Makes sense to me then. Keep it relatively aligned but still tag it different enough that it has unique identity to serve the purpose. I’m all for spending that dough on real stuff vs marketing and education that can be minimized or avoided entirely.
Yah. And we’ll backfill PLs all the way back too so you can see it over time. Bit we are prioritizing WLV2, AI FTP, Red/Green all before that.
You’re like a former bodybuilder or power lifter, right? Your IG picture makes it look like that.
When were you doing this? Right now it looks like threshold is way above anaerobic.
You’re hitting on a lot of stuff!
PLs do give you a measure of repeatability and endurance. That was one of the goals in creating them.
And you’re also very smart about the ranking system. I would like to know how my fitness score (or another score) ranks against all athletes, or athletes in my AG or area or something. Even if I was at 4000 and then went to 3995 I’d be happy :-D. Those 5 people can eat it!
And Peloton has shown us this is very motivating.
For the FTP stuff. It’s not about being as accurate as possible with the name so that the top posters (and a few podcasters) are happy. We need to develop stuff for millions of athletes without diluting the training effectiveness.
If this was 2011 or Zwift didn’t have so many users we could probably rename it. But “FTP” is so ingrained in so many people who don’t care about the specific definition but want a number to keep improving.
I’d love to give them more motivation, and finer control with PLs and eventually the fitness score. Then to rank those against other athletes on TR.
So naming it has to consider marketing and the cost of educating millions of people about a new term. I think it makes the most sense to have a support article for the die-hards, then start to introduce PLs and Fitness Score to more athletes.
Oh, and yes, the fitness score was a good representation of my fitness.
It wouldn’t even be AI-generated, just math based.
If we used AI we’d have to train it against people’s ACTUAL hour PRs. Which very few people do…and everyone would have super low estimated hour powers.
That’s a huge marketing effort that would cost millions for it to take hold in cycling.
This was about 3 or 4 months ago, on my second block of threshold work now and moving on to VO2max in a couple weeks.
I think “Training Threshold Power” (TTP) conveys the same change but makes more of a distinction from FTP which is needed for what you want to accomplish. Or you could think of it as “Trainerroad Threshold Power” if you want, still TTP. including the “F” means people will just say FTP and think of it that way
I see I’m not the only one to suggest this.
This is such a good comment, I hadn’t thought of that. Zwift does the same, the gamification is meant to make people more consistent. This is a double-edged sword, but can ultimately be used for good.
True. Which is why I wrote to stick with it, the suggestion was just in case you wanted to rename FTP.
Here is a metric you can implement very easily and which will have an impact: workout streaks/consistency. Count the workouts a user has successfully completed in a row and give a percentage of successfully finished workouts in a training plan so far.
Workout streak: 15 workouts in 3 weeks
Consistency so far: 95 %
You could also give more positive feedback after each week by displaying a message like “Finished another week as planned! Keep on going! ”
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this is something you should implement and implement ASAP:
- It is easy to implement. In fact, I assume you are already tracking these metrics — along with many others — internally
- The metric is easy to understand. No ML is necessary.
- The metric incentivizes behavior that we know is one of the most important predictors of getting faster: consistency.
- The only difficulty I see is how you handle failure — you want positive reinforcement and not discourage users.
The bit that i found extremely interesting is the idea about balancing TIZ vs ftp wattage number. As someone who believes the best way to increase ftp is to develop a large TTE, I would plan to try the 40k tt specialty and sustained power build…
That’s the point: it doesn’t need to take hold within cycling generally, just be clear to TR users what the number that the TR AIML system is determining can and cannot be used for. It’s completely analogous to Workout Levels / PLs which have no meaning outside TR. These are all just metrics that the TR system uses to give the user a series of workouts to help the user meet their goals.
I agree with those who state that you can stick whatever you want in front of FTP, and all people will see is the FTP part.
I don’t know if that is a good idea, because you are overlaying a mixing a training goal with your particular training methodology that you believe is best suited to achieve that goal.
The way AT works right now is that it generates its own training methodology from the goals implicitly contained in the various training plans. So if you opt for a 40k TT training plan, then AT might not choose your training methodology. I am not saying you are wrong and TR is right, I’m just trying to disentangle goal from method, and concluding that you should not assume AT will follow your method.
Point well taken… generally i try to just apply principles i learned from my time when i was coached… it may not be quite as good as continuing to work with a coach… but just being able to effectively balance my fatigue is a big win… does AT offer this?
I think that is totally fair, some people respond better to some methodologies than to others. And the placebo effect is real — the body is more likely to react the way you want if you believe it will. (Just to be clear, this is not meant as a putdown or so, the placebo effect is measurable.)
At present probably not in the way you want. At some point in the future I’d like to be able to e. g. have some influence on how I want to improve my power profile and how many days I want to train for and for how long. This way you could have AT create a plan for you with more endurance rides in the mix (i. e. less intensity).
Some of this is in development (@Nate_Pearson’s ship is leaking from the top), but likely won’t be available for some time. They first have to get scoring of outdoor rides out and then might have to iterate on that.
Thanks for answering these questions again, Nate. I know they have been asked and answered previously. I was just trying to express that these are the issues we (or at least this user) care about, more than the other concerns you mentioned. I should have expressed it differently.
What‘s the actual x axis on the plot?
I am honestly confused to get the 60 min up here again and again in an otherwise (partly) highly educated discussion.
AFAICT even Coggan „and friends“ realized and stated long ago that FTP (ans MLSS) corresponds to durations of approx. 40–70 min depending on the individual.
Yes, exactly, i. e. power at lactate threshold ≠ 60 minutes best power, which was my point. Lactate threshold (and FTP as its proxy) is a physiologically determined point in your power profile that is not defined in terms of duration. The typical duration (40–70 minutes) is just an experimental fact that follows from the definition of LTH. (Although I would suspect untrained and less trained individuals won’t be able to hold their FTP for 40 minutes.)
Some people erroneously equate the two, i. e. if you cannot hold power x for 60 minutes, then it is not your FTP. Presumably, this is a misunderstanding that stems from Coggan’s early works where he tested (indirectly) lactate threshold by looking at power data from 40k TTs of trained cyclists. That’s what I meant. Does that clear up any confusion? Or add to it?
It clarifies that you got it (mostly/generally/essentially/fully?) right;-)
However, it (FTP corresponds to 60 min power) has been used many times in this thread, by different people, and not always in ways that seemed to be in line with your explanation (nor general consensus in the field).