If you’re only doing one Threshold workout a week that’s 3 workouts to edit in the simulation window.
Three edits in 28 days.
Even a train driver can cope with that workload. 
Also - I only want to tinker with Threshold. Changing FTP changes all my workouts. Not what I want.
Sweetspot is also affected but you’re right, it’s manageable. It’s the OUs that break the deal for me. Yet I don’t want to lose them, they’re my favorite type of threshold workout ;(
Are we absolutely certain that we have been given sweetspot workouts that are too intense in raw watts terms?
I can only talk for myself but I don’t think it’s the case for me.
My old FTP was 325w and my new one is 334w.
But with my old FTP all my sweetspot workouts were always nailed on at 94% of FTP.
In the new system I’m getting lower intensity sweetspot workouts in %FTP terms.
My next sweetspot maxes out at 92% with the other three intervals lower…
In raw watts that interval is 307w… which is roughly 94% of my old lower FTP of 325w.
So even though my FTP is set 10w too high I’m not in the wrong zone.
I’ve only got my own plan to judge…. but it does seem like it’s staying sensible for me at least.
I do want more time in zone on my threshold workouts - so might still lower my FTP to achieve that.
Interested to see what sweetspot workouts other people have been given.
Same!!!
Last week I had Galena-1. There’sa 20 minute interval at 94% FTP there (the increased one). That’s 344 watts when I consider my FTP to be around 350-353, so around 97% of it
Edit: my approach is balanced with demanding in sweetspot, but I was expecting a progression towards less RBI
I’ve self-assessed my FTP at maybe 240 or 245W based on power metrics over the past several months.
In the last 8 or 9 days, I completed: 3x20 @ 220W (fine, a little challenging at the end), 4x10 @ 240W (last set sucked but doable, wasn’t totally cooked), and 2x30 @ 220W (fine, a little more challenging at the end than the 3x20 but still ok).
I have Antelope -5 coming up with an FTP of 258. This shouldn’t be a big deal because of the 4x10 I completed. Following that, I have Steamboat + 2. It seems similarly manageable. However, it is closer to the threshold end of my spectrum based on last week, and the 4x10 definitely resulted in more fatigue than either sweetspot workout.
Saturday’s Threshold is Reinstein - 2, so 3x12 with the overs at 263 and the unders at 237.
This seems to make sense from a progressive overload point of view, but as the weeks go on and I’m doing more and more time at 240W, I’m curious if I won’t be cooked by the end of it. Maybe my muscles will get stronger quickly and it won’t be an issue. I’m cautiously optimistic.
The current SS workout I have tomorrow is Antelope +2 which is 5x10m at 94% of my AIFTP. Sounds fine on the surface. BUT, this is based on an inflated FTP - If I’m realistic of what I could hold for say 40m straight, this workout is 5x10 at 99%. This ain’t SS - this is likely a level 5 or 6 threshold workout.
Can I do it? Yes, I believe so because I did something similar last week. Is this a SS workout, no. Like others have mention, then later in the week I gotta do a level 4.2 over/under workout of 3x12min at this higher FTP…..
Most recent one:
The easiest intervals were 12 mins @ 223w (89% of 251) and the hardest was 5 mins @ 236w (94% of 251)
My actual FTP is (was, maybe 
) about 230w. So, if that’s right … the intervals were at between 97% and 102% of FTP.
What does your next one look like? I noticed you rated it “Very hard" when it looks like it was intended to “hard”.
That was the last one of the block. 
It was somewhere btwn Hard and Very Hard. If I’d been rating it as a Threshold workout it would’ve been Hard.
Isn’t that a bit of a red flag?
I’m not sure we should be taking the workout level into account when we are filling in the survey - pretty sure is should be zone agnostic.
Thanks – hadn’t really thought about changing the workout types manually. Definitely worth looking into. I am trying to avoid too much manual intervention because I don’t want to fight the system, but maybe if I do that for this block then the AI tool will realize I’m not nearly as strong as it thought and will downgrade my FTP on the next cycle and I’ll be able to go with the flow from there.
I’m only doing two hard days a week (except when I choose to add a third if I feel good)
I could just as easily be doing two threshold workouts per week, so I’m pretty relaxed about the labels. As long as I’m getting two good muscular endurance workouts per week, it’s all good.
As long as you’re recovering well, there’s no real difference between Threshold and Sweetspot in terms of adaptations.
My SS before the change was 2x30 at 240W. After the change, the first one was Tallac -3, which is basically 3x15’(2’) in the 250’s. It ramps up and down on each one, but it’s in the low-mid 250’s. I got through this one fine – didn’t feel like SS anymore, but it didn’t kill me.
My last Threshold was 5x12 Over/Under at 272W/235W. The first Threshold after the change was 3x9’ at 290W/273W. The Overs went from 2’ down to 1’ between the workouts, but having everything bumped up 20W (and almost 40W on the unders) was a bridge too far for me.
From what Nate & Jonathan said on the podcast, I was expecting a smoother transition – maybe a little shorter intervals at a little higher FTP. Sounds like that is what happened for a majority of users, but not in my personal case.
You’re right on this, of course. The reason I’d maybe rate them differently at the moment is specific to me in my current situation.
My Sweetspot workouts are currently at a rather higher level than my Threshold workouts, and if there’s any wiggle room in the choice of RPE rating, I’d rather push Threshold faster than Sweetspot, to try to stop them converging in terms of absolute wattage.
I believe in TRs commitment to continuous improvement and I’m sure they will work this out for us.
I am frustrated that the people who have been hit with these high FTPs seem to be the group of people that were actually doing the old system right - doing reasonably high threshold workouts.
Feels like what we are seeing is an unintended consequence of fixing the real issue of athletes doing sub level 3 threshold workouts.
Meanwhile, Nate has said that manually lowering your FTP is an acceptable solution, I see no harm in doing this.
I’m disappointed hearing about the threat to you of being banned - but “the new FTP is BS” doesn’t sound mega constructive to be honest?
I have been quite critical from the start but have never even been sternly spoken to 
I am generally very happy with TR, the software, the philosophy, the staff and their helpful support. But this is where I have some mild criticism.
I find it very unfortunate that such a big change (even if only a small number of users appear to be negatively affected) is introduced so nonchalantly, without proper documentation and communication, and that users are expected to hunt in podcasts, blog posts and forum threads for clues and ideas and strategies how to cope with it.
Some of us are training towards goals that matter to us. “Give it a try and see what happens” is not an approach that will satisfy everyone. I for one am not willing to sacrifice three weeks of training while building towards my first races of the season to see if the algorithm will finally “get me”. I would have appreciated a clear path forwards for everyone who sees a significant zone-shift in future workouts.
I’m with you on this one. Love the platform, listened to all 500+ podcasts, I generally trust the system and the philosophy behind it, that’s also why I recommend it left and right. I don’t mind the “give it a try” approach as long as it’s in testing, so I won’t complain about struggling while I was a beta tester, but it felt rushed to do a general release in the current state. FTP prediction didn’t even survive 28 days in beta to get tested, too.
Right now, my criticism lies here: the whole beta thing felt more like a first batch of a gradual release, which was happening asap no matter what. The beta part of it seemed to be directed at fixing UI bugs so that the release can meet some minimal technical requirements to happen. These issues were addressed by us testers there, but were never taken seriously enough, partly because we couldn’t gather around the issue, as there was a single thread with everything dumped in it. Many voices were left unheard in the thread history. TR pulled the “Trust us, we read everything” card, which I don’t doubt, but the lack of organization hurts the tester side, too. They said they used AI to filter through the thread… that’s a one-sided solution to a two-sided problem. Using my own eyes and time to follow actually caused me issues with my partner for spending so much time reading a 3000+ post thread with a whole bunch of duplicated posts. It really wasn’t hard to have separate threads for UI bugs, feature suggestions, general discussion. Would’ve reduced the noise by at least 30% and the issue we’re facing here and now, would’ve been seen already there. It would also have enabled users to gather around ideas and made it easier for TR to indicate what is/isn’t being considered, since they wouldn’t have to react to that many posts.
But yeah, that’s all in the past, now at least we can talk openly about our struggles. I’m curious to see how this unfolds.
Just out of interest…. what workout level is everyone else’s first threshold workout following their FTP prediction date?
For instance my prediction date is 6th of Feb so I’m looking at my Sunday 8th threshold workout that uses my future AIFTP….
Pretty sure my wife thought I was having an affair 
