Summary An FTP calculator multiplies the average power of an all-out 20-minute test by 0.95, so a 260-watt test gives an FTP of 247 watts, or 3.30 watts per kg at 165 lb74.8 kg. That 95 percent rule comes from Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan's book on training with a power meter. In 23 trained men, the 20-minute FTP matched a lab threshold on average. The riders held it for 51 minutes on average rather than an hour, and single riders could be 60 watts off in either direction. Across 120 cyclists, hour power was 88 percent of 20-minute power in recreational riders and 96 percent in professionals. For watts per kg, Allen and Coggan's chart puts untrained riders near 2, well-trained club riders at 3.5 to 4.5 and world-class men near 6.

Functional threshold power, or FTP, is the highest average power you can hold for about an hour on a bike, measured in watts by a power meter or a smart trainer. Most riders estimate it from a shorter test, and the most common one is the 20-minute test that Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan popularized in their book on training with a power meter: ride 20 minutes as hard as you can, then take 95 percent of your average power. This cycling FTP calculator does that arithmetic, and it also works from an 8-minute, ramp or 60-minute test.

Your FTP sets your training zones, and dividing it by your body weight gives your watts per kg, the power to weight ratio that matters most on climbs. The calculator does both, compares your watts per kg with published groups of riders, and shows how far the 20-minute estimate has missed in the studies that tested it against lab measurements.

How the FTP calculator works

The calculator multiplies the average power from your test by a fixed factor, rounds to the nearest watt, then divides the result by your weight in kilograms:

FTP = average test power × test factorWatts per kg = FTP ÷ body weight in kg

Each test has its own factor, and they do not all have the same evidence behind them:

Test What you enter Factor Where the factor comes from
20-minute test Average power for 20 minutes, all-out and evenly paced 0.95 Allen and Coggan; tested against lab thresholds and 60-minute power in the studies below
8-minute test Average power for one all-out 8-minute effort 0.90 Sanders and colleagues (2020), as given in a 2022 review by Leo and colleagues; one study of 19 well-trained riders
Ramp test Your best 1-minute power from a ramp test to exhaustion 0.75 The factor TrainerRoad uses for its ramp test; a training app's own rule, with no published validation we could find
60-minute test Average power for a full hour, all-out 1.00 None needed: FTP is the power you can hold for about an hour

Here is the default rider worked through by hand:

  1. Multiply the test power by the factor. A rider who averages 260 W for 20 minutes has an FTP of 260 × 0.95 = 247 W.
  2. Convert your weight to kilograms. If you weigh yourself in pounds, divide by 2.2046: 165 lb is 74.8 kg.
  3. Divide FTP by weight. 247 ÷ 74.8 = 3.30 W/kg.
  4. Set your zones as percentages of FTP. Coggan's level 4, the threshold zone, runs from 91 to 105 percent of FTP, which is 225 to 259 W for this rider.

The 20-minute result also comes with a range. In a 2023 study by Sitko and colleagues, 120 cyclists rode a 20-minute and a 60-minute time trial 72 hours apart. Their 60-minute power was 88 percent of their 20-minute power in recreationally trained riders, 92 percent in trained riders, 95 percent in well-trained riders and 96 percent in professionals. The calculator shows that span as your hour-power range, 229 to 250 W for a 260 W test, because the 95 percent rule fits well-trained riders best.

Illustration of a woman in a white jersey riding a road bike on an indoor trainer in a pale blue-grey room with a birch wood floor, a red towel over the handlebars
A smart trainer or a power meter on your bike measures the average watts you enter from your FTP test.

How to do an FTP test

An FTP test calculator is only as good as the test you give it. These steps follow the 20-minute protocol as the studies that tested it describe it.

  1. Use the same setup every time. Ride the same bike with the same power meter or smart trainer, indoors or on the same steady road, so your results compare from one test to the next.
  2. Warm up the same way every time. Allen and Coggan's original warm-up takes about 45 minutes and includes a 5-minute all-out effort, as Borszcz and colleagues (2020) describe it. The warm-up changes the result: in 21 trained cyclists, Tramontin and colleagues (2022) measured 256 W for 20 minutes after that traditional warm-up and 270 W after a 25-minute warm-up with fast spin-ups or a 10-minute one at a pace the riders chose.
  3. Ride 20 minutes as hard as you can hold evenly. Aim for a steady effort you can sustain to the end rather than a fast start.
  4. Enter your average power and your weight. The calculator takes 95 percent of the average.
  5. Retest the same way. In 25 trained cyclists tested a week apart, 20-minute power varied by 2.9 percent (Borszcz 2020), so a change smaller than about 3 percent may be noise.

The other tests need different numbers. For the 8-minute test, ride one all-out 8-minute effort after a warm-up and enter its average. A ramp test raises the resistance step by step until you cannot keep pedaling; enter your best 1-minute power from it, not the power of the last step. A 60-minute test is a full hour ridden as hard as you can hold, which is the most direct measure of FTP and the hardest to pace well.

Watts per kg calculator: your power to weight ratio

Watts per kg is your FTP divided by your body weight in kilograms, and it is how cyclists compare riders of different sizes. A watts per kg calculator, also called a power to weight ratio calculator, needs only those two numbers: 247 W at 74.8 kg is 3.30 W/kg. If you weigh yourself in pounds, divide your weight by 2.2046 first, which the calculator does for you.

Power to weight matters most when the road goes up, because on a climb you lift your own weight and the bike's. Sørensen and colleagues (2019) tested 11 club cyclists and then timed them in a 47 km mountain bike race with 851 m of climbing. FTP per kilogram was strongly related to race time (r = −0.74), while FTP in watts was not (r = −0.29). Two riders with the same 285 W FTP show the difference: at 200 lb that is 3.14 W/kg, and at 145 lb it is 4.33 W/kg.

If you are deciding between riding and running for your fitness, our guide to cycling vs running compares calorie burn, VO2 max and injury risk.

Illustration of a grey-bearded man in a pale blue-grey jersey riding a red road bike up a steep country lane lined with birch trees and a stone wall
Watts per kg matters most on climbs, where every kilogram of rider and bike has to be lifted.

Watts per kilogram chart: how your FTP compares

We could not find a published classification of FTP in watts per kilogram that is open to read in full. Coaches use Allen and Coggan's power profile chart, and Coggan writes that he set its ranges from the known abilities of world champions and of untrained people, then checked the values in between against the data available. The chart on his page is an image. The figures below come from peer-reviewed studies, including the chart values that Sørensen and colleagues quote.

Group FTP, W/kg Source
Untrained cyclistsAbout 2Allen and Coggan, quoted by Sørensen et al. 2019
Amateur triathletes, 24 women2.69 (SD 0.35)Engelke et al. 2026, 20-minute test
Amateur triathletes, 25 men3.09 (SD 0.53)Engelke et al. 2026, 20-minute test
Club cyclists at a moderate level, 11 men3.3 (SD 0.3)Sørensen et al. 2019, 20-minute test
Well-trained club cyclists3.5 to 4.5Allen and Coggan, quoted by Sørensen et al. 2019
Professional women, 44 riders, best 60 minutes4.2 (SD 0.4)Mateo-March et al. 2022, training and race files
Grand Tour contenders (men), 20 minutes on key climbs5.8van Erp and colleagues, cited by Leo et al. 2022; 20-minute power, not FTP
World-class menAbout 6Allen and Coggan, quoted by Sørensen et al. 2019

The calculator places your number among these values. Its band boundaries sit on the published figures, and the wording between them is ours. Sørensen's paper does not say whether its untrained and club figures are for men or women, and its own riders were men, so the calculator uses those figures for men only. Women are compared with the two published groups of women in the table: 24 amateur triathletes at 2.69 W/kg and 44 professional riders at 4.2 W/kg for their best hour.

Power zones from your FTP

FTP is most useful as an anchor for training intensity. Andrew Coggan's power training levels, published on TrainingPeaks, set seven zones as percentages of threshold power. Coggan calls the number of zones somewhat arbitrary, because the body's responses to exercise form a continuum rather than steps. For a 247 W FTP the levels work out like this:

Level Share of FTP At a 247 W FTP How Coggan describes it
1 Active recoveryUnder 55%Under 136 WVery easy spinning for recovery
2 Endurance56 to 75%138 to 185 WA steady all-day pace at which you can still talk
3 Tempo76 to 90%188 to 222 WA brisk effort that takes focus, like a fast group ride
4 Lactate threshold91 to 105%225 to 259 WClose to time-trial effort, usually trained in blocks of 10 to 30 minutes
5 VO2 max106 to 120%262 to 296 WHard intervals of 3 to 8 minutes, with no breath to talk
6 Anaerobic capacityOver 121%Over 299 WMaximal intervals of 30 seconds to 3 minutes
7 Neuromuscular powerNo percentageAll-outVery short maximal bursts such as sprints and jumps

Zones carry any error in your FTP. In a 2026 crossover trial, Denham and colleagues had 12 healthy men ride 30 minutes at 55 and at 85 percent of FTP. The 85 percent ride produced the responses of vigorous exercise, and the authors suggest checking heart rate and perceived effort alongside power zones. If your threshold intervals feel much harder or easier than Coggan's description, retest.

How accurate is this FTP calculator?

The arithmetic is exact, so the question is how well 95 percent of a 20-minute test predicts the power you could hold for an hour, or a threshold measured in a lab. The short answer from the studies: the test is repeatable to about 3 percent, it matches lab thresholds on average in trained riders, and for one rider it can miss by 10 percent or more, about 25 W at an FTP of 250 W, in either direction. The table sums up the studies that compared the 20-minute FTP with other measures.

Study Riders Compared with Average difference Spread for single riders
Borszcz et al. 201823 trained men60-minute power and a lab anaerobic threshold1 to 5 WLimits of agreement as wide as −62 to +60 W
Valenzuela et al. 201820 menLactate thresholdFTP 2.4% lower; 6.5% lower in recreational riders±11.5%
Jeffries et al. 202120 competitive menPower at a blood lactate of 4 mmol/LAbout 3 W−45 to +51 W
Borszcz et al. 201915 cyclistsMaximal lactate steady state1.4%±9.2%
Inglis et al. 202018 riders, 12 men and 6 womenMaximal lactate steady stateSteady state at 93.1% of FTPSD 5.1 percentage points
Lillo-Beviá et al. 202211 trained menMaximal lactate steady stateFTP 12 W higherSD 7 W
Karsten et al. 202117 trained cyclists and triathletesCritical powerCritical power 7 W higher−19 to +33 W
Morgan et al. 201912 competitive menCritical power3 W (278 vs 275 W)−36 to +30 W
Barranco-Gil et al. 202015 menRespiratory compensation pointFTP 57 to 60 W lower±23 to ±32 W
Sitko et al. 2023120 cyclistsMeasured 60-minute powerMean absolute error 27 WNot given in the abstract

Can you hold your FTP for an hour?

Usually not, when it comes from a 20-minute test. In the 2018 study by Borszcz and colleagues, 23 trained men rode at their 20-minute FTP until they could not continue and lasted 50.9 minutes on average, with a standard deviation of 15.7 minutes. In 13 cyclists studied by Wong and colleagues (2022), time to exhaustion at FTP averaged 33.7 minutes. Sitko and colleagues (2022) found that riders lasted longer the fitter they were: median times were 35 minutes for recreationally trained cyclists, 42 for trained, 47 for well-trained and 51 for professionals.

That is why the same group's 2023 update lowers the factor for less-trained riders. Tested against measured 60-minute power in a third of their 120 cyclists held back for checking, the original 95 percent rule missed by 27 W on average and the updated factors by 25 W. In MacInnis and colleagues' study of 8 trained men (2019), the 60-minute time trial averaged 309 W against 342 to 344 W for 20 minutes, about 90 percent.

FTP compared with lab thresholds

Valenzuela and colleagues (2018) found FTP 2.4 percent below the lactate threshold on average in 20 men. The gap was not significant in trained riders, but FTP sat 6.5 percent below the threshold in recreational riders, those whose peak power in a lab test was 4.5 W/kg or less. Against the maximal lactate steady state, the highest power at which blood lactate stays stable, Borszcz and colleagues (2019) found a difference of 1.4 percent in 15 cyclists, while Inglis and colleagues (2020) found the steady state at 93.1 percent of FTP and Lillo-Beviá and colleagues (2022) found FTP 12 W too high. Inglis also retested 10 riders after 7 months of training: their steady-state power rose by 12 W, and their 20-minute FTP did not rise.

Jeffries and colleagues (2021) found FTP close to the power at a blood lactate of 4 mmol/L on average in 20 competitive men, 266 against 268 W, but with limits of agreement from −45 to +51 W, and FTP differed significantly from four other lactate thresholds. Barranco-Gil and colleagues (2020) found FTP 57 to 60 W below the respiratory compensation point, a threshold measured from breathing, whichever warm-up their 15 riders used.

FTP compared with critical power

Critical power comes from several all-out efforts of different lengths rather than one. Karsten and colleagues (2021) found it 7 W above FTP on average in 17 trained cyclists and triathletes, with limits of agreement from −19 to +33 W, and Morgan and colleagues (2019) found the two nearly equal on average, 275 and 278 W, but as much as 36 W apart for single riders. Leo and colleagues' 2022 review concludes that FTP and critical power should not be used interchangeably, and it recommends avoiding single-effort tests such as FTP when you want a full picture of your power across different durations.

How repeatable the test is

Quite repeatable. In 25 trained cyclists tested a week apart, 20-minute power varied by 2.9 percent, with an intraclass correlation of 0.97 (Borszcz 2020), and MacInnis's 8 riders repeated their 20-minute test within a typical error of 4.6 W. The warm-up mattered more than the day: Tramontin's 21 riders produced about 14 W more after a short warm-up than after the traditional one.

The 8-minute and ramp tests

The 8-minute factor comes from Sanders and colleagues (2020), who tested 19 well-trained road cyclists. Their 8-minute FTP estimate differed from lab threshold powers by effect sizes of 0.77 to 2.42, which are moderate to very large, and the authors warned against using it interchangeably with lab thresholds. The ramp factor is TrainerRoad's, and we found no peer-reviewed study that tested it. Both give a starting point for training zones, with more uncertainty than the 20-minute test.

Who the studies tested

Most of this research was done on trained men. A 2021 scoping review of 15 studies by Mackey and Horner found the 20-minute test reliable, found large limits of agreement with other markers, and noted that most participants were trained male cyclists. Inglis's study included 6 women, and Engelke and colleagues (2026) tested 25 men and 24 women, all amateur triathletes, and found FTP closely related to the respiratory compensation point in both sexes, with limits of agreement wider than 40 W either way.

Illustration of a sports scientist in white gloves taking a fingertip blood sample from a cyclist's hand on the handlebar of a lab bike, holding a sample tube with a red cap
Lab studies check the 20-minute estimate against lactate thresholds measured from small fingertip blood samples.

Worked examples: eight riders through the calculator

These are our own examples, chosen to cover all four tests, both comparison groups and riders of different sizes. The threshold zone is Coggan's level 4, 91 to 105 percent of FTP.

Rider and test FTP Watts per kg Compared with published groups Threshold zone
Our default: a man on a 20-minute test165 lb, 260 W for 20 minutes74.8 kg, 260 W for 20 minutes 247 W 3.30 W/kg Between untrained and well-trained club riders 225 to 259 W
A woman on a 20-minute test135 lb, 200 W for 20 minutes61.2 kg, 200 W for 20 minutes 190 W 3.10 W/kg Between amateur and professional women 173 to 200 W
A heavier man on a 20-minute test200 lb, 300 W for 20 minutes90.7 kg, 300 W for 20 minutes 285 W 3.14 W/kg Between untrained and well-trained club riders 259 to 299 W
A lighter man with the same test145 lb, 300 W for 20 minutes65.8 kg, 300 W for 20 minutes 285 W 4.33 W/kg In the well-trained club range 259 to 299 W
A woman on an 8-minute test150 lb, 240 W for 8 minutes68.0 kg, 240 W for 8 minutes 216 W 3.17 W/kg Between amateur and professional women 197 to 227 W
A man on a ramp test150 lb, best minute 440 W in a ramp test68.0 kg, best minute 440 W in a ramp test 330 W 4.85 W/kg Above well-trained club riders 300 to 347 W
A man on a 60-minute test170 lb, 230 W for 60 minutes77.1 kg, 230 W for 60 minutes 230 W 2.98 W/kg Between untrained and well-trained club riders 209 to 242 W
A strong woman on a 20-minute test128 lb, 265 W for 20 minutes58.1 kg, 265 W for 20 minutes 252 W 4.34 W/kg At or above the professional women's average 229 to 265 W

Rows 3 and 4 show why watts per kg matters: the same 300 W test gives both men an FTP of 285 W, but the lighter rider has 4.33 W/kg against 3.14. Row 6 shows the ramp factor at work, turning a 440 W best minute into a 330 W FTP, a step that no published study has checked.

How to raise your FTP and your watts per kg

There are two ways to raise watts per kg: more watts or fewer kilograms. More watts is the safer bet for most riders. In a 2010 study by Rønnestad and colleagues, 20 well-trained cyclists kept riding for 12 weeks, and 11 of them added four lower-body strength exercises twice a week, 3 sets of 4 to 10 repetition maximum. The strength group's thigh muscles grew without any gain in body weight, and they improved their 40-minute all-out power and their power at the lactate threshold. A 2026 review by de Pablos and colleagues recommends 1 to 2 strength sessions a week, with 2 to 4 sets of 3 to 5 compound lower-body exercises at 60 to 85 percent of the most you can lift once.

You can do that work with dumbbells at home. Our page on the dumbbell workout app shows how FitCraft builds strength programs that progress you week after week, and our answer to does cycling build muscle covers which leg muscles riding leaves untrained.

Losing weight raises watts per kg only if your power holds up. In 50 competitive male road cyclists, Keay and colleagues (2018) found that power to weight rose with training load, not with lower body fat, and that 28 percent of the riders had low energy availability and 44 percent had low bone density in the lower spine. In that group, lower body fat did not come with a higher power to weight ratio, and eating too little to chase a number put bone health at risk.

For the riding itself, our guide to a stationary bike workout for weight loss lays out four indoor rides with a 4-week plan, and our review of exercise bike benefits covers what bike training does for VO2 max.

Strength work that fits around your rides.

FitCraft builds dumbbell and bodyweight workouts, plus yoga and mobility sessions, around your goal and adjusts them as you progress, and your AI coach demonstrates the form for every exercise. Take the free 2-minute quiz to get your plan.

Take the Free Assessment Free • 2 minutes • Personalized to you

When to ignore this calculator

An FTP test is an all-out effort, and the calculator assumes a healthy adult on a bike they ride often. In these cases, talk to a clinician before you test, or skip the test:

Stop the test and get medical help if you feel chest pain, dizziness or sudden breathlessness that does not ease when you stop.

Related reading

References

  1. Borszcz FK, Tramontin AF, Bossi AH, Carminatti LJ, Costa VP. "Functional threshold power in cyclists: validity of the concept and physiological responses." Int J Sports Med. 2018;39(10):737-742. doi:10.1055/s-0044-101546, PubMed 29801189
  2. Valenzuela PL, Morales JS, Foster C, Lucia A, de la Villa P. "Is the functional threshold power a valid surrogate of the lactate threshold?" Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(10):1293-1298. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0008, PubMed 29745765
  3. Klitzke Borszcz F, Ferreira Tramontin A, Pereira Costa V. "Is the functional threshold power interchangeable with the maximal lactate steady state in trained cyclists?" Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(8):1029-1035. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0572, PubMed 30676826
  4. Inglis EC, Iannetta D, Passfield L, Murias JM. "Maximal lactate steady state versus the 20-minute functional threshold power test in well-trained individuals: 'watts' the big deal?" Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020;15(4):541-547. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2019-0214, PubMed 31689684
  5. Lillo-Beviá JR, Courel-Ibáñez J, Cerezuela-Espejo V, Morán-Navarro R, Martínez-Cava A, Pallarés JG. "Is the functional threshold power a valid metric to estimate the maximal lactate steady state in cyclists?" J Strength Cond Res. 2022;36(1):167-173. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003403, PubMed 31714462
  6. Jeffries O, Simmons R, Patterson SD, Waldron M. "Functional threshold power is not equivalent to lactate parameters in trained cyclists." J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(10):2790-2794. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003203, PubMed 31269000
  7. Karsten B, Petrigna L, Klose A, Bianco A, Townsend N, Triska C. "Relationship between the critical power test and a 20-min functional threshold power test in cycling." Front Physiol. 2021;11:613151. doi:10.3389/fphys.2020.613151, PMC7862708
  8. Morgan PT, Black MI, Bailey SJ, Jones AM, Vanhatalo A. "Road cycle TT performance: relationship to the power-duration model and association with FTP." J Sports Sci. 2019;37(8):902-910. doi:10.1080/02640414.2018.1535772, PubMed 30387374
  9. Barranco-Gil D, Gil-Cabrera J, Valenzuela PL, Alejo LB, Montalvo-Pérez A, Talavera E, Moral-González S, Lucia A. "Functional threshold power: relationship with respiratory compensation point and effects of various warm-up protocols." Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020;15(7):1047-1051. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2019-0402, PubMed 32604072
  10. Sitko S, Cirer-Sastre R, López-Laval I. "Time to exhaustion at estimated functional threshold power in road cyclists of different performance levels." J Sci Med Sport. 2022;25(9):783-786. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2022.06.007, PubMed 35835698
  11. Sitko S, Cirer-Sastre R, López-Laval I. "An update of the Allen & Coggan equation to predict 60-min power output in cyclists of different performance levels." Int J Sports Med. 2023;44(13):983-987. doi:10.1055/a-2079-1363, PubMed 37802084
  12. Wong S, Burnley M, Mauger A, Fenghua S, Hopker J. "Functional threshold power is not a valid marker of the maximal metabolic steady state." J Sports Sci. 2022;40(23):2578-2584. doi:10.1080/02640414.2023.2176045, PubMed 36803419
  13. MacInnis MJ, Thomas ACQ, Phillips SM. "The reliability of 4-minute and 20-minute time trials and their relationships to functional threshold power in trained cyclists." Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(1):38-45. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0100, PubMed 29809063
  14. Klitzke Borszcz F, Tramontin AF, Costa VP. "Reliability of the functional threshold power in competitive cyclists." Int J Sports Med. 2020;41(3):175-181. doi:10.1055/a-1018-1965, PubMed 31952081
  15. Tramontin AF, Borszcz FK, Costa V. "Functional threshold power estimated from a 20-minute time-trial test is warm-up-dependent." Int J Sports Med. 2022;43(5):411-417. doi:10.1055/a-1524-2312, PubMed 34749416
  16. Mackey J, Horner K. "What is known about the FTP20 test related to cycling? A scoping review." J Sports Sci. 2021;39(23):2735-2745. doi:10.1080/02640414.2021.1955515, PubMed 34304689
  17. Sanders D, Taylor RJ, Myers T, Akubat I. "A field-based cycling test to assess predictors of endurance performance and establishing training zones." J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(12):3482-3488. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001910, PubMed 28368958
  18. Leo P, Spragg J, Podlogar T, Lawley JS, Mujika I. "Power profiling and the power-duration relationship in cycling: a narrative review." Eur J Appl Physiol. 2022;122(2):301-316. doi:10.1007/s00421-021-04833-y, PMC8783871
  19. Sørensen A, Aune TK, Rangul V, Dalen T. "The validity of functional threshold power and maximal oxygen uptake for cycling performance in moderately trained cyclists." Sports (Basel). 2019;7(10):217. doi:10.3390/sports7100217, PMC6835290
  20. Engelke P, Vivan L, Dos Anjos Souza VR, de Lira CAB, Weiss K, Rosemann T, Knechtle B, Andrade MS. "Equivalence between FTP and RCP: assessment of association, agreement and sex effect." Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2026;81:100977. doi:10.1016/j.clinsp.2026.100977, PMC13139968
  21. Mateo-March M, van Erp T, Muriel X, Valenzuela PL, Zabala M, Lamberts RP, Lucia A, Barranco-Gil D, Pallarés JG. "The record power profile in professional female cyclists: normative values obtained from a large database." Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(5):682-686. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2021-0372, PubMed 35168197
  22. Rønnestad BR, Hansen EA, Raastad T. "Effect of heavy strength training on thigh muscle cross-sectional area, performance determinants, and performance in well-trained cyclists." Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;108(5):965-975. doi:10.1007/s00421-009-1307-z, PubMed 19960350
  23. de Pablos R, Sánchez-Redondo IR, Alejo LB, Pallarés JG, Barranco-Gil D, Valenzuela PL. "Resistance training for cyclists: scientific evidence and practical recommendations." Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2026;36(10):e70377. doi:10.1111/sms.70377, PMC13633594
  24. Keay N, Francis G, Hind K. "Low energy availability assessed by a sport-specific questionnaire and clinical interview indicative of bone health, endocrine profile and cycling performance in competitive male cyclists." BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2018;4(1):e000424. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000424, PMC6196965
  25. Denham J, Scott-Hamilton J, Mills D. "Physiological and subjective measures of exercise intensity cycling at 55% and 85% of functional threshold power: findings from a randomised crossover trial." J Sports Sci. 2026;44(13):1672-1682. doi:10.1080/02640414.2026.2673477, PubMed 42148565
  26. Coggan AR. "Power training levels." TrainingPeaks blog, published April 29, 2016, updated July 18, 2026. trainingpeaks.com/blog/power-training-levels
  27. Coggan AR. "Power profiling." TrainingPeaks blog. trainingpeaks.com/blog/power-profiling
  28. TrainerRoad. "How to test with the Ramp Test." TrainerRoad Support, updated July 21, 2026. support.trainerroad.com

How this calculator differs from typical FTP calculators

Most online FTP calculators multiply your 20-minute power by 0.95 and stop there, or they offer several test types without saying where each factor comes from or how well it has been tested. Many watts per kg charts carry no source at all, and few calculators mention that riders in the studies held their 20-minute FTP for about 51 minutes rather than 60, or that single riders missed lab thresholds by 60 watts or more.

This calculator names the source of every factor and labels the ramp test's 75 percent as a training app's own rule. It shows an hour-power range of 88 to 96 percent of your 20-minute power, from a study of 120 cyclists, and it compares your watts per kg with published groups of men or women instead of an unsourced chart. It sets Coggan's seven training levels from your FTP, and it shows no number for inputs that cannot be right, such as more than 7 W/kg, rather than giving them a label.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you calculate FTP?

Ride an all-out 20-minute test after a warm-up, then multiply your average power by 0.95. A rider who averages 260 watts for 20 minutes has an FTP of about 247 watts. The 95 percent rule comes from Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan's book on training with a power meter. You can also take 90 percent of one all-out 8-minute effort, use the 75 percent of your best minute that TrainerRoad applies to its ramp test, or ride a full 60-minute test, which needs no factor because FTP is defined as about an hour of power.

How do you calculate watts per kg?

Divide your FTP in watts by your body weight in kilograms. If you weigh yourself in pounds, divide your weight by 2.2046 first. A rider with a 247 watt FTP who weighs 165 pounds (74.8 kilograms) has 247 divided by 74.8, or 3.30 watts per kg. This power to weight ratio is how cyclists compare riders of different sizes, and it matters most on climbs: in a 2019 study of 11 club cyclists, FTP per kilogram was strongly related to mountain bike race time, while FTP in watts was not.

What is a good FTP in watts per kg?

It depends on your training and your sex. In Allen and Coggan's chart, as quoted in a 2019 study, untrained riders sit near 2 watts per kg, well-trained club cyclists at 3.5 to 4.5 and world-class men near 6. Measured groups fill in the middle: 25 male amateur triathletes averaged 3.09 watts per kg and 24 female amateur triathletes 2.69 (Engelke 2026), and 44 professional women averaged 4.2 for their best 60 minutes (Mateo-March 2022).

How accurate is an FTP calculator?

The arithmetic is exact, but the 20-minute test it relies on is an estimate. The test is repeatable, varying by 2.9 percent between tests a week apart, and it matches lab thresholds on average in trained riders. For one rider it can miss by 10 percent or more: limits of agreement reached minus 62 to plus 60 watts in a study of 23 trained men, who held their 20-minute FTP for 50.9 minutes on average rather than an hour. In 120 cyclists, the 95 percent rule missed measured 60-minute power by 27 watts on average.

Can you hold your FTP for an hour?

Most riders cannot hold an FTP from a 20-minute test for a full hour. Trained men in one study lasted 50.9 minutes on average, and 13 cyclists in another lasted 33.7 minutes. How long you last grows with fitness: median times were 35 minutes in recreationally trained cyclists and 51 minutes in professionals (Sitko 2022). Unless you are highly trained, your hour power is more likely 88 to 92 percent of your 20-minute power than 95 percent (Sitko 2023).

Is a ramp test as accurate as a 20-minute FTP test?

No published study has shown that it is. A ramp test raises the resistance until you cannot keep pedaling, and TrainerRoad sets FTP at 75 percent of your best 1-minute power from it. We found no peer-reviewed study of that factor, while a 2021 scoping review counted 15 studies of the 20-minute test. A ramp test is shorter, so it can still help you set training zones, but treat its FTP as a rough figure and check it against how your threshold intervals feel.

What are the FTP power zones?

Power zones are training intensities set as percentages of FTP. Andrew Coggan's seven levels are active recovery under 55 percent, endurance 56 to 75 percent, tempo 76 to 90 percent, lactate threshold 91 to 105 percent, VO2 max 106 to 120 percent, anaerobic capacity over 121 percent, and neuromuscular power, short all-out sprints with no percentage. For a 247 watt FTP, the lactate threshold level runs from 225 to 259 watts. Zones carry any error in your FTP, so check them against your heart rate and how hard the effort feels.

Should you raise power or lose weight to improve watts per kg?

Raising power is the safer route for most riders. Well-trained cyclists who added two strength sessions a week for 12 weeks improved their 40-minute all-out power without gaining body weight (Rønnestad 2010). Losing weight helps only if your power holds up: in 50 competitive male road cyclists, power to weight rose with training load rather than with lower body fat, and 28 percent had low energy availability (Keay 2018). If you do want to lose weight, lose it slowly and eat enough to train.