vorzap
February 15, 2026, 4:23am
247
grwoolf:
he 297 might be a little pessimistic, but it wouldn’t be out of line based on those numbers IMO (at least for how I look at FTP). If you had a lot left in the tank, that’s another matter, it just appears you were close to a max 30’ effort if 175 is really your max HR. Assuming it was close to max, I’d probably estimate FTP ~305, but it’s really hard to know how much anaerobic contribution someone gets from a shorter effort like that (same reason a 20’ test tries to blow out the anaerobic contribution with a 5’ max effort first). If you feel your FTP is higher, just set it higher and see if you like how the workouts are feeling.
And all of this really goes back to what TR is doing with the FTP number. I haven’t really been following all the forum chatter about it recently, but I assume TR is still saying it’s primarily a number to base workouts on rather than a more traditional physiological definition (so all bets are off on what the real life performance proxy should be). Or maybe they have provided that, I just haven’t seen it.
Yea its exactly a copy of xert, and xert is able to arrive at the number less than half price. My max HR is 189 (best in the last 365 days on intervals.icu, using a polar h10), and my LTHR is 169 (garmin measured).
My guess is only upsides. My conclusion is the system is half baked. It lowered my FTP from 306 to 298, glitched to 302 a few days later, then I did a 90 minute Zwift race up Ven-top, holding 305w for 40 minutes, dropping to 298 at 60 minutes, and 289 at 90 minutes. All that while keeping my heart rate average at 162, just under my LTHR of 169. Thanks to this effort my intervals.icu eFTP is 304w based on 26 minutes at 317w, and Zwift post race said congratulations, your FTP is 305w now. I did la…
I still have this race in the same period, this is why every other platform is saying my ftp is higher.