Looking back at my training history and FTP info over the many years with TR, I realized a potentially benefit for me with the future direction here. During the early season and all thru my Base & Build phases, I have a good pattern of FTP testing and results (to now include the AIFTPD since release).
But I see some large gaps in FTP data in the main portion of my racing seasons since TR ditches the FTP test in the typical 2nd half of Specialty phase I even had a habit of skipping them during race season since I didn’t want to deal with testing.
Presumably with the future Auto function, I and others may at least be offered FTP changes when the system detects them. This might be good or bad for a range of reasons, but it will be nice to at least have the easy button option for those that want it mid-season.
Auto AI FTP detection sounds really great (!) … but so far as a new user of TrainerRoad the AI FTP calculation hasn’t seemed very accurate for me.
I did an initial ramp test in February and got an indoor FTP of 198.
Since then I’ve been continuing with outdoor rides and using the TrainerRoad TrainNow option mixed in between. My FTP as measured by my Garmin watch has gone from 207 up to 225 over time (to June).
I finally decided to do a new ramp test in June on the indoor trainer. I thought I would check the AI FTP value first, and it suggested 205. I went ahead with the ramp test and that gave me an FTP value of 228. So there seems quite a difference.
Based on some of the responses from the TR team, it seems like AI FTP will (already does maybe?) account for the phase of training and will be more likely to “hold” FTP as you move into specialty. That’s pretty aligned with the prior philosophy/approach of a final FTP test at the end of build and no more testing prior to your a event. Are there situations where an increase would make sense in the middle of specialty? Maybe, but I think the logic of holding tight on FTP through specialty is that you don’t want to continue ramping stress at that point and the workouts are designed around a flat number at this stage of game.
Part of me wants FTP to be FTP and should only care about what happened to get to that point, but I’ll give the TR team the benefit of the doubt that this makes sense in the context of how they are using FTP. I think this is where it’s important to understand the purpose of FTP in the TR training model (at least as I understand it). It’s primarily just a number to set a baseline for training and not a person’s actual functional threshold power. While those 2 numbers can be fairly aligned, they can also be quite different. The main concern for TR is to get the workouts right, so that’s what they are appropriately focused on. Using the “training” FTP number with progression levels to account for differences in people’s power curves and training state is a pretty smart approach from my perspective. There are some reasons why a person might want an accurate measure of their actual functional threshold power (including for use in some types of training), but that’s a whole different discussion.
Sure, and from what TR said, there will be some level of smarts in there relative to plan phase and even the type of plan in play. Nate mentioned the TT plan specifically with a tendency to push the time to exhaustion angle vs FTP.
But there are likely other disciplines where the opposite would make sense to push FTP more. Presumably TR is considering that in the work and implementation behind the scenes. All that is great, but we must remember that following plans is only one way to leverage TR.
Plenty of riders (Jonathan included lately) are using TrainNow with no plan in place. In that case, AIFTPD should be employed on as as triggered method to offer FTP changes. There is no phase to consider in that case, so it would be good to have that offered whenever appropriate.
And then there are those that are just “riding & racing” without even using TrainNow, who can potentially benefit from FTP updates at the regular trigger points. Essentially, there are a number of use cases in play here and it’s worthwhile consider as many of them as possible.
Sure, I do have those with my Intervals use and have reviewed it to a degree already. But I dislike the general need to use an outside resource like that, especially for something that is largely a core detail for use within TR itself. I feel that TR can and will benefit from this future tool as a change for the better within the TR universe.
Yep, I agree with all of that. Even when I’m doing a plan, my plan isn’t always reflected or up to date in TR. Honestly, my first reaction to AI FTP considering anything in the future (like what phase you are in for the next workout or what your long term goals are) is that it probably doesn’t add much value while creating complexity around all the potential variables. I’ll trust that the people working on it have much more insight to where things are going and this ties into a bigger vision that I just can’t see right now. I do see the value in considering stuff beyond the work that has already been executed, I just see it as low priority compared to some of the big hitters that need to get done.
Have you reported this to TR Support? The best way to improve AI FTP is to report instances where its recommendations diverge from “reality”, so that TR engineering team can take a closer look and try and understand why things in your case didn’t work like they should have
always thought every 14 days was too quick. Even 28 days is a bit much. 42 days is probably best, every 6 weeks. It allows someone to complete a base phase.
On one hand extremely excited.
If one can use a reliable FTP detection without going through FTP tests on a regular basis one should be quite content .
But…and there’s a big but…dependability.
I got notified that AI detection recommends increasing my FTP to a number X, which is 6W higher than my previous FTP AI detection.
So…I did an outside FTP 20 minutes test with the said goal of X x 1.06.
Well…I held it for 5 minutes before starting to bleed watts till I was trashed by 15 minutes with no juice and a result that it neither consistent (a 20 minutes steady slope decline) nor close to my previous FTP.
It’s as if AI FTP detection is 1.06 higher than my actual FTP,
This is my bet. Presumably he did that to account for the 0.95 multiplier used to de-rate a 20-minute FTP test block to estimate the FTP. Essentially, he reversed the math to set a target and added 1% for extra measure.
As we’ve covered in many topics here, that theory is fine but flawed and should not be taken as a blanket validation or disproof of the accuracy of AIFTPD. Many factors are present and it’s not necessarily worth diving into that in this specific topic. It’s better in the main AIFTPD topic or the others where people have attempted test comparisons like this.
As the Other Chad wrote… *
You take the average power from the 20minutes interval and multiply it by 0.95 to adjust for an approximation of a one hour effort.
So, if the AI detection was correct, with everything else taken care of and constant, then adding the 5% from the top (which is approx 106% from under) gives you your target power for the interval.
If AI FTP detection gives me a benchmark figure that means that the workouts that I get for the first bit of the upcoming block of training are in the right ballpark …
… and then Adaptive Training brings me nicely through the progression levels …
… and I’m nailing my workouts …
… and my fitness builds …
… and I’m getting faster …
… why would I care so much about the absolute value of that benchmark figure?
Some people leverage FTP in ways other than the mostly training focused aspects TR intends with the current and future implementation. Things like pacing plans and such for various events, nutrition planning and other reasons are all considerations that leverage FTP as part of the calculations. As such, it can be beneficial to have “an accurate FTP” on hand for those that use them these ways.
Nate admits to the confusion overall (above and elsewhere in our discussions), and has floated the idea of TR renaming the “magic number” they give us, in order decouple it from the FTP confusion that we see frequently here. We have to remember that there are usually more than one way to look at and use values in this area, and FTP is one of those with plenty of uses beyond setting workout power targets.
I do agree with Helvellyn’s assertion that the absolute number does not matter if strictly looking at it for TR training purposes. However, I am one of the folks that Chad references as having ulterior motives for having a historically consistent FTP number to benchmark. Apart from all of the good examples Chad sited, having a historical measure of FTP that I find consistent with itself is of use for me as I track my general fitness. Thus, I do find useful to intermittently do a 20 minute or ramp test just to see where my TR Detected number sits vs how I used to benchmark it in the past.
Of course, even the 20 minute/95% protocol is only an approximation, rather than something that Moses carried down from Mt Sinai.
We’re all just feeling in the dark towards some sort of fundamental truth, I guess. I do wonder how much variability “being human” introduces to the equation though. I imagine all our FTPs (in practical, what can I do today terms) are “plus or minus X% depending on where our mind and body are today”
Sure, just like the other half-dozen methods for estimating it as well. None are perfect or absolute in any way. I put no personal stock in one over another. I only mentioned the 20-minute aspect in direct response to the one other person commenting on it with respect to their results.
LOTS!!!
Yup, and despite that, it does not necessarily invalidate if from use or consideration. It’s just one of the many variables that people should keep in mind overall when looking at their training and progression.
It’s true that comparing method X to method Y and/or Z is a nearly futile effort. We’ve seen it countless times in the topics here over the years. It’s worthwhile to point out the potential for misalignment between these things, but we can still consider using comparisons like this to better inform our wider picture of our fitness and progression. It just requires some asterisks along the way
.
