OMG are you serious - do you see the Auto AI detect symbol on it? I did not accept the AI value and chose a value other software recommended - ie I manually entered it. Check your facts before you choose to take aim at peoples ‘agenda’.
In my very limited time back on TR and using AI FTP, I’ve found it within 5w of a 20m test.
I don’t use the ramp test any more as it consistently overestimates by 10-15w.
FWIW, coming onto a forum full of strangers and making comments like you did (dubious, wrong, I don’t think so… etc… TBH I don’t recall EXACTLY what you said and haven’t gone back to reference) can VERY MUCH be taken out of context UNLESS you provide some context to go along with those words… IMHO.
I’m not condoning what @MI-XC said, but without some context, the rest of us (as readers of your comment) are left to speculate and in his case, I suspect he looked at your calendar to find that FTP number you entered manually.
That said, as @mcneese.chad and I believe others suggest above, I would talk to support to see WHY AIFTP increased your number. If TR can pick apart outliers like this (i call it an outlier based on my own personal experience with AIFTP… which has only ever gone DOWN when I take extended time off OR even this past summer, when I spent the majority of the time outside and riding for fun and not following much structure AT ALL), they can only make the software BETTER for all of us.
I wouldn’t get too hung up on AI FTP as it’s only one measure of your fitness which prescribes workouts based on your overall aim.
I’m happy with my modest progression 2.5, 2.9 & 2.4% respectively. My progressions levels reset, albeit quite high which means I’m doing 16 minute thresholds rather than a higher FTP and shorter intervals. Vo2 is set low so I use the alternatives option and aim to find a workout close to my previous watt output.
So the harder workouts are providing the adaptations required, the ftp is just a number, used as a datum, for the training on here.
I am expecting a good bump if I return to a manual test but I currently don’t see the need. That is until I return to club rides in April. And that’s just for my ego.
I looked into all your online data on multiple fronts and stand by my assertion. Either AIFTP completely bugged out and you are a one off scenario or you’re being less than truthful. The below appears to be a disingenuous jab.
Maybe you misread my message. I didn’t “ask” for an AIFTP, it prompted me. Plus, I did a week of tests consisting of 5s, 1m, 5m, 20m.
I didn’t “want” a detection, I knew my FTP. Others maybe not.
I don’t think I replied directly to your post. I was replying mostly to the general tone claiming that AI FTP is “dubious” (dhi67540) because he got an inaccurate ftp after a 4 week break. That is exactly when you should expect a software model to be wrong. It’s just a tool (good or bad) but at least you have to use it correctly.
In your case, you can just turn off AI ftp detection since you use WKO.
I just did a TR ramp test after doing the festive 500 and on the back of a solid recovery week. I also have an updated intervals.icu eftp based on some longish efforts during the festive 500. Going into the festive 500 my AI FTP was 236. During the festive 500 Intervals.icu gave me an updated ftp of 239. My ramp test at the end of the rest week following the festive 500 gave me 240. So…n=1 I believe for me they align very well.
For those curious folks: began the 2024 season December 18, 2023. Began after a month or so of lower training load followed by a week completely off the bike. My process this season is to run AIFTPD on the Monday it is available, not accept it, and perform the 20 min test the following day. I like the test, it seems to give me very good zones to train around.
So, AIFTPD on Dec. 18th gave me an FTP of 313 - pretty much the same value I’d been training on the lower volume with. 20 min test the next day: 296.
Yesterday, Jan. 15th AIFTPD: 303
20 min test today: 308.
Seems to be quite accurate when detecting growth, but a bit lacking when detecting decay. I’ll follow up as the season progresses.
I like your method - I know the 20 minute test and even ramp test are hard, but on the other hand if we are competitive athletes then executing a test to find out how strong we are is going to be tough. To me it’s part of the process.
Re-using this thread not to open a new one…
AI FTP got me at 275W @71kg
I don’t feel that is accurate (a bit too high) but i want your feedback based on last two days performances.
Saturday: 30 min TTT (4 people) - my first ever TTT on a TT bike and second time ever on a TT bike. Here I felt I could push more, but i was not confident at all on the bike.
269W average
281W NP
Sunday: 1:07 HH Crit race - of which 1 hour spent in 4 guys breakaway
251W average
283W NP
(manage to get the point classification jersey 
!)
Nothing there to suggest it’s off.
Maybe try 2 × 20 at 270 watts and see how you go? RPE of 7 or 8 should seal the deal.
Or try one of the @empiricalcycling FTP tests.
Update after latest block:
AIFTPD: 316
20 min Test: 318
Pretty impressive. Next update in four weeks.
I’d say it’s even more impressive than the number. Your 20 min test invites a lot of potential inconsistency (different weather, feels, etc) where AIFTP apparently looks at signals in the data that aren’t going to be skewed so much by those variables. It’s a more holistic view, it would seem.
My first few AI-FTP detections were under by a good 5-10% in comparison to the figures given by 20’ tests. The last two 20’ tests I beat AI-FTP by one watt. I think the model becomes more accurate with many more months of workout data, &/or the AI-FTP model is tuned to the selected training plans. Before signing up I was doing more like traditional base with some sweetspot sessions sprinkled in; since signing up I’ve been doing mostly sweetspot/general base -» sustained power build -» gran fondo specialty with some multi-hour endurance rides.
Just to throw one more option in the mix FasCat now has Auto FTP Detection
Another piece of their new CoachCat feature, that got zero attention when I shared that a bit ago:
It’s a wonder why most platforms don’t offer CP modeling or “Auto CP”. All they have to do is borrow from a git repo and and integrate it like Stryd did.
I’m not sure how everyone else tracks their progress, but I use a CP trends chart that has my cycling history (only from 2018 til now) and compares CP, W’, and CTL (based on Skiba’s Bikescore). It really shows how inconsistently I ride.
I have a WKO5 chart that has mFTP (WKO5’s modeled FTP, similar to CP), my set FTP, and TR’s AI FTP Detection to see how everything aligns. Plus how well does AI FTP “work” for me.
TR’s AIFTP continues to not work for me. Just got my next update after another 28days but it always tracks miles behind other approaches and it’s so cautious in ramping up.
Old TR AIFTP 354W
New TR AIFTP 360W +1.7% today
But just in the last 28 days my training has included outdoor efforts on climbs of (just looking at over 360W and over 10mins):
17m at 419W
11m at 424W
18m at 407W
17m at 402W
17m at 400W
11m at 403W
11m at 396W
12m at 388W
25m at 367W
Intervals.icu currently puts me at 395W with 24,480J W’. Intervals.icu has increased my FTP by 14.5% in the last two months as I regain fitness after the off season. It has found the right level throughout this period in my experience. This is night and day vs TR’s caution as I rebuild.
My all time best is 408W with 21,525J so I still have room to grow. Which is exactly what happens every winter>spring>summer.
I get that getting good training numbers is top priority. But AIFTP just uses too much caution and appears to try and fit you to the middle of a bell curve, even if your past performances and trends would indicate a different approach would be more appropriate.