or if they just focused on their power curve progression people would see measurable improvement more frequently.
@Jonathan are you still running occasionally?
If the number TR uses to set your workouts goes up then you are getting fitter.
Same workout but more watts.
It’s just maths.
Do you know what…
You’re right I apologize… I should drink my morning coffee before posting.
I find your posts frustrating because you seem to fill an awful lot of threads with negativity but the only issue you usually seem to have with the product is that it has given you a lower FTP than you had before.
In this case I can see your argument that there is a slight disconnect between @Jonathan saying that he “needs” a certain FTP to perform a certain way in his event and other messaging which says that the FTP is most meaningful for training.
I’ve not listened to the podcast yet but I am confident that @Jonathan has good handle on how his AIFTP translates to real world performance.
I think it’s a bit of a “boy who cried wolf” situation where because a majority of your posts are complaining about the AIFTP detection you have been given any legitimate points get drowned out a little.
If your AI FTP goes up your fitness has gone up. Your 45 minute or 60 minute power may or may not have gone up. But to get your AI FTP to go up you need to be training consistently and showing that you can handle the work.
I’ve listened to it twice 
I’d say it’s less “key takeaways” and more journal of his progress.
Nice one @Jonathan good to see that you’re well on track. Im not sure I want to try it again myself, interesting to see you’ve adjusted to easier rides when you feel like it without a loss in progress. 
I’ll see what I can do 
I’d argue that many of the critiques aimed at AI-derived FTP are the exact same critiques we should be applying to traditional FTP itself.
Take a concrete example: when Jesse Coyle went out and completed a true 1-hour effort, he still said the result didn’t accurately reflect his performance and adjusted his FTP down by 10 watts. That’s after executing a well-paced, negative-split effort.
And this isn’t an isolated case. Anyone who has worked with a coach and attempted a true 60-minute test knows the pattern: you do the effort, review it, then adjust. The “true” FTP ends up being a negotiated estimate, not a perfect ground truth.
That’s the key point:
If even our supposed gold standard, a maximal 1-hour effort, requires interpretation, context, and post-hoc adjustment, then it’s not a flawless benchmark. It’s just another model with assumptions and noise.
So why do we treat 1-hour power as gospel, while holding AI FTP to a higher standard of scrutiny?
Because a 1 hr power test is more objective than a software with known glitches and countless variables.
It’s like saying a max bench press isn’t really max bench. Are there some nuances? Sure, but they’re smaller than guessing based on a non max bench press.
I did a well paced max 20 minute effort last week and held 311 watts. My FTP update as of Tomorrow is 314. I can’t see, under any circumstance, holding 314 for 1 hr.
Also, hard to compare 300 watts now vs the different 300 watt calculation last year. I’m glad I did my 20 minute test, and have done others at different lengths, to have more measurable values of improvement.
I’d like to see TR show us our FTP based on the old calculation so we can continue measuring progress with the same objective yard stick. May be a lot to ask.
A 20 minute test is probably not any better a predictor of 60 minute power than the AI FTP.
Well, a 20 minute test will at least tell me what I can hold for 20 minutes. Obviously, my 1 hour max power will be less than what I can hold for 20 minutes.
If I can hold 311 in an all out effort for 20 minutes, how does AI FTP justify prescribing me a 314 watt value, if it’s used to indicate 1 hour power?
Can you train with the prescribed workouts at this number though? For me that is the most important.
Great question. My current AI FTP is 300 (calculated from the 20 minute test is 295).
My workouts have been hard but felt appropriate at 300. I’m nervous for my Antelope sweet spot at the new 314 watt FTP on Monday.
I’ve never failed a prescribed TR workout yet.
Like you, despite my relative gripes about the prescribed number, the appropriateness of the workouts is most important. During this years training block, they have felt very appropriate and I’m happy to say that and have consistently on the forum. I just feel like I could have appropriate workouts at 295/300 as well. It’s been good to me so far, I’ll trust the process.
Did I see correctly that @Jonathan had a threshold 4.5 workout right after his FTP increase? That is very interesting, as the “public” version places you around PL 3.0 threshold workouts right? Would love this in my version imo without setting a lower manual FTP 
Great episode!. Really inspiring to follow his training
I think the PL varies with other factors, like the length of the workout. And remember not all not all PLs are in line with how the AI regards work. Yet.
My first threshold workout in this block is 1h15 PL4.7, Mount Goode -3.
It hasn’t for me. It keeps me closer to 4 when it adjusts. I had a 5+ scheduled for next week but I just labeled today’s as very hard so it got bumped to a 3.9. I am tapering into a race though, so maybe that’s also part of it.
Many people were getting Cloudripper -2 which is 4.0. My first one will be Starlight -2 which is a 4.0 and I haven’t done any threshold in a month. So unsure how it picks.
Let‘s put the coke, ruler and scale aside.
Way to go @Jonathan !!! Great work. I really enjoy to follow your journey and I hope you will reach your goal!
I missed this kind of content.
Seeing Jonathan call 300 a breakthrough is kind of funny though considering his fitness history. He’s just getting back to 300, not getting to 300 for the first time.