No FTP is your functional threshold power. LT is your lactate threshold. They are not the same thing. I know that Coggan doesn’t like ftp to be exactly 60 minutes. His basic disagreement being that some people can operate at %s above LT and that the crossover is ‘around’ 60 minutes. He’s very particular about how the term is used. Hunter seems fine with the idea that ftp is 1 hour maximal, and generally speaking that is the standard. Since power and lactate are not equivalent there is some attempt to actually map the entire curve and fit it to some idea of lactate threshold (and this is Coggan’s prerogative). Other training systems use that curve, and to good effect. My broader point still stands, the test, whatever it is, should match the training. TR is making a recommendation and suggesting that you be an active participant in paying attention to how you feel and targeting your goals with their system.
As @therealemm correctly states FTP is not the same thing as LT (as in HR). LTHR and the whole 4mmol threshold is a carry over from running and if I’m not mistaken somewhat arbitrary.
It’s super important to keep FTP in perspective as an anchor from which we try and train each energy system as efficiently and effectively as possible.
@Jimbo as you can see its easy to rally the debate team!
Keep in mind that any FTP test is simply estimating something that normally requires $$ and a lab setting to do blood testing while you ride harder and harder. Save yourself some money and consistently do the same test for awhile, and that means same position, same temp/cooling (ideally, might not be possible in a garage), same time during training cycle (that is handled for you by TR plan), etc. Changing body position can impact your results, as can having a bad day at work.
After testing you need to do this:
Workouts should be hard but not impossible.
Any questions come back and ask!
My vote is ramp.
The 20 minute test is simply wrong. No two ways about it. 95% of your best 20 minute effort after an ALL OUT 5 minute effort will underestimate your FTP.
My best 5 minute power is 125% FTP. And by definition, your best 20 minute power is 105% FTP. Put those together in workout creator with 5 minutes easy pedalling in between (see screenshot), and you get an NP of 105% FTP for 30 minutes. It just doesn’t add up.
Meanwhile, some 20 minute tests just say 95% of 20 minute power after a warm-up (no mention of an all out 5 minute effort!). Sufferfest just take your 20 minute power after all out 5 sec and 5 minute efforts and calls that your FTP, without subtracting 5%. And then you’ve got Andy Coggan saying one thing and then another, claiming he’s being consistent and wondering why other people seem to market his ideas better. It’s a mess.
The ramp test meanwhile has the advantage of data - they’ve adjusted the calculation so that TR session will be at the right level for the majority of riders. Go with that.
My turn to debate 
At least once in a 30 day period, my 20-min and 60-min tests were within a couple of watts of each other. Pretty happy with that. And my best 5-min power has never ever been close to 125% FTP, and besides mashing up 30-minutes in workout creator is not a proof that 20-min tests are wrong. Good times
All these tests are estimating something that can only be measured by taking blood lactate readings while you are cycling harder and harder.
Pick a test, use it consistently for awhile, and learn something about yourself as a cyclist. Or hire a coach and let them worry about details like this…
Which 20 minute protocol was that? With/without 5 minute all out effort? 95% of result?
How dare you question The Oracle??? 
Buy a bike and because I’m an engineering/math/science nerd buy/read the Friel books. Train hard for a year. Then sign up for a double century. Train even more consistently, get TTE above an hour, hit 3W/kg, and do the Friel 8-min, 20-min, 30-min, and 60-min field tests outside with the wind in my face. Look at data, and surprise they are all within a few watts of each other. Go forth and post in celebration 
The end.
Making FTP and testing methodology black and white is missing the point of everything.
Before power the main predictor of endurance performance was/is blood lactate levels. As Coggan and many exercise physiologist have written, while VO2max is the upper limit of aerobic energy production, LT or metabolic fitness, is a % of VO2max that the athlete can perform for ANY given period of time. Blood lactate (LT) is a result of what is happening in the muscles biochemically. As we all know it’s the point where the muscles are matching energy supply and demand.
So, the reason FTP is so messy is that any given method tries to approximate as closely as possible a riders power at LT based on an arbitrary 4mmol/L blood lactate level. Maybe you cross the threshold at 4.1 and I cross it at 3.2…who knows? Given the vast majority of us don’t have the ability to test blood lactate and find a true LT and therefore power at LT it’s written that FTP is “the highest power a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state for approximately 1 hour without fatiguing.”
Every power training program is derived from these principles. If you think the test you do approximates what you think you can do for 60 minutes is the goal. That’s as good as it gets and it’s really a best guess.
What’s my point? Not sure. Just seems like people get so carried away with getting a high number they forget why we do it.
no, not really, it seems you are conflating a rule of thumb (4mmol/L) with the definition of FTP in “the book.”
The reason FTP is so messy is that we are using field tests to approximate something that can be measured in a lab. And your personal fudge factor (e.g. 75% of 1-min in ramp test) might in fact be different than the protocol. We aren’t all average.
I don’t think anybody mentioned these until you did. @julianoliver was talking specifically about Maximum Lactate Steady State which is exactly what FTP is trying to estimate, so in that regard they are the same - the distinction is in how you get there.
That is not how Lactate Threshold is determined. That’s a typical value, not a testing protocol.
Mike
Agree with both the above. I’m with you guys. My ref to 4mmol etc…was a little reckless.
@julianoliver was talking specifically about Maximum Lactate Steady State which is exactly what FTP is trying to estimate, so in that regard they are the same
^^^This is what I was trying to say more or less.
Hear ya, feels like I’m getting a degree in physiology 
This is a pretty decent article that goes just a little deeper and articulates more clearly what we’re all talking around.
@julianoliver Funny. I posted that same article some months ago I think in ref to something @stevemz was talking about regarding testing…Hahaha! I think we all need to ride more and worry about all this stuff less
Where else on the Internet am I going to get my CEUs?!
Realistically this makes the most sense but I’d like to know how many people could get a higher calculated ftp from the ramp vs a 1 hour effort or 40k. It seems like the ramp overestimates a bit.
I’m going to have to draft up a dedicated post on testing protocols that incorporates all of the different ones out there for people to use as a guide. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what all of the different terminology means and how it applies to estimating your FTP and what you need to get right.
do you want to know someone that can score lower? 
you’ve had some great posts on the topic!
It’s gonna take me a few days to draft and edit, but it’s time to knock it out
Great idea. There’s so much good information, as well as miss-information, all over this forum. Would be great to pull all of the good stuff into one place.
Mike