as to how many people could hold 95% of their 20 min power for an hour though.

I reckon i’d be closer to 85% of mine.

FTP is only really useful for setting training zones for structured training though. Outside of that it is just a bit of a willy waving number. Even then a lot of people are starting to look at alternative testing protocols etc. It doesnt really matter what the number is in a way – it is useful for looking at growth and improvements but there are so many flaws with how the average amateur athlete will perform an FTP test from sleep, nutrition, rest etc.

The reason you wont be able to do 95% of your FTP will be because of muscular endurance. If you build that up by doing gradually increasing (in length) intervals of 90% ish of your FTP you would get there.

Well 295w at 90.5kg puts you at 3.25w/kg which isn’t ridiculously high, and is quite believable if you cycle regularly. What’s your power curve in Garmin show? I’m going to guess you’ve got pretty high short power up to a few minutes which (I think) helps with the ramp test.

FTP is only really useful for setting training zones for structured training* though.

Sure, which is exactly what I’ll be using as my baseline (I’m just not sure which programme I’ll be doing as I’ve got some imminent DIY jobs which may scupper my plans)
* plus Zwift races…

I’d be curious as to how many people could hold 95% of their 20 min power for an hour though.

GCN discussed this recently. There was a specific study which concluded that Pro/Elite riders can maintain their FTP for something like 90% of the hour whereas riders new to turbo training could only maintain their FTP for something like < 40% of the hour. So yeah, it has its limitations and in reality you’d be doing VERY well if you could do 85%!

yeah, it has its limitations and in reality you’d be doing VERY well if you could do 85%

Would be interesting for us all to try it. I don’t think I’d do as well as I’d like

What’s your power curve in Garmin show? I’m going to guess you’ve got pretty high short power up to a few minutes which (I think) helps with the ramp test.

I guess eating all the left over Halloween chocolate gave me an energy boost but my plan to go out @280w seemed quite easy but I did get a new max heart rate 😁

It’ll be under performance stats, looks like this

Would be interesting for us all to try it. I don’t think I’d do as well as I’d like

Group ride up Ven Top with keep together turned on, then? 🤣😬