The 3+1 Plan in Practice: Two Ramp Tests, FTP from 178 to 193 W and a Plan for 2027
On 16 September I did a Ramp Test and got an FTP of 178 W, only 3 watts more than in June. For three months my fitness had stood still. So I put together a simple 3+1 plan: three weeks of building, one easier week, then a test. On 21 October, after the first such cycle, the test showed 193 W. Here is everything that happened along the way: the numbers from both tests, the weeks in which I rode differently than planned, and the plan for the whole of 2027 that came out of it. I wrote it down for myself, but also for anyone who wants to build a similar plan on a smart trainer.
Where I started
I did my first two Ramp Tests in June: 163 W, and 11 days later 175 W. A jump that big in under two weeks is mostly learning the test itself. The second time I already knew how much the last minute hurts, and I did not give up too early. Then came July, when I did not get on the bike once, and August, when I rebuilt my fitness with longer rides outdoors. I described it in the post about the Form tab.
The September test showed something uncomfortable: in August and early September I rode a lot, but without structure, and my FTP barely moved. I drew two conclusions. I need a plan in which every day has a job. And I need a test at a fixed rhythm, so I know whether the plan works instead of guessing.
The 3+1 model in a nutshell
One cycle lasts five weeks: three build weeks in which the load rises, a recovery week with roughly half the TSS of the third week, and a test week with a Ramp Test on fresh legs. This is classic block periodization, reduced to a single rule: after every test I decide what the next block will be [6].
The week has a fixed skeleton. Hard days are really hard, and easy days are really easy:
| Day | Workout | What for |
|---|---|---|
| Mon | rest | recovery |
| Tue | sweet spot + tempo, 80–105 min | main stimulus for FTP |
| Wed | easy in Z2, 60 min | aerobic base, rest |
| Thu | micro-intervals 1′ + threshold, 70–80 min | threshold power and above |
| Fri | easy, 50 min | loosen the legs |
| Sat | long ride with tempo blocks, about 2 h on the trainer | endurance |
| Sun | Z2, 60–90 min | volume without fatigue |
That comes to 8–9.5 hours a week, about 78% of it in zones Z1–Z2, 15% in tempo and sweet spot, and only about 7% (half an hour) at threshold and VO2max. Spending most of the time at low intensity is a setup that works well for endurance athletes [7]. I ride trainer workouts in ERG mode, and the power in the plan is stored as % of FTP, so after every test the plan recalculates the watts by itself.
Block 1: what I planned and what I rode
Block 1 started on 21 September. I set my FTP in the app by hand to 184 W, so all the % FTP values in the workouts were calculated from that number and not from the 178 W of the test. This is how the weeks went:
In total I rode 30.6 hours and 1447 TSS against a plan of 31 hours and 1354 TSS. On paper almost perfect. Week by week, not so much:
- Week 2 (+52 TSS): I rode Saturday outdoors instead of on the trainer, almost 3 hours and 155 TSS.
- Week 3 (−110 TSS): I swapped days and the long Saturday dropped out completely. Tuesday and Thursday, the key workouts, I did in full.
- Recovery week (344 instead of 171 TSS): instead of short, easy rides I rode three virtual routes: Tarnowskie Góry – St. Anne's Mountain, Nagaoka – Niigata in Japan, and the Tatra Mountains. Each one was fun, none of them was recovery.
My biggest mistake in this block: a recovery week with twice the TSS the plan called for. Rest is not a break from the plan, it is part of it. That is when the body absorbs three weeks of work. I write more about it in the post about the recovery week. In the next blocks I make sure that week has about 50% of the TSS of the third week.
Two Ramp Tests side by side
A Ramp Test in WattLog.pro always looks the same: 5 minutes of warm-up, then every minute the power goes up by 6% of the current FTP, starting at 50% of FTP. You ride until you can no longer hold the target power. FTP is 75% of the best minute of the test. Where that factor comes from, I explain in the post on reading a Ramp Test result.
Both tests lasted the same, about 16 minutes of ramp alone. Because the steps are calculated from FTP, every step in the second test was higher, and the last completed minute came out 20 W stronger. The key numbers side by side:
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 16.09.2026 | 21.10.2026 | 5 weeks |
| Power source | trainer | Assioma PRO MX pedals | different! |
| Best minute | 237.7 W | 257.2 W | +19.5 W |
| FTP (75% of best minute) | 178 W | 193 W | +8.4% |
| Best 5 minutes | 218 W | 237 W | +19 W |
| Max heart rate | 177 bpm | 179 bpm | +2 bpm |
| Weight | 96 kg | 93 kg | −3 kg |
| FTP per kilogram | 1.85 W/kg | 2.08 W/kg | +12% |
| Form (TSB) on test day | −1 | +10 | +11 |
Watch the measurement. While writing this post I checked where the data came from, and it turned out that in the first test the power was measured by the trainer and in the second by the Assioma PRO MX pedals. The day before and right after the test the power was already coming from the pedals, but during the test itself the app took it from the trainer. A trainer measures power after the chain and usually shows 2–4% less than pedals (more in the post trainer versus pedals). If that was the case for me too, then on the pedals the first test would have given about 182–185 W, and the real gain is more like +4–6% than +8.4%. I have no ride in which both sources recorded at the same time, so I cannot measure that difference. It does not change the decision about the next block: against the 184 W set for the block, the gain is still +4.9%.
Weight lifted the result more than the watts alone: FTP grew by 8.4%, and W/kg by 12%. At 2.08 W/kg I am still in the lower part of the table for amateurs, but the direction is good, and W/kg is exactly my goal for 2027.
Heart rate says more than the result
A test result is one number from one day. What happened to heart rate along the way is more interesting. On the chart every point is 30 seconds of the test: power on the horizontal axis, heart rate on the vertical.
The orange line sits lower across the whole range, from 120 to 240 W, by 6–9 beats per minute. At 200 W my heart rate in October was 155 instead of 163, and at 237 W 166 instead of 175. The heart does the same work more cheaply. Part of that difference may come from the different power meter in the first test. If the trainer under-read power by 2–4%, the whole blue line should shift right by 4–9 W, which shrinks the difference by 2–3 beats but does not remove it. It is not the effect of one good day either, because the difference is even along the whole test, from the warm-up to the last minutes. On the other hand, these are only two measurements, and heart rate is also affected by room temperature, sleep and coffee, so I treat this as confirmation of the result, not as separate proof. I write more about this relationship in the post on heart rate and power.
Sweet spot on Tuesdays: the same work, a lower and lower heart rate
The same shows up in training, and here the comparison is clean, because in all three rides the power was measured by the same pedals. Every Tuesday of block 1 had sweet spot efforts at about 162–165 W. I calculated the average heart rate from every second in which the average power of the last minute was in that range:
In three weeks the heart rate at the same power dropped by 12 beats. The same Tuesday workout got longer from week to week (80, 92, 104 minutes), and it cost the heart less. In the Thursday micro-intervals there was no such change: heart rate in the threshold efforts stayed put (157, 160, 157 bpm). There the stimulus is shorter and harder, so the changes show up later.
Fitness and form: why I test fresh
Finally, the chart that best explains why the second test went so well. PMC shows fitness (CTL, the TSS average over about 42 days), fatigue (ATL, over about 7 days) and form (TSB, the difference between them) [1, 5].
Two things stand out:
- CTL barely changed. Through the whole block fitness hovered between 43 and 49. I did not ride more than in summer. I rode differently: every key day had a clear goal and intensity. Keep in mind too that a higher FTP lowers the TSS of the same ride, so with a rising FTP CTL slightly understates the progress.
- I did the first test tired and the second rested. On 16 September TSB was −1, on 21 October +10. Despite the recovery week being too hard, before the second test I had two days completely off, and that was enough to go into the test rested. After the test I finished the week harder than planned: 248 instead of 190 TSS, because on Saturday I rode 2 hours of the Herzroute from Zug to Einsiedeln. That no longer affected the test result.
How much of those 15 W is training and how much is freshness?
Honestly: it cannot be split to the watt. Part of the gain is certainly freshness. Sleep, coffee or room temperature alone can make a difference of a few percent between two tests. On top of that there is the different power meter in the first test, which may have lowered the starting point by a few watts. But three things make me believe the gain is real:
- heart rate at the same power dropped across the whole test, not only at the end, where freshness helps most;
- the same shows up in workouts measured with the same pedals, where freshness did not change (Tuesdays: −12 bpm);
- the best 5 minutes grew almost as much as the best minute (+19 W and +19.5 W).
The lesson for the future is simple: I always test in the same conditions, with the same power meter, after a recovery week and with TSB above zero [8]. Only then can two results be compared. How to prepare for it, I describe in the post on preparing for a Ramp Test.
The rule after a test: block A or block B
After every test I do not wonder what comes next. One rule, set in advance, makes the decision:
- Block A keeps the intensity and extends the time at work: sweet spot grows from 2×20′ to 2×30′ and finally 1×60′, threshold from 3×6′ to 2×20′. If FTP is rising, there is no reason to change the stimulus.
- Block B changes the stimulus. Thursday becomes a VO2max day (5×3′ → 6×4′ at 115–120% FTP, rest equal to work), and the Tuesday sweet spot stays on as maintenance.
- The 2% threshold comes from the fact that a smaller change falls within the normal spread between two tests. I do not want to change the plan because of noise.
My second test gave 193 W against the 184 W set for the block, so +4.9%. That is clearly above the threshold, so from 26 October I am riding block 2A. I added a few more rules:
- After B: test ≥ +2% → I go back to A where I left off. Less → 1–2 weeks of easy riding and the last A once more.
- After a break (e.g. two weeks off), an unchanged or slightly lower FTP is not stagnation. I do not pick B then, I start from the last A.
- FTP drop: first I check whether the recovery week was really easy and whether the test was done fresh.
- Backing off: if I do not finish the last sweet spot effort, or TSB drops below −25, I repeat the previous week instead of moving on.
- Limits of A: about 2×30′ or 1×60′ of sweet spot and 2×20′ of threshold. Extending further makes no sense. Then B or maintaining fitness.
The plan until the end of 2027
That rule produced a calendar for the whole year. Winter is a chain of A blocks on the trainer, in spring the stimulus changes to VO2max, in summer season blocks with long rides outdoors, and after the season three weeks off. The calendar assumes that every test gives at least +2%. If one gives less, a B block goes in its place and the A chain moves back one cycle.
Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday in the coming blocks (shown are the last build weeks, the hardest ones):
| Block | Tuesday (sweet spot) | Thursday | Saturday | Week |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2A 26.10–22.11 | 2×12′ tempo + 2×20′ @89% | 12×1′ + 3×6′ @100% | tempo 2×20′ @83% | 8.0–8.6 h, 351–399 TSS |
| 3A December / January | 2×25′ @90% | 6×1′ + 2×12′ @98% | tempo 3×20′ @85% | 8.3–8.7 h, about 400 TSS |
| 4A 22.02–21.03 | 2×30′ @90% | 6×1′ + 2×15′ @98% | tempo 2×30′ @85% | 8.3–8.6 h, 396–419 TSS |
| 5A 29.03–25.04 | 1×60′ @88% | 2×20′ @98% | tempo 2×40′ @85% | 8.4–8.7 h, 414–438 TSS |
| B 3.05–30.05 | 2×20′ (maintenance) | VO2max 6×4′ @115–120% | as in 2A | 8.0–8.5 h, 349–393 TSS |
| S1–S4 7.06–10.10 | 1×60′ @88% | VO2max 5×4′ / threshold 2×20′ alternating | 3–4 h outdoors, Z2 | 8.9–10.2 h, 368–438 TSS |
A few details that are easy to miss:
- Saturday on the trainer lasts about 2 hours. I tried 2.5–3 hours at home and it was too much. The tempo intervals stayed in full, I only shortened the Z2 parts in between. In spring, outdoors, Saturdays get longer again.
- In A blocks the weekly TSS barely changes (e.g. 396 / 406 / 397 in 3A). Progress comes from the length of the intervals, not from hours.
- Time off is not a recovery week. From 28.12 to 10.01 there is no plan for two weeks, only easy, optional rides at 55–62% FTP, and at least 2–3 days a week are completely off. CTL will drop by a few to a dozen or so points, and that is the point. Christmas falls right on the recovery week of block 3.
- In season, a test every two cycles. In summer FTP tends to hold rather than rise, and a Ramp Test in the heat is no fun.
Does this model work forever? The rule itself does: test, then A or B, then recovery. FTP growth forever does not. Every next percent comes more slowly, and block A has a ceiling. When neither A nor B brings a gain any more, the goal will change to holding FTP and extending how long I can ride at it.
The goal for 2027: W/kg, not just FTP
I want to lose weight and improve my fitness at the same time. Those two goals are easy to set against each other: hungry intervals give a weaker stimulus, and a weaker stimulus means a worse test. That is why nutrition in the plan follows the type of day, not the calendar:
| Day | Before | During | After | Deficit? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Key (Tue, Thu) | a meal with carbohydrates 2–3 h before, or a banana 30–60 min before | over about 75 min: 30–60 g of carbohydrates/h | carbohydrates + 20–30 g of protein within an hour | no |
| Long ride (Sat) | a meal with carbohydrates 2–3 h before | 40–60 g of carbohydrates/h and drinking | carbohydrates + protein | no |
| Easy (Wed, Fri, Sun, recovery) | a normal meal | water | a normal meal with protein | yes |
| Test | more carbohydrates the day before, nothing new on test day | — | carbohydrates + protein | no |
- A moderate deficit: about 300–500 kcal a day, on easy days only.
- Protein: about 1.6–2 g per kilogram of body weight a day, to lose fat and not muscle [2].
- I do not diet on the bike: on rides over 2 hours, 40–60 g of carbohydrates per hour [3]. How much energy a workout really burns, I calculate following the post on kilojoules.
- Weight once a week, on Monday morning, in the same conditions. I enter it in the app so that W/kg stays up to date.
- If FTP stalls and the deficit was large, I first reduce the deficit, and only then pick block B.
The gym in a cycling week
I add the gym to days that are hard anyway. That way the easy days stay real recovery. Legs never on the day before a key workout or a test:
| Day | Bike | Gym and the rest |
|---|---|---|
| Tue | sweet spot | legs + full body, a few hours after the ride |
| Thu | threshold / VO2max | core + upper body, no heavy legs |
| Mon, Wed, Fri, Sun | rest / easy | mobility, a walk |
| Sat | long ride | nothing |
Legs are on Tuesday because Wednesday is easy and there are 48 hours left before the Thursday intervals. Muscle soreness peaks after 24–48 hours, so legs on Wednesday would ruin Thursday, and legs on Thursday would ruin Saturday. In winter I do two sessions a week of about 45 minutes, in season one, for maintenance. Exercises: squat or Bulgarian split squat, straight-leg deadlift, box step-ups, calf raises, plank, side plank, hip bridge. 2–3 sets of 6–10 reps, with reps in reserve, never to failure [4]. I described a ready session with the technique of each exercise in the strength training plan for cyclists.
When losing weight, the gym is, next to protein, the most important addition to the deficit, because it helps keep muscle. Just keep in mind that the app does not count the gym in TSS. After a hard session I go by how I feel, not just by TSB.
What to take from this for yourself
- Test at a fixed rhythm and in the same conditions. The same power meter, after a recovery week, with TSB above zero. Before the test, check in the app which device the power is coming from. Otherwise you compare freshness, not fitness.
- Set the decision rule before you see the result. For me ≥ +2% is block A, less is block B. No need to think it over, no temptation to fiddle.
- Guard the recovery week like your most important workout. About 50% of the TSS of the third week. I did not, and that is my first point to fix.
- Look at heart rate at the same power, not just at the test result. A drop of a few beats at constant watts is the best confirmation that the training works.
- Store power as % of FTP. After every test the plan updates itself, nothing needs recalculating.
- When losing weight, look at W/kg. An unchanged FTP at a lower weight is progress too. Eat for the work you have to do, and keep the deficit to easy days.
The next test falls in the week of 23–29 November, after block 2A. If it gives at least +2%, I move into 3A, which builds up to 2×25′ of sweet spot and 2×12′ of threshold. If not, VO2max awaits me in December. I will describe the result in the next post.
This describes my plan and my results, not individual training or nutrition advice. If you have health problems or are planning a large weight loss, talk to a doctor or a dietitian.
Data and method
Where the numbers come from. All rides are stored in my WattLog.pro account. In the text I use the period 1.09–25.10.2026 and the Ramp Test results from June 2026 on. I rode the workouts on a smart trainer in ERG mode, and imported a few outdoor rides from Strava. Until 14.09, including both June Ramp Tests, power was measured by the trainer. From 15.09 it was measured by Assioma PRO MX pedals, with one exception: in the Ramp Test on 16.09 the app was still taking power from the trainer. Heart rate was measured by a Garmin HRM-Dual strap. I entered my weight by hand in the app: 96 kg in the profile at the first test, 93 kg from 7.10.
How I calculated.
- TSS of each ride is calculated by the app from normalized power and the FTP set on the day of the ride. Planned TSS comes from the workout blocks stored in the plan [1].
- CTL and ATL are exponential averages of daily TSS with constants of 42 and 7 days. TSB is yesterday's CTL minus yesterday's ATL [1, 5].
- FTP from the Ramp Test is 75% of the best 60-second power. Protocol: 5 minutes of warm-up, start at 50% FTP, +6% FTP every minute, until failure.
- The test charts show 30-second averages. Heart rate at 200 W and 237 W is a linear interpolation between neighbouring points.
- Heart rate on the Tuesday sweet spot is the average of all seconds in which the average power of the previous 60 seconds was within 158–175 W. EF is average power divided by average heart rate over the same seconds.
Limitations. This is data from one person and two tests. The tests used different power sources, and I did not measure the difference between the trainer and the pedals. I have no lactate or VO2max measurements. The nutrition and gym rules in the plan are general and based on the literature below, not on my own research.
Sources
- Allen H, Coggan AR, McGregor S. Training and Racing with a Power Meter. 3rd ed. Boulder: VeloPress; 2019.
- Morton RW, Murphy KT, McKellar SR, et al. A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(6):376–384. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-097608
- Jeukendrup A. A step towards personalized sports nutrition: carbohydrate intake during exercise. Sports Med. 2014;44(Suppl 1):S25–S33. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0148-z
- Rønnestad BR, Mujika I. Optimizing strength training for running and cycling endurance performance: a review. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24(4):603–612. doi:10.1111/sms.12104
- Banister EW, Calvert TW, Savage MV, Bach T. A systems model of training for athletic performance. Aust J Sports Med. 1975;7(3):57–61.
- Rønnestad BR, Hansen J, Ellefsen S. Block periodization of high-intensity aerobic intervals provides superior training effects in trained cyclists. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24(1):34–42. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01485.x
- Seiler S. What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5(3):276–291. doi:10.1123/ijspp.5.3.276
- Bosquet L, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, Mujika I. Effects of tapering on performance: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(8):1358–1365. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31806010e0