Imagine you have a threshold workout coming up, and you’re wondering what the numbers will be since you’ve been getting stronger and your PLs have increased.
How about a “Potential Power Record” flag on the workout? Wouldn’t that be cool? Obviously there is some work with coding, but AI could help with that.
Thoughts?
See Xert’s calculated power curve.
I would love to see this even when browsing through the workout catalogue. You already see this in the calendar on the web after a workout, but would be nice to see it based on target power for planned workouts in the calendar and in the workout catalogue.
I know you can see it’s a record if you do hit records, but you can’t see beforehand that it will be, unless I’m missing something.
I would like to see an estimated power curve as opposed to just one for each workout. For example, if I have a block with a lot of threshold training and not much VO2 work how does that impact my 1 minute power? Obviously they have figured out to reduce PL for zones where you haven’t done a workout in a while. So I wonder how hard it would be to extrapolate that into estimated power.
I know you can set a range of time in the career section but only show actual power numbers hit. So if I had no VO2 workouts over the past month then it would show my 1 min power not much different than my 10 minute power. Clearly the decay in VO2 wouldn’t be that drastic so looking for TrainerRoads best estimate of what that 1 minute power might be.
I know that nobody wants to hear this, myself included, but cycling performance is rarely about “peak” power for any given duration but rather about repeatability and/or sustainability at a wattage a bit below that.
Keegan crushed Leadville not because his FTP or w/kg are high (they are), but rather because his high FTP allowed him a high level of sustainable wattage.
MVDP won worlds on likely a not earth-shattering attack in terms of wattage that he or anyone else in that group were capable of. It’s that he could do it one more time than anyone else could.
Training platforms that perhaps prioritize retention via numbers that make you excited might be more likely to focus on the hypothetical. TR instead focuses on the work.
And as the question and some of the follow-ups pertain to specific workouts, they are kinda giving you a “potential” power, but in the admittedly less sexy form of the workout suggestions, as in “Productive”, “Stretch”, etc. They’re not going to prescribe you a workout that you’re not capable of doing on a good day. If we’re truly focused on getting faster that ought to be all the future view we need.
All of this is do as I say, not do as I do as I’m as guilty as anyone. I was just also having this same talk with myself just before I’d come across this thread.
While I totally agree with this statement, not everyone uses their fitness for the same thing. My A event was just a PR attempt over a route I like to do. So now that has passed I might go after some PR on strava segments and I don’t need repeatability but instead what power to try and hold for this one off effort.
Having a high FTP does not strongly correlate with having high levels of sustained wattage for durations much longer than 40-70 mins. Rather, for anyone to do really well in Leadville they must have a low drop off in watts at very long durations 5+ hours. Two athletes can have the same power curve for durations under 2 hours but differ greatly for those real long durations.
Nothing you say is wrong, but I’m not sure what your point is in regards to my feature request. Obviously it doesn’t mean anything but a PR… but PRs are the goals we strive for, some of us… TR obviously feels the same way, which is why workouts that have a power PR are clearly marked with a cup.
I’m not talking about Keegan, although I have also seen plenty of professionals talking about power, including vingegaard who was shocked that he was able to hold the power he did for as long as he did. Seeing records like that gives us motivation but also shows us the training is working.
I don’t disagree with your post necessarily but I don’t see how it applies to this thread.
I guess in my mind it relates to the OP as I’ve sought validation of my fitness through power PRs, KOM chasing, etc. I guess for me, coming from a racing perspective that’s always felt hollow.
An example might be I know that for a particular event I likely need to do near 500 watts for 4-5 minutes to stay with the front group (I’m enormous, not strong).
What I should be doing in order to be best prepared for race day is probably lots of VO2 work like 30/30s or maybe up to a couple of minutes but focusing on repeatability.
Instead, my ego always craves validation or a measuring stick so rather than use my time productively I can sometimes chase that 500 for 5 benchmark I’m seeking.
What I do like about your suggestion is a Potential PR produced by their AI could serve as validation for me and thus allow me to stay focused on the work I should be doing, then I see it as useful.
Otherwise it still sorta feels like a feature for people who aren’t that serious about getting faster, which to be clear, is probably all of us, some of the time, myself definitely included. I just don’t see them putting development time towards that.
And as for Keegan, yeah his ability to suffer at near Threshold is obviously way abnormal, even for people of similar FTP or w/kg. There are a million what-abouts for everything but even looking at the parts where he was “on”, like say the Columbine Climb (346 watts for 43:15) is still low Sweet Spot for him thanks to an FTP I’m sure well north of 400.
And Vindegard talking power is great. Anyone talking power is great. I can dork out on it all day, thinking about the theoretical and I guess that’s more my point is that I can sometimes do that instead of the work, so this was as much a reply that I needed to hear a few years ago as it was to you.
I’ve got a rant about how we should all actually be using torque instead of wattage if you really wanna go down the rabbit-hole of theoretical convos.
How on earth would TrainerRoad know that you were primed for a “power record”. They see the workouts that you have done, but don’t know how you are responding to them. Don’t know how you are feeling. How much stress you have been under lately, maybe you have a cold coming on…the variables are endless. So let’s just say it is based on your workouts, but you do have all this other stuff going on and you get no where near your “Potential Power Record.” How are you going to feel about yourself? My guess is most people are going to be pretty discouraged.
I mean, AI FTP detection is effectively a potential power record, right? Particularly if you’re feeding the algorithm with accurate power & HR, honestly answering the post-workout questions all while following a plan it’s not a big leap for them to compare that data with a gazillion other users, “jump ahead” to what those other users actually accomplished in terms of power curve and then apply that to you.
That being said, there are plenty of opportunities for the data to go fuzzy and probably the shorter the duration, the less accurate that estimate would get as you’d just see more and more outliers from each individual that the collective data might reduce, but we’ve all got them in our history.
I think the more useful power related thing would be an NP power curve. While not super accurate for shorter durations even a 5+ minute and beyond NP curve would make a lot more sense for racing and even just real efforts solo, in a group ride or whatever. Average power PRs are applicable on the trainer or in a TT setting, and yet it’s something we all can fawn over.
Does AI FTP Detection predict my hour power or expected Ramp Test result?
AI FTP Detection isn’t meant to predict the results of any individual effort because all-out efforts can be affected by nutrition, fatigue, and other subjective factors. Instead, it’s designed to give you a training benchmark (FTP) that represents the full scope of your demonstrated abilities so you get the most productive training possible.
A training benchmark might be related to a potential record in the vicinity of that power range, but I don’t consider that a guarantee or even strong relationship necessarily. This is at least partly due to the fact that AIFTPD is a black box to us since we don’t really know how it is getting the value.
Answering from my phone so it’ll be short, but either I explained incorrectly or you’re reading it wrong.
Here’s an example. FTP is whatever, I’m going through my PLs and come on a new threshold workout, a 7.0. In this workout, I have to hold 320 watts for 30 minutes.
The system should be able to see if 320 watts for 30 minutes is a record for me, and if so, the workout could have a “potential power record” flag on it.
Simple.
I have a feeling if this is implemented people will be trophy hunting and then we will see posts pop up blaming TR for burning them out. 
And I guess that’s sorta the problem is that FTP is an agreed-upon term, insomuch as it’s supposed to mean the power that you can hold for 40-70 minutes. If the TR-generated AI FTP is not a ballpark indicator of your hour power record then they probably should have called it something else.
And don’t get me wrong; I love it and think it’s a brilliant way to guide your training rather than the taper, psych yourself up and then potentially under or worse over-perform on test day and now recover cycle that we’d otherwise go through.
But again, if it’s not an indicator of your potential 40-70 minute power they should’ve called it something else. They’re big enough and enough of an authority that they could’ve pulled that off.
I get that it’s designed to provide a training benchmark for the workouts to reference for appropriate training stimulus but it’s also a term everyone uses.
And I guess my initial point in all of this, and a reply to @varmstrong’s comment above is that if you’re doing all the things that TR wants you to do and if they recommend you do 320 watts for 30 minutes then you don’t need a Potential Power Record chart because they’re not recommending work that you don’t have a prayer of doing.
In some folks’ mind it might be a tool to get you faster, but if you’re already using and trusting the tools they’ve already created you simply don’t need it and can fall into the trophy hunting that @Jolyzara just mentioned and burnout/dissatisfaction follows. I guess I see the costs/risks to both TR and individual’s experience far outweigh the benefits of such a feature.
Regardless of the naming and/or context of AIFTPD, just having that number alone is not necessarily a direct connection to power PR’s. That prediction may be totally irrelevant when we consider the spectrum of All-Time and/or Seasonal power records across the entire spectrum of TR tracking (1 second up to many hours). That aspect seems to be ignored or assumed from most of what I read.
I have no idea how many people even both using Seasons in TR. If they don’t, the proposal above means using the context of All-Time as the only range for power PR’s. That may be fine for some users over certain timeframes, but will likely fall well short for those who’ve trained longer and might be on the downhill side of their training life.
So, even if the proposal is worthwhile (which I don’t personally see that it is), it would benefit from tandem training about seasons so people make sure they are tracking their PR’s in the best way possible. This is like many other proposals before, that have the potential to be motivation for some, de-motivating for others, and a dangerous carrot to dangle for yet others. Potential for benefit, but also detriment in some cases.
NO, Totally NOT.
For me its just another tool. The record already exists, I know you can go and look at different seasons, but seeing beforehand that completing the suggested workout at the power target will result in records would be a good indicator, for me, that I am stepping up.
Is it needed? of course not, I have been improving this whole time without it.
I dont think people will “chase” records as you and @Jolyzara imagine they will, any more than they already do. I know if I completed at PL 9 threshold workout then I am going to get a record. People already chase numbers for their FTP, why would they start chasing power records simply because it shows that it will be a record? Personal accountability and responsibility has to be there already. There are plenty of tools on trainerroad or any other program that if used incorrectly will wear you down.
Again, is it needed? Of course not. But it would be a fun feature for me to see, when I am looking at a workout coming up, like “wow, this one will set power records for me”.
You can’t just go by PLs alone… I lowered my FTP by 22 watts and slowly have been building my fitness back after a little break. Even with the lower FTP, I set power records on some threshold workouts and it was interesting to see.
If people didn’t want this info, they could turn that feature off.
Chad, I agree with you on almost everything you’ve said. I don’t think it’s a good feature, even if it worked and that’s a big “if” given all the variables. AIFTP is already an estimate at best and that’s with a ton of data and focus on getting that metric estimation correct. Doing the same for a 5-minute effort or a 30-minute effort would become that much more of headache while also being likely less and less accurate as the duration was shortened. Just way too many variables.
Our only dispute, and it looks like I disagree with @Bbt67 on this topic as well, is that in my mind, and kinda by definition of the term, AIFTP is in fact a potential power record. I don’t think most people have a prayer of hitting their FTP for many reasons, regardless of what tool they used to get that number as these are all estimates. The only true metric would be doing an effort of said duration, which even then would fall victim to pacing challenges and all the usual testing pratfalls as well as the massive disruption to actual productive training.
If I do a 20-minute test, a ramp test, or get an AIFTP generated number based on my activities they are all feeding me a number that is theoretically what I can do for 40-70 minutes, as that’s what FTP means. Again, if TR’s AIFTP doesn’t mean that, they shouldn’t use the term. I guess I fail to see how that’s not a potential power record, at least as it pertains to what I’m currently capable of, and maybe that’s the Seasons bit you mentioned Chad?