We just called it 1/2 marathon goal pace and ran faster than we were supposed to. 
But that has a ring to it.
1 Like
Doesn’t matter what they said or more likely, how you interpreted it - It’s not. Like every other test out there it’s one estimate of your FTP. For some people, it’s a good one. For others, a bad one and other tests work better.
3 Likes
Give it up. FTP is not your one hour power. Plenty of discussion on this.
4 Likes
He is responding like that because its hard to tell when you are trolling or not.
There are probably 50 threads on FTP duration on here and his view that FTP is a range from about 35 minutes to 80 minutes is the consensus on most of them.
7 Likes
I’m only responding because you keep stubbornly and repeatedly bringing it up, so how about you look in the mirror a little bit with your responses too.
And when the guy who literally invented FTP says it’s not (and never has been) your one hour power and that was an estimate or basically a way of making it easier for some people to understand - that holds weight for me.
7 Likes
Also an update - the new AIFTP has been getting a lot better for me, which has been interesting as I’d been wondering if it’d go the other way when I started doing a lot of Threshold work.
My AIFTP is pretty close to dead on right now, definitely within 5 watts, and while having a 5.4 Threshold Workout Level after the adjustment. And not the normalization into the 4’s….
4 Likes
The AI Overview is wrong in this case, and if Fascat is saying that, they’re wrong too. There’s a difference between the definition of FTP, and the many ways to estimate it.
Coggan himself was interviewed and talks about it here:
My opinion: 1 Hour Power is the equivalent of “The Idiot’s Guide to FTP” to make it easier for people to understand and I bet he regrets ever using the analogy or talking about it as a way to estimate it.
“It would be easier for the average person to understand, yes. But it wouldn’t be reality.” (- Andrew Coggan responding to equating FTP to 1 Hour Power)
4 Likes
I agree with almost all of what you said, but for the sake of clarity, I think it’s important to note that @timon had significantly lowered their FTP from the AI suggestion, which impacts the conversation a bit.
I realize the conversation changed along the way and you weren’t directly responding to @timon , but in the spirit of discussing validation of your TRAIFTP, I think it matters that they lowered it quite a bit prior to testing, so it wasn’t truly testing 99% of TRAIFTP for 60 minutes.
I’d be shocked if more than a few percent of us could hold 99% of what we claim our FTP is for a full 60 minutes NO MATTER HOW WE ESTABLISH IT, which I know was your real point. I’ve wondered before if the pros can even hold it for 60, and if they can, it makes their FTP’s even more impressive!!
4 Likes
Without training, most TR athletes can’t (or don’t) hold 90% of FTP for an hour.
I’m not even kidding. How high up the Sweetspot workout levels do you have to go before you find a 1 × 60 @ 90%? Phoenix +1 is 1 × 75 at 85% to 90% and that’s an 8.0.
4 Likes
That’s great things have converged for you! It def makes things more simple so you don’t have to constantly tweak manually. Mine is worse than ever! On my last detected AIFTP it has me at 313w, I’m not sure I could do that for mor than 12min or so right now and there would be a lot of anaerobic contribution.
My next update is holding steady at 326w, which is squarely in my V02max! I have decided to cancel my subscription as of this week - mainly due to the fact that I drift from structured training this time of the year, and ride more on feel on higher volume.
1 Like
I actually remember a discussion where some pros biased towards shorter events (track sprinters maybe?) were even below the 40 minute mark in the 35 minute range when tested how long they could hold FTP. But I’d guess some of the TDF / world tour riders are in that group that could push 70, 80, or even more minutes.
Basically, they probably get to the point where FTP just isn’t going up anymore, and all they can do is work on training duration, pushing up LT1, durability, etc.
3 Likes
God, all of this AI talk on here and other training forums is nuts. It makes me miss the days where every thread was about anxiety over doing Z2 correctly.
Practically speaking it doesn’t matter if FTP is exactly an hour, approximately an hour, or “““approximately””” an hour (meaning 35-80+ minutes). What is important is that it represents an inflection point in the P-D curve where if we go much above it we’re going to blow up pretty quickly and much below it we can do for a very long time. I want a good estimate of FTP so I know that I can do multiple 30 minute climbs at 90%, 5 minutes at 110%, or 4 hours at 85% IF, stuff like that.
We love to overcomplicated it, but setting targets for workouts is the easy part since we have the entire P-D curve to work with. I can estimate what I can do for whatever duration for a workout pretty accurately, and calibrate it perfectly after 1-2 sessions. I don’t need FTP for that.
And regarding the OP, the field test would be a TTE test using the AI FTP. Wouldn’t that be a reasonable thing to do?
FWIW, I’ve found the WKO5 mFTP estimate to be very reasonable and useful for me.
11 Likes
FTP has never been correctly defined as one hour power.
FTP is maximal metabolic steady state and varies from ~40 - ~70 minutes.
“Approximately” Coggan has repeatedly clarified this, people still simplify it but that is incorrect.
7 Likes
I wish TR would use AI to build a forum option to hide all posts with definitions of FTP and all following posts arguing about the “right” definition of FTP.
6 Likes
Would never happen as this would dramatically hurt site traffic. I mean what else is there to talk about? Go back to Zone 2 debates? 
1 Like
If people trained their “FTP” as hard as they argued what the definition of “FTP” is, they’d be winning Roubaix this weekend.
2 Likes
That’s very interesting that your AI FTP is spot and provides higher AL threshold workouts higher then 3-4 
Really hope it’s just a matter of time for me too before it gets dialed in. However atm it keeps on “climbing”.
Done any over/unders (105%/95%) recently? How do they feel?
1 Like
Caveat: I’ve been working out 7W below my current AIFTP, but it’s feeling like I should raise it a little bit based on how I’m reacting to workouts, which puts me dead on with the recommendation. I am also doing custom workouts, not TR-Generated. There were plenty of workouts recently that TR had as “Not Recommended” but that was based on recent training history, not what I knew my ability to be.
With that out of the way, Yes, actually on the over unders, but not quite those levels. My last Over/Under workout were at 105/85 with 3 on, 1:30 off - finished as “Hard” but achievable (3x18 for the bigger intervals, each with 4 over/unders) so definitely had room to raise the power on this one.
Also did a normal 2x20 with 10 min rest a week earlier that was moderate / hard although I was playing around with the power starting a couple percent low (Should have just kept it at 100% straight through although I was second guessing myself coming in being a little fatigued and being my first 2x20 in a while)
Had one day where I came in fatigued and tried to do 3x15 @ 100% with 5 minutes rest. Tried to do that one with a 5AM wakeup which was a bad idea. RPE was sky high so pulled the plug after two - would have been able to finish it if it was a normal later start for me.
So - I feel like the data I’m giving the system is resulting in AIFTP being a good estimate for me. And, I’m sanity checking all the power levels with longer bouts of Over Unders and Threshold.
3 Likes
Nice. Looks good and must be about right with sucks longs intervals
1 Like