Is there Live FTP test for the 20 minute [or 8 minute] FTP test?

Is this feature available on Android?

Good question. I don’t think so (for this or the 2x8m), but I reserve the right to be wrong. :wink:

Tag for @IvyAudrain to check for us, and we may change this to a Feature Request if needed.

1 Like

Try to calculate it in your head mid-interval - might distract from the pain in your legs.

On PC if you expand the menu, you can see interval power, so shouldn’t actually be too hard to figure out 95%. But yeh, a live number would be a bit slicker!

I’m a longer test kinda guy not into the ramp test but I haven’t done a test since they came out with the live feature for the ramp test, so hopefully its for all forms of testing.

1 Like

There is NOT a live FTP for the 8 and 20 minute tests, just for Ramp Test.

It’s not on the roadmap to implement live FTP for those tests at the moment, but I can submit it as a feature request!


Please do that would be great!!

Perhaps I’m confused but the testing protocols are different in such a way that “live FTP” for the 8 or 20 minute tests don’t make sense.

In the ramp test, since you’re pedaling to failure, your FTP is roughly 75% of your best 1-minute power. As each second ticks by your 1-minute power is getting better so a live FTP can be calculated.

During the 8 and 20 minute tests, you have to complete the 8 or 20 minute interval first before the calculation is valid, so a “live FTP” doesn’t make sense.

1 Like

Somebody has developed a live FTP app on Garmin IQ, I’ve downloaded but haven’t used it, so I don’t know how accurate it is.

Edit: Just connected my Garmin and it’s a data field, this one.

It’s not that hard. TR could track a running average of the power from the start of the test block, and then apply the appropriate calculation based upon that average (AP x 0.95 for 20m, AP x 0.90 for 2x8m).

  • It could vary wildly in the beginning, because the averaging is over a short period, and there may be more fluctuation.

  • But as the test rolls on, especially after half duration, the picture and prediction would become reasonably predictive of the end result. If done this way, it becomes more “accurate” with each second and would be fully accurate right upon completion of the last second.

  • The above is true for the 20 minute version in particular, since it is a single test block.

  • The 2x 8 min is a bit trickier. The process above would be true if looking at an individual block, and using the same calculation that applies at the completion of the test. However, since the test works on an average of both blocks, the calculation during the second block should include the values from the first block. More complex, but far from overly difficult or impossible.

Got it, thanks

1 Like

I submit I could be wrong but I thought that the 8 min protocol took 90% of the second effort. I was unaware that the test even looked at the first?

I may well be wrong. I found on resource (CTS, so I think the best one) and am parsing through it to find the specifics. But it looks conditional based on the relation ship between the blocks (if one is higher than the other, different steps happen). Pasting below, but I need to review in greater detail when I have more time.

If your average power from your second effort is more than 10 percent lower than your first effort, that doesn’t change your training prescription, but it gives you one more marker by which you can evaluate progress the next time you complete the test. For example, as the average power outputs for your two field test efforts become more equal, that is a sign that your training has improved your ability to buffer lactic acid and process lactate. The first effort took less out of you, and you were able to recover from the effort more quickly, leading to the ability to perform a second effort at an equal power output after just 10 minutes of easy spinning recovery.

Sometimes an athlete has a higher average power on the second effort of the CTS Field Test, and this can often be attributed to one of two factors: You were cautious on the first effort and held back, or you didn’t warm up well enough before the field test (the first effort, then, was, in essence, the end of your warm-up). In either case, your training ranges are established from the higher of your two average power outputs or heart rates, so the fact that the CTS Field Test consists of two efforts allows you to establish accurate training ranges despite performing poorly on one part of the test. In a test that consists of one longer effort, either the learning curve of the test or a poor warm-up is more likely to result in training intensities that are lower than they should be. In the long run, this isn’t all that harmful to an athlete’s training, because training intensities will most likely be corrected by subsequent tests, and most athletes make performance gains even if their training intensities are a little lower than they could be. Nevertheless, through testing thousands of athletes with the CTS Field Test, I have found that it provides greater accuracy the first time around as well as in subsequent tests.

In either case, there seem to be easily defined conditions, that could easily be done with “if/then” conditional statements. Point being, this is very possible to integrate into running FTP estimate.


I would be really happy if the 20-minute test showed my average power during the test. It can be hard to mentally average the natural power fluctuations.

It would also be neat if the workout showed your average power for each quartile, as is reported in the actual test.

1 Like

I use the lap button on my Garmin and have a field for average lap power that I monitor during tests.