Do progression levels ultimately force obsolescence of FTP assessments?

Definitely a valid point GIGO as the adage goes. I don’t know that FTP testing really ameliorates that though (not trying to straw man your position, just pointing out that that is pervasive for any methodology). I think a lot of it comes down to diligence, right? I know my trainer and PM are about 5 watts apart max (drivetrain losses), I know I can use my trainer for a slightly smoother workout response than power match, are others as diligent? Ideally yes, in reality, probably not. I wonder though, does TR cater to the lowest common denominator? Or do they try to educate and bring people up to a higher standard of focus around training? I am not saying “lowest common denominator” in a pejorative way about people, by the way, I mean more in a mathematical way. There are a lot of athletes with “junk” data out there, do we build the platform to deal with those iterations? Or do we try to error proof that out of the system, a big part of that would mean athlete education.

I think you are right that AT and progression levels remove the necessity for FTP testing, but I don’t follow your ‘90 days of data’ argument. Consider this:

Individual X has an initial FTP of 200. Suppose the individual cannot complete level 1.5 SS workouts at this FTP. In theory, AT could could use this to automatically lower the power SS workouts are built around, say to 190. As individual X gets stronger and is able to complete SS workouts at level 6.0 (all progression levels are arbitrary and made up by me), AT could then increase the power SS workouts are based off while at the same time moving them back to progression level 4.0. Rinse and repeat until they can do 6.0 at that power.

In theory, then, an individual could have a different baseline power for different energy systems. E.g.

Endurance is based off 200
SS is based off 190
threshold is based off 185
V02 max is based off 210
etc.

This will only work if there is a progression level that once hit, raises the power workouts are based off for that energy system while simultaneously decreasing the progression level. Over time, AT could learn how much to increase/decrease power for different energy systems for each individual.

Maybe this is what you are getting at, though?

2 Likes

The point is you don’t need to do the FTP test again after the initial assessment, not that it can’t also be done by using FTP

I don’t follow.

But I will explain more as well as I don’t think I was totally clear. the power I gave was for the initial assessment. it could be that after a year of training, with 0 FTP tests after the initial assessment that their workouts are based off:

endurance: 260
SS: 240
threshold: 240
V02 max: 280

Of course I still HAVE an FTP, the point is I don’t need to know it and therefore don’t have to do an FTP test.

I understand the math - I don’t follow your argument.

My argument is this: Given the new progression levels and AT, FTP tests need not be completed after the initial assessment.

Your argument is: You can still base it off FTP?

The value is this: If I have a bad day on a SS workout and my progression goes down a little; but I am feeling good the next SS workout, my progressions might go back up to where they would have been had I not had a bad day. As such, I stay on track better. If I am continuously failing them at a specific power and my levels are decreasing, AT can lower the power for me rather than wait until the next FTP test. Or if I am nailing them every time and get to a level 6.0 in two weeks, it automatically adjusts up not wasting 4 weeks while I wait to do the next FTP test.

Under the FTP assessment paradigm we get endless “I had a bad FTP test what should I do because I don’t want to have too low of a power for the next 6 week block” questions on forum.

But to throw it back to you - what is the advantage of doing FTP tests over and over?

The power curves need 90 days of data to populate accurately. A power curve at day 30 can look drastically different than day 90. When people are new to training this is very important. You’re not going to get an accurate appraisal of a duration curve at 30 days. Maybe with a better trained athlete returning from time off, but even then, there won’t be enough data points to populate the curve in it’s entirety.

I don’t think you even need a power curve ( I guess one could argue that progression levels are a derivative of a power curve). However, If I test at 200 and can’t complete 1.5 level SS, but can complete 5.5 V02 max, why do I need a full 90 day power curve to tell me that 200 FTP is too high for my SS intervals?

Because progression levels are designing the right workouts to strengthen particular systems strategically. A power curve, specifically a power duration curve, generates the FTP which is important in identifying the aerobic/anaerobic breakpoint. Progression levels will tell you your repeatability and duration tolerance at different levels but will not indicate at what wattage those levels are based upon. A person that cannot comfortably complete 30 minute SS intervals is not an indication that their FTP is wrong, it is that they haven’t built the aerobic efficiency and tolerance for those intervals. They may be able to complete those same intervals at 15 minutes comfortably at a Z3+ output.

Here’s my issue with this progression levels/ftp current set up. On Monday I did a ramp test and got a small 5 watt increase to go from 348 to 355, which is a 0.1% increase. In other words, it might as well be a 0 watt increase.

Well after the ramp test my progression levels reset to 1.0 for all categories except for tempo and sweet spot which were 2.0. Of course it then used these progression levels to totally redo my plan. Now all my workouts are 1.0 or 2.0 levels which are going to be ridiculously easy. I’ll add I’m supposed to be in the second half of a build phase.

I emailed support and they said this is how it’s designed to work and there wasn’t an issue with what happened. So tonight I’m supposed to do a threshold 1.0 workout, whereas two weeks ago I was doing threshold 5.0 and above. I’m thinking I’ll swap it out for a “breakthrough” workout.

348 to 355 is 7 watts, a 2% increase.

Interesting.

Probably why it’s still in beta.

Also why I don’t bother with ramp testing…

1 Like

I guess I disagree that an FTP is even necessary. If AT did what I am proposing, I could, in theory, set my FTP to 200 (I don’t even like using FTP in this context - I think of it as a number to base my workouts on), complete a bunch of level 10 workouts and progress until the workouts are at the right level for me.

That said, I do think an initial assessment is more efficient as it will get me closer to the truth sooner.

As a thought experiment, suppose FTP didn’t exist - what would AT do? It would, for each energy system, determine the power to base your workouts off. In all likelihood, a TT specialist would initially have their endurance, SS and threshold workouts based off a higher power than their V02 max workouts.

This is definitely an execution problem. A 2% lift in FTP puts a rider within their existing threshold range of up to 105%. This should maybe result in a marginal decay of your levels, but not a full reset - that may have value for a bigger bump (newbie gains). I haven’t had much luck myself with support and getting them to understand where the problems are. I suspect there are developers that understand the math model and design but don’t understand how flaws in that model translate to training insufficiencies. I don’t know if that feedback is getting to the core TR leadership team to understand “hey, when I go up 5 watts in my FTP you’re forcing me to either lose fitness by following the plan or I have to manipulate all my workouts to get my levels back to normal.” This has less to do with the power curve data in a raw format and what is being done with it. That piece requires more thought, I hope they get this fleshed out in beta because you are absolutely right.

3 Likes

AT would effectively do nothing. It doesn’t know even roughly how to categorize each energy system without FTP or some sort of power marker with a starting point of a predictable distribution of zones that are then massaged around a rider’s phenotype. There is no getting away from FTP. It’s how FTP is established that is questionable.

I could not disagree more. The workouts are categorized into energy systems. Therefore, if you select a SS workout at FTP of 500 and cant get 1 minute into the first interval - it knows that 500 is not the right power to base your SS workouts on.

And how do you think the wattages for each energy system are established? They are built around LT2 for which FTP is a proxy. It’s not a matter with which you can disagree, it is the fundamental tenet of structured training and establishment of zones. I recommend doing some research into training zones mainly Coggan, Allen, and Friel. Training and Racing with a power meter is a good resource to understand why what you are suggesting does not make logical training sense.

I think eventually, yes, Progression Levels and AT will make FTP assessments less and less relevant. Personally, and separately from PL/AT, I don’t find a need to test to understand my fitness/FTP setting and related workout progressions, but understand that many still do.

However, in its current state, this is well beyond what the system is capable of delivering. Right now, PLs only update based on adherence to strict, previously assessed, workouts. They aren’t really using a power curve or anything similar yet. You (successfully) complete a 5.4 PL workout, you get moved to that PL. You do a 5.5, you get moved to that PL.

The system isn’t yet capable of setting PLs based on anything other than these strictly followed workouts. This is why increasing the difficulty of a workout doesn’t change the PL adaptions you see, why extending the cooldown and doing significant endurance after some intervals doesn’t change the PL adaptions, and why outside rides that are not associated with a specific TR workout do not impact PLs at all.

The above all essentially stem the same basic gap in the current functionality, and something I imagine they are working on addressing. However, until this gap is closed PLs cannot be reasonably associated with your power curve or any other similar model. As such, I think the move away from FTP testing is still a ways off

2 Likes

Wholeheartedly agree, I was postulating more toward future state, even after the beta period has concluded. @wistoon33 points to a major hole in current state functionality that would make my proposition VERY problematic. If TR and WKO5 could have a love child, that is what I have pictured in my head :joy:

I think FTP testing -primarily a 20min test, does a good job of establishing a reference point for aerobic training zones (ie z1 is X% ftp, z2 is y%, etc). I personally never had it do a good job of establishing zones vo2 and above, tho I don’t think this was ever its main intention.

I think when you start reducing the test length, you get away from that goal-estimating aerobic zones (ex. Ramp test or 8min test, etc). Sure, I know these tests have some sports science study stating on average study participants had their ftp be some percentage of that short test, just like the 90-95% of the ftp test does.

I think ftp has never been a good metric to base above (estimated) ftp training wattage on. However it is a very good metric for establishing tempo, endurance, and recovery zones with (proper aerobic riding).

I come from a track and field background. It would be ridiculous for an 800m runner (1:40-~2:00 event length) to base their intervals on their fastest 60min pace. Same for a 1500m/one-miler specialist, and so on and so forth for the various events. What matters is your personal best time for that event.

This analogy suggests using the power curve is a better approach to train for that specific power duration (and only that duration for each given duration). However, you need to be training in a way that actually maps out the power curve. Nothing does this better than participating in races (or race like group rides). I think a longer aerobic test duration like the 20min has its place, but you could see improvements in workouts basing shorter duration intense efforts

3 Likes

Shoot, I mistyped. It was a 5 watt increase to 353, not 355, which is like a 1.5% increase. I guess it doesn’t really change the discussion though.

I was thinking of just not ramp testing but I figured if I’m in the beta I should do everything the way they want so they can get the data.

You could not be more wrong. FTP as a biologic structure exists. I understand that. Your argument, however, implies that AT can’t exist without the concept of FTP. That is absurd. I mean, honestly, what did people do before power meters? Assume they can work as hard for 20 minute intervals as their 3 minute intervals

Fundamentally, the only difference of what I am describing is to use several workouts and progression levels to identify the power someone should be setting their workouts at rather than a single ramp test.