The Ramp Test: What It Measures, What It Doesn’t, and Why FTP Conversions Are Often Wrong

Over the last decade, the ramp test has become one of the most commonly used performance tests in cycling. It is quick, repeatable, and easy to administer indoors — which explains its widespread adoption by training platforms and coaches.

But widespread use has also led to widespread misunderstanding.

The ramp test is often treated as an FTP test, or as a shortcut for ranking riders by ability. Neither of these uses reflects what the test was designed to measure — and both can lead to systematic errors in training prescription and interpretation.

This article explains what the ramp test actually measures, how it relates to FTP, and why fixed percentage conversions inevitably fail at the individual level.

What the ramp test was designed to measure

A ramp test is a progressive, incremental exercise test in which power increases in fixed steps until voluntary exhaustion.

Its primary physiological outcome is an estimate of maximal aerobic power (MAP) — the highest power output an athlete can achieve while relying predominantly on aerobic energy provision.

Conceptually, this makes the ramp test similar to laboratory-based incremental VO₂max protocols, with the key difference that mechanical power output is measured directly rather than inferred from gas exchange.

Crucially, the ramp test was never designed to directly measure functional threshold power (FTP). It assesses the upper ceiling of aerobic power, not the highest steady-state power that can be sustained for a prolonged duration.

What FTP actually represents (and why duration matters)

Functional Threshold Power (FTP) is best understood as the highest power an athlete can sustain for a prolonged period without continual accumulation of fatigue.

In practice, this duration is not fixed.

For some athletes, FTP may correspond closely to 60-minute power. For others, it may align more closely with 40–50 minutes, depending on factors such as durability, efficiency, and fatigue resistance.

This variability is fundamental. FTP is not a single physiological point, and it cannot be measured directly by short maximal tests. Any indirect estimate must therefore be interpreted with caution.

MAP and FTP are related — but not interchangeable

MAP and FTP exist on the same physiological continuum, but they represent different points on that continuum.

MAP reflects maximal aerobic power capacity.
FTP reflects sustainable submaximal power.

While the two are correlated across populations, they are not equivalent. Two athletes can share the same MAP yet have meaningfully different FTPs, and vice versa.

This is why treating a ramp test as an FTP test works occasionally, fails frequently, and becomes misleading when applied without context.

Why fixed MAP-to-FTP percentages fail

Most training platforms convert ramp test results to FTP using a single fixed percentage, commonly around 75% of MAP.

This approach is understandable from a scalability perspective, but it breaks down at the individual level for several reasons.

Anaerobic contribution near test termination

Some athletes reach their true maximal aerobic power and fail shortly afterwards. Others are able to continue through additional ramp steps by drawing more heavily on non-aerobic energy sources.

Ramp tests do not distinguish between these scenarios. As a result, the final achieved power can over-represent aerobic capacity in some athletes and under-represent it in others, even when the reported MAP is identical.

Athlete phenotype

Explosive, anaerobically strong athletes tend to perform disproportionately well in short, progressive tests. Endurance-oriented athletes may underperform relative to their sustainable power.

Applying the same percentage conversion to both produces predictable bias.

Fatigue resistance and durability

FTP reflects not just how high power can be raised, but how long it can be sustained.

Ramp tests end at exhaustion and provide limited insight into fatigue resistance or durability — key determinants of sustainable performance.

Protocol variability

Step size, step duration, warm-up structure, and pacing all influence ramp test outcomes. Even two tests labelled “ramp tests” may not be directly comparable.

Where percentage-based conversions came from

Early work on ramp testing explored the relationship between maximal aerobic power and sustainable threshold power across large athlete datasets.

This work demonstrated that FTP typically falls within a range, rather than at a single fixed percentage of MAP — most commonly between approximately 72–77%, depending on athlete characteristics.

The intent was never to define a universal constant, but to provide a bounded estimate requiring contextual interpretation.

Over time, this range has often been simplified to a single midpoint value for platform implementation, at the cost of individual accuracy.

Common mistakes in ramp test interpretation

The most frequent errors include:

Treating ramp-derived FTP as interchangeable with long-duration test results
Comparing riders using W/kg derived from ramp tests
Using ramp tests to predict race performance
Ignoring consistent individual bias (systematic over- or under-estimation)

These errors affect training load prescription, recovery management, and athlete confidence.

What ramp tests are genuinely good for

Used correctly, ramp tests are extremely valuable.

They are particularly effective for:

Tracking changes in aerobic capacity over time
Establishing initial training zones when combined with context
Monitoring responses to training blocks
Identifying broad athlete phenotype tendencies
Providing repeatable, low-burden testing indoors

Problems arise only when ramp tests are treated as definitive, standalone performance measures.

A note on interpretation

No test exists in isolation.

Ramp test results should always be interpreted alongside training history, recent fatigue, race or time-trial data, and longer-duration power outputs.

When understood properly, the ramp test becomes a precision tool rather than a blunt instrument.