Racing cat 5 with high w/kg

60 minutes is really the number not 45. And yes, I believe most people train with FTP’s that they can’t hold for an hour. Is it really an FTP? It is an 8 minute, ramp test or 20 minute estimate of 1 hour power. I’m saying the estimate is higher than actuality.

I think this is just more proof of concept. Most people rarely do ftp-like efforts for an hour. I agree. Which is why I don’t think that most people are able to do their training FTP for an hour. They simply don’t ever do it. It’s really hard and painful and if you don’t train for it it the endurance is likely not there to accomplish riding for an entire hour at one’s FTP.

So if you don’t use the chart, what would you use to prove your FTP other than an 8 minute, ramp test, or 20 minute test? Those are all going to overstate what MOST people can hold for 1 hour.

I definitely agree. Part of the problem with doing FTP for 60 minutes is finding somewhere that you can consistently put down power for 60 minutes with enough motivation and no need to let up. Probably the only case I can think of would be a 60 minute Zwift race.

Personally, with a ramp test FTP of 277, the highest average I’ve seen for 60 minutes is about 260 watts. More commonly, I’ll see 60 minute averages around 240 watts. However, I will a lot of times see race situations where my 60 minute average is around 240 watts, but also with an normalized power of just about FTP over the same time period.

Given the fact that you race and you have NP data out to 60 minutes that roughly equates to your FTP, that would put you in the 1/10 camp IMO.

You could always go to resistance mode in TR and bang out a 1 hour gut buster and see how that equates to your FTP. I’m guessing most people won’t get there.

Coggan has changed his definition of FTP to not be strictly 1 hour, which it was never exactly 1 hour, but approximately

“FTP is the highest power that a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state without fatiguing for approximately one hour.”

I don’t think that most people can ride for approximately 1 hour with the training FTP then :hugs::hugs:


I agree with you and to a large extent I disagree with TR’s use of “training FTP”. If a lower “true FTP” is determined then the intervals for training can just be adjusted off of those percentages. Using ramp tests I’ve gotten FTP values ~10-15w higher than my Xert modelled FTP or even 20 min based FTP. I’ve got 30-45min PD values close to my modeled FTP as well as NP results in that range near my modelled FTP but never any near a ramp test FTP. I’ve also never tried a full 60 min TT FTP test so an 60 min avg is not quite representative.

That’s definitely my point

Which is why I stated that shouldn’t that indicate there is something wrong with that FTP value? But i know I’m fighting a losing battle since a lot of people like their ramp test results, despite it not being particularly useful for actual pacing

I think we are saying the same thing!


1 Like

I was 4.3 w/kg when I was a 5 and 4. Never won a 5 or 4 race. Just never figured out how to. I got plenty of top 5s and I race large enough crits/races where top 5s can get you to cat 2. But, timing the sprint, when to attack, not doing stupid shit, will pay dividends in regards to how strong you are.

While it may not conform to the old school idea of “hour power” I don’t see what’s wrong with using a ramp test FTP if it serves the purpose of setting zones for an individual? Especially if it’s someone new to structured training.

It seems that aside from a handful of coaches (Neal, Seiler, etc) most everyone has moved on. I had WKO5 try to tell me my mFTP is basically my 30min power and other models have done the same.

I should mention I set my FTP based on hour power, but don’t think everyone needs to do the same.

1 Like

It’s been said many times in the TR forum, FTP isn’t what a person can hold for 1 hour exactly. It can vary per rider, and can be anything from 40 to 70 mins or more.

However, some folk in their wisdom thought it would be “fun” to compare the ramp test ftp estimate with an actual hour of power (silly people!):

I got sick two days after my effort and had to take a week off! Not sure if was a coincidence or as a result of going that hard for an hour.

TR has said their data shows the ramp test ftp allows most athletes to finish their workouts. A ramp test is actually a MAP test, so why not just base the training of a percentage of that? Ie lest say your MAP is 300 based on the ramp test. 0.75×300=225. Say yourr going to do 120% ftp intervals=270w. Or you could just prescribe 90% MAP intervals etc. Why conflate “training” FTP with “real” FTP

You have to train your ftp to hold it for that “hour” +/-.
Just like how most would struggle jumping into a 3x20 it’s a system that gets trained. Perfect for setting zones. Most people outside of TTers are going to need to ride around that wattage for around that time period so they don’t continually train to do that.

1 Like

This is basically the way I view the purpose and result of the TR ramp test. I don’t think of the test giving me an FTP per say, but merely a number to use to base percentages off for workouts in the plans. We all have to accept the number isn’t perfect, and each of needs to adjust the effort as required to get as close to the prescribed load as was intended. I know it’s a little hard to do sometimes, but I think most people get a pretty good grasp once they’ve gone through a full plan or two.

I’m 2.5 weeks into my current plan, and I feel my “FTP” is giving me a pretty good load for my workouts to feel as intended. I need to bump the vo2 max efforts a bit, but the longer efforts are in the right zone. Once a workouts feels a bit easy, I’ll bump it a bit and retest at the end.

I believe Coggan says you can hold your threshold anywhere from 30-80 minutes depending on training. So if you say FTP = threshold then that’s where you fall.

In the zwift world, there is an alp du zwift climb that is a great test of ~1 hour power. When I was training for a race w long climbs last year, I did it in 50 minutes @ 97% of tested ftp. It was a really hard effort, but I could have dug out another 3% and another 10 minutes if it were a real race situation. I agree that you need to have trained for long hard intervals to hit a tested ftp for an hour, but i expect most people just don’t have a good enough reason to try. It’s a miserable exercise.

The thing is that the people who actually need to use it for pacing (basically TTers and people entering long hill climb events) will also be the ones who don’t need to rely on the ramp test as they will have race and training results to go by. I don’t imagine anybody is sitting on the start line for a 40k TT A race with only a ramp test result to guide their pacing. Apart from anything else, even if the ramp test was a highly accurate estimation of 1 hour sustainable power, it would be an estimation that was specific to the indoor setup. Could easily be a few % off by the time you factor in all the potential differences from riding outdoors.

Personally I do quite a bit of TTing and long hill climbs and find that power targets need to be taken with quite a big pinch of salt anyway. If it’s an A race for which I’ve tapered then I’m often capable of putting out better numbers than anything I’ve done in the lead up (which is the point of tapering!). Figuring out the number on any given day is more of an art than a science and factors in RPE, HR plus all my experience of tapering, testing, racing, etc.



1 Like