FTP Testing: Protocols and Physiology Explained
- Liam Bertuzzi
- 2 days ago
- 6 min read
I've been writing about power and FTP tests this past week, even though I've spent the last 12 months without a power meter and barely riding. In that time, I've only ticked over 2743 kilometres and 118 hours on the bike and all unstructured ‘junk’ miles. This might sound like a fair bit but it's a huge shift from the 27,000kms of structured riding I used to cover while training.
I actually never planned on doing structured training again and to be honest, I didn’t think I’d ride that regularly at all. Although, as the time has passed I’ve felt the urge to get back into it. I’ve got quite a lot planned for the future that requires me to be fit and honestly I miss the feeling of being able to ride fast.
The power meter is arguably the most influential training device to emerge in cycling. It has empowered athletes and coaches with a far higher level of precision to execute training. However, knowing how to use a power meter effectively and interpret the data is sometimes overlooked. To effectively begin training with a power meter you first need to determine your Functional Threshold Power (FTP).
This is currently where I’m at. Staring down the barrel of doing maximal threshold testing. It’s quite daunting and something that I’ve generally avoided. In the past I’ve been able to estimate FTP movements by how I perform during training or by doing the popular 20 minute test. However, I don’t have a steady 20 minute climb nearby and like I mentioned earlier, I haven’t done any training for quite some time.
While Functional Threshold Power (FTP) is a widely used benchmark, it's important to know that there are several popular tests to find out what your FTP actually is and each comes with its own set of pros and cons. Understanding these differences is key to choosing the right test for your goals and ensuring your results accurately reflect your current fitness for developing performance.
FTP Test - The Classic 60 Minute
The original and most direct method for determining Functional Threshold Power involves performing a maximal, all-out effort sustained for a full 60 minutes (Borszcz et al., 2018; Sitko et al., 2022). The average power output during this 60 minute effort directly represents your FTP. This test was considered the gold standard for its ability to predict competitive performance, such as time trialing (Gough et al., 2025).
Even though historically, the 60 minute effort is considered the gold standard, completing a maximal 60 minute effort is extremely demanding both physically and mentally. This can lead to significant physiological stress (in anticipation and while executing) and considerable fatigue afterwards (Gough et al., 2025; Sitko et al., 2022).
The difficulty of the 60 minute test makes it hard for frequent or regular testing (Gough et al., 2025). Pacing a maximal effort for 60 minutes is also extremely difficult which can affect the reliability and validity of the test especially if you begin too fast or too slow (Borszcz et al., 2018).
Studies have shown that many participants including professional cyclists cannot sustain their FTP for the full 60 minutes with average times to failure reported as low as 26 minutes for some trained subjects and around 51 minutes for professionals (Sitko et al., 2022). This suggests that FTP isn’t a clear cut 60 minutes.
The 20 Minute Version
The 20 minute Functional Threshold Power test is a shorter version of the original 60 minute FTP test that has gained considerable popularity (Gough et al., 2025). Some of this popularity is due to the abundance of 20 minute climbs or uninterrupted road segments over the 60 minute test. In this protocol you perform a maximal 20 minute effort and then take 5% off the average power from the test (Borszcz et al., 2018; Gough et al., 2025; Sitko et al., 2022).
This is based on the theory that this 95% number can be held for 60 minutes (Gough et al., 2025). The 20 minute test has some key benefits over the 60 minute test. The main benefit comes from its reduced duration. This leads to less post exercise fatigue and decreased psychological stress resulting in faster recovery (Gough et al., 2025; Moore, 2018).
It's generally accepted that your average power output during repeated 20 minute cycling tests is very consistent and reliable (Gough et al., 2025). While some studies suggest a strong correlation between 20 minute power and 60 minute average power output. This potentially aids FTP prediction/estimation in certain populations (Gough et al., 2025). However, overall there is limited existing research testing this correlation to consistently and reliably validate the 20 minute test as an accurate predictor of actual 60 minute sustainable power (Gough et al., 2025).
In fact, many cyclists can't maintain 95% of their 20 minute power for a full hour, reaching exhaustion around 42 ± 17 minutes (Gough et al., 2025). This means that the 95% rule doesn’t apply to everyone. This is because of how much your anaerobic system contributes to the 20 minute effort, leading to inaccurate FTP predictions for a significant portion (40-50%) of athletes (Moore, 2018).
The Ramp Test
The Ramp Test is a progressive test where power output is incrementally increased in one minute stages until the athlete can no longer continue pedalling (Moore, 2018). Unlike steady state based FTP tests, the Ramp Test is a test to failure. FTP is estimated by taking a percentage of the power achieved in the final minute of a test, usually 75% of the highest one minute power (Moore, 2018). A significant advantage of the Ramp Test is that it doesn't become proper hard until the final minutes, making the hardest part shorter than other tests and often perceived as less intimidating for athletes new to structured training (Moore, 2018).
The Ramp Test is done in erg mode where the trainer controls the resistance. This benefits athletes who struggle with self paced maximal efforts and it generally requires the shortest post test recovery time (Moore, 2018). However, like the 20 minute test, the Ramp Test may overestimate FTP for athletes with higher anaerobic capacity as they can produce more power during shorter high intensity efforts).
The 2 x 8 Minute Test
The 8 minute test is another protocol designed to estimate FTP, typically involving two maximal efforts for 8 minutes (Moore, 2018). FTP is calculated by taking the average of two 8 minute efforts and multiplying that average by 0.9 (Moore, 2018).
This test offers simpler pacing compared to longer time trials like the 20 and 60 minute tests making it a great option for cyclists who may not be ready to complete a high quality 20 minute effort or can’t find a 20 minute long climb (Moore, 2018). Finding an 8-minute stretch of uninterrupted road is significantly easier than a 20 or 60 minute segment.
However, a key disadvantage is that the 8 minute test just like the Ramp Test and in some cases the 20 minute test, may overestimate FTP. This is particularly for athletes with a higher anaerobic capacity. As mentioned earlier, shorter efforts allow for a greater contribution from anaerobic energy systems (Moore, 2018). It may also be too short for highly trained athletes whose VO2max power can be sustained for more than five minutes (Moore, 2018).
I recommend the Ramp Test as an excellent starting point for brand new athletes and those with environmental limitations. Longer efforts, like 20 or 60 minute tests demand precise pacing and without a target number in mind, you risk ruining the results by starting too hard or too easy. Some might even question the value of performing a 20 minute test if you already know your optimal pacing number beforehand. I generally suggest the 20 minute test for more experienced cyclists often combined with an analysis of historical training data to inform more precise training decisions.
Choosing Your FTP Test
In summary, no single power test works for everyone, and each comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. The key is choosing a test that's both easily repeatable and reliable. Practical limitations often dictate the best choice. Some athletes don’t have long climbs for extended efforts while others may not have a smart trainer for a Ramp Test. As your coach, selecting the right testing protocol is crucial for nailing your exercise prescription and ensuring you maximise your training gains.
References
Borszcz, F. K., Tramontin, A. F., Bossi, A. H., & Costa, V. P. (2018). Functional threshold power in cyclists: Validity of the concept and physiological responses. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(10), 737–742. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-101546
Gough, L. A., Williams, J., Downes, G., Sturridge, S., Warner, A., Sparks, S. A., Dobson, B., & Brown, D. (2025). The Reliability and Construct Validity of the Functional Threshold Power Test in Recreational Cyclists.
Moore, K. (2018). The FTP test: Physiology and new protocols.
Sitko, R., Zając, A., & Cholewa, J. (2022). Functional threshold power is not a valid marker of the maximal metabolic steady state. Journal of Sports Sciences, 40(1), 1–7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2023.2176045
Comments