This might be the most coherent post I made on testing:
Or not. Itâs my day off and time to clean the house. Iâve formed some opinions based on my own testing. Definitely a fun topic to discuss if youâve done n=1 research.
In my opinion â especially based on the volume of âfailed workoutâ this forum gets â everyone should use 72% as their FTP multiplier on a TR ramp test.
There are far, far fewer consequences to underestimating it than there are to overestimating it.
Also, Iâm not a scientist, physiologist or coach and I donât really know anythingâŚ
N+1 Iâve started using .73 and I still think itâs a bit high.
SooooâŚis the imminent conclusion that TR has âtoo much intensityâ both structurally and as prescribed, thus only compounding the issue? 
So I take it that youâre not a fan of ICUâs way of setting an eFTP based on your best performance ever? It seems that would lead to similar problems
My first review of eFTP on Intervals saw things like 300W estimate when it was really 275. Had to tweak the defaults. Not worth it compared to WKO.
IF you believe TRâs programs have too much intensity, then overestimating your FTP will obviously make things worse.
However, when you consider how low volume they are, Iâm not convinced the above assumption is true.
I donât know what this is.
See the disclaimer on my last post.
My eFTP slowly deflates over time as I complete sensible workouts. It really is insidious⌠
I donât know, I just completed the LV plan and each week consisted of a âvo2maxâ workout, a super-threshold workout, and a threshold workout. If I had retained the overestimated FTP from my ramp test that wouldâve been a bitâŚcounterproductive.
Yes I remember it. Good post
âIfâ.
IOW, youâre confounding the two issues.
FWIW, based on Strava the standard template for successful age-group TTers seems to be 2 threshold and 1 VO2max workout per week, with around 10-15 hours per week total.
The TR ramp test gives me an âFTPâ estimate of 272W, intervals.icuâs eFTP is 265W* . Stated margin of error on my power meter is 1.5% so my FTP could be anywhere from 261W to 276W. Or âŚ
I tend to adjust the intensity of workouts depending on how I feel as much as anything. This time last year (FTP - 244W) I was often bumping things by 2-3% as I felt Iâd underperformed on the ramp test and workouts like over-unders felt pretty easy. Then the following ramp test would give me that 2% plus maybe a little bit. Iâve not felt the need to do this since âgetting toâ 272W so my feeling is that Iâm somewhere in the right ball park.
*- my current plans donât have many 3min intervals to help with their calculation.
Yep. Especially given the intensity of the TR plans. Not much room for error in overestimating FTP.
I reduce ramp test FTP by 5%. And even then, avoid doing threshold intervals, and do SS instead.
I find it fascinating that the Ramp Test overestimates FTP for so many. Iâm the opposite. My most recent Ramp Test result was 338, but I did Lamarck at 361 just before then. Iâve been using 361 as my FTP and my workouts for the first week of Sustained Power Build Mid Volume feel about right to me.
Workouts set to my Ramp Test number feel way too easy for me.
But that should be the case, right?
If you pick the middle of a normal distribution, there should be just as many people for whom the ramp test underestimates as there are those for whom it overestimates.
The difference is that only those for whom it overestimates are likely to struggle and then post about it. The folks in your situation are less likely to complain.
You are absolutely correct. Just seems like more people on the âRamp Test = too high FTPâ side of the distribution based on solely on who comments in this and other threads recently.
when Iâm dieseling after a lot of sweet spot and tempo, WKO puts my FTP as 88-90% of estimated vo2max. And thats when the Ramp Test might underestimate my FTP. Similar to you Iâve seen things like doing intervals at 230W and Ramp Test estimates 190W FTP. But not always.
It could possibly be due to shorter power durations being quicker to improve than FTP.