Definitely not impossible to do long threshold efforts. Just not needed to effectively set training zones.
I do think they would be a more worthwhile exercise than regular ramp testing for most people, but people need to not stress about the number not matching what they think is their FTP.
Unless you know your FTP reasonably accurately then this is pretty hard to do while keeping your power consistent. Basically you need to have a good idea beforehand.
Max effort equating to fitness? Not in my world! Being able to ride just below LT1 for 16hrs a day for multiple days in a row is what I’m after. Being able to push 1000, 1200, 1500W for fifteen seconds is of no use to me.
It’s a chicken and egg problem. But with PLs you can get an idea.
Funny anecdote here: I am at end of a block and decided to do a ~50 min threshold effort as my last big workout. I wasn’t super well rested but decided to go out at a ramping pace using a custom Erg workout that would end averaging at my current FTP input. Training has been going well with threshold efforts, so figured I’d send it earlyand assess midway.
I ended up dropping my power targets big after 20 min and after a few min slowly building it back up. I ended up 6% below my FTP input for the effort. Out of curiosity, I made a custom workout to match my actual power profile, and it spit out a workout level of 5.8. My current threshold progression level is 5.9. That kinda blew my mind.
Anyways, I’m gonna take an easy week and try that 50 min again. Regardless, I am confident if I dropped my FTP input, kept it, or raised it, I’d get productive workouts. M
I’m a little confused here - a long threshold effort is a better measure of FTP than anything else. There is no “ramp test ftp”. There is a guess at FTP from a ramp test. But the “Functional” part of FTP is the key word. It’s what you actually do when you ride for a sustained effort, not what you think you can or should do.
Ah…gotcha.
Literally TR has never said or implied this.
I’m one of the 30-40% that enjoy ramp tests, but one of Nate’s comments sounded really good to me: If they can get a “good enough” FTP estimation without a ramp test every 6 weeks or so, then that Ramp Test can be replaced with a more productive interval session.
I’m curently on a LV triathlon plan with two TR rides a week, and looking at my calendar if I change all the Ramp Tests for workouts then it’s almost 10% more workouts from now until the start of Speciality, with no real increase in time (OK ramp tests are a bit shorter, but it’s still the same prep and cleanup)
Read this very short Zwift article on 20-min vs ramp testing:
I think it’s pretty fair and balanced.
Now read this TR Ramp Test FAQ:
Personally I glean a lot from a slightly under or over paced 20-minute test. 
Here is snippet from a Jonathan Lee blog post dated May 14, 2021:
Compared to the balanced Zwift article, the TR blog and support articles are actively selling the ramp test by contrasting against poorly paced 20-minute efforts. What TR states is very true for someone new to training and NO experience doing longer efforts near threshold. But what if you spent the first 6 months of cycling doing weekly drop rides where you were riding around threshold and increased “got dropped” time from 15- minutes out to 40-minutes? Would someone like that have a good idea about pacing long efforts?
I understand what @redlude97 is saying, and agree from an impression point-of-view. Can’t recall discussions about it on the podcast, and am simply basing my impressions on some of TR’s blog and support materials (I could post more, but the two above are enough).
Doing very similarly structured Sweetspot or Threshold workouts all the time is plenty good enough for this. Which is how most plans are laid out.
Personally - I rarely test as I find I can estimate my FTP to within a small handful of watts just from feel. I don’t usually test unless I want the ego boost from a nice big raise.
Same here, I rarely test. However my sister is about to restart her TR subscription and training plan. She doesn’t know how to pace longer efforts, and doesn’t use a HRM in order to estimate from power/HR data. Ideal use case for periodic ramp testing and I’ll be encouraging her to use the ramp test per the TR plan.
And sorry I should also say - I’ve been swapping the ramp test out for a workout for ages so this feature is welcome.
I also race/do TTTs on Zwift quite a bit which gives you a pretty good fix on your FTP.
I would be interested in how we progress in PLs correlate to the next ramp test and result in an increase in FTP. TR has so much data…would be fun to get access to play with it.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood, but aren’t heart zones based off a maximum, whether that be max h/r or max threshold h/r. Isn’t an FTP test giving you a max effort for that duration of time, that day to day training will be based on?
There are strength training protocols that are based on a % of your 1 rep max. Wender 531 is the one that pops into my head first but it isn’t the only one.
Any number of reps over 1 is not training max. Nearly every protocol you end up working at some percent of max for multiple reps, not max.
Just like calculations to figure out “FTP” from 8, 20 min, or ramp (or whatever else) tests there are even calculators to predict your 1 rep max from your 10, 5, 3, whatever rep weights.
As someone else just noted heartrate is often calculated, even “testing” it is usually going to be depending on your body that one day, yet we all look at our heart rate and compare our efforts etc.
Even running and swimming you are essentially working at some % of your “max” . This is not a cycing specific way to determine workload. YEs your outside racing pace and your inside training “ftp” might be different but I don’t think AT is necessarily trying to determine that those numbers are any different if you enter your outside race threshold number as your training number you might struggle or fail a few workouts and it will just change the workouts it provides but not necessarily the fake number we are all get obsessed with
Training to a percent of max is very common, training to max is not.
Funny you pick wendler as a counter example. I have 531 forever sitting here on my desk and the start of every single program talks about setting an appropriate training max to base your lifts off of. He, more than any of the other bigger names in that space base everything around training max not your real 1rm.
Either way, certainly not worth arguing about. I was trying to use it as an example to make a point about ramp test results being meant to more guide workout selection, and less so tell you your ftp but It seems i worded it poorly and that message was lost.
I believe I misread “training max” above which caused some confusion on my part.
For strength training the avg non competitive person TM and 1rm are going to likely be near the same. It’s been over 10 years but I did a Wendlerish program based on my 1rm and had no issues progressing, also possibly I would have progressed no matter what. For the avg cyclist the two FTPs are likely very close as well.
We agree on more than it probably seems, including not necessarily obsessing over what one can do out in race conditions or perfectly rested and tapered vs repeatedly on a trainer inside to use for a basis of training. I just don’t think that for the vast majority there is any significant difference between functional threshold power and for “functional training protocol”. If they are different and if AT works as it should then it doesn’t matter.
Scenario like this came up on the fitt insider podcast interview with Nate that just came out. He basically said you need a starting point so someone new or someone coming back from months off (he might have said 6 weeks?) would need to test.
Does TR still default to something like 200 watts when you first start? I guess in theory with AT you could leave it at the default and just AT survey yourself into the right workouts but that likely would be discouraging for a newbie or a waste of time for someone coming back.
There is definitely a place for testing, a place for knowing yourself, and a place for this estimator whenever it comes out.
Fingers cross I’m not actually black listed like Nate joked about for answering no to his IG stories survey about will you use it. I was in one of the first rounds of AT testing, so was actually hoping I’d be in early on this too. I said no basically meaning I wanted to test and compare, in the hopes it would eventually mean less frequent actual tests since I generally don’t fall into the group good at knowing oneself.
I dunno, and my sister’s ftp is about half of that and would immediately start failing all workouts.
When I started it defaulted me to 84 
If TR was smart, they would have the initial testing group still actually test, so they would get the TR FTP estimator FTP (now know as treFTP), and then be able to compare it to a ramp test FTP (from now on know as rtFTP 
). Without doing this comparison, they wouldn’t really be able to see how well treFTP matches the rtFTP they are trying to not have you do.
If I was TR, behind the scenes I would be calculating the treFTP every time someone is supposed to do a ramp test, so I could compare people’s rfFTP to the treFTP. This would given statistics on how well the treFTP works for the general TR population, and if it is possible to identify any sub-populations (e.g., age, gender, training history, etc.) where treFTP doesn’t work well.
