I have just asked the AI for predicted FTP and increased +12.94% increase, is this right 
The jury is out on this one 
Essentially the algorithm has changed and it is now showing you the optimum FTP for TR to set your optimum workouts.
It is apparently no longer important that it reflects the result you would obtain via an FTP test.
Nate makes a convincing argument to be fairâŚ. itâs all about setting the most productive workouts at the end of the dayâŚ. but I donât like it.
EDIT: after having a bit more of a play around manually inputting different âFTPâs can see the benefit of using the different number and the positive effects on my training. Iâm coming round to it 
9 Likes
Ya this one is odd. There is apparently some âgood reasoningâ behind this but it escapes me.
I canât especially see the wisdom of essentially saying your FTP is 308 -10 (in other words 308 but weâre lowering your progression levels by 10) rather than just saying your FTP is 298.
But Iâm no expert I guess 
1 Like
It makes rational sense to give the system as many levers to pull as possible to fine tune the workouts, I get that and if TR say thatâs what has proven to work best then I have absolutely no reason at all to doubt them.
I just like having the AIFTP be consistent with traditional testing.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if athletes were given the following choicesâŚ.
A) New AIFTP - This allows the system to give you the best possible workouts, it is the optimum solution to make you a faster cyclist; but the FTP value will not align with past values or with external training programs.
B) Old AIFTP - Can slightly inhibit the systems ability to select correct workouts. Athletes may run into situations where the workouts selected are not as productive as they could be; but your FTP will be consistent with past values and will reflect the value that would be obtained via traditional testing.
Rationally I know I should prefer option AâŚ. but I far prefer option B
7 Likes
ha. alas we are not rational animals.
this is a great one for spirited games of âWould You Ratherâ among cyclists! 
Yeah, I guess I didnât understand what Nate was saying. I thought he was explaining how it had always worked. In any case, youâre right that as much as FTP is valuable as a gauge for training itâs a good metric for comparison. If I understand the counter to that, it would be that your actual PRs should be your comparison measure.
2 Likes
Maybe TR should change the name of that metric. TBP say (Training Baseline Power) just so we donât have this debate. Also nate mentioned maybe TR could show modelled 20 and 60 minute power. I think that would be good.
8 Likes
I understand then that after the update the FTP IA is not equivalent to the FTP we would have on the street, right?
2 Likes
I donât understand what Nate was saying either, but seems like there are multiple variables you could adjust. Either AIFTP could give you an âelevatedâ ftp so that the model selects the best workout for you, OR couldnât you train the model to do that based on a tested/on the street ftp number?
This concept might work if you only used your FTP to train within TrainerRoad, but many of us use FTP as a metric for other training, outdoors, or even with other software. Not being able to know your FTP as it is measured everywhere else is a backstep that I hope is resolved with an update.
I wonder if they could offer both the old and the new metric and simply rename the new metric to something more applicable.
12 Likes
My entry in this sweepstake is TrainerRoad Power Parameter, TPP! 
3 Likes
Iâm down with Official Power Parameter, OPP.
6 Likes
Functional Trainerroad Power
Letâs keep the acronym intact for maximum clarity!
5 Likes
Yeah, the latest AIFTP boosted my FTP by 15 watts, despite me training less. This is pretty clearly too high based on actual full-gas outdoor efforts.
Since this metric is being used to set workouts, I donât see why it canât use the actual correct FTP but just serve me harder workouts? Surely the software could be set up to âcorrectâ my FTP upward when selecting my training, but not display an inflated FTP number.
4 Likes
FTP is a slippery beast at best. I think I may start a new thread where we can compare a comparison of our FTP as calculated by various platforms:
For me:
Intervals.icu eFTP 282W
Strava 299W (it estimates it on your power curve)
XERT 291W
TR AI FTP 251W
TR AI FTP v2 not seen it yet
4 Likes
For me:
Intervals.ics: 348W
Strava: 352W
Previous TR AIFTP: 345-355W (slight fluctuation over the year but always in this range)
New TR AIFTP: 365W
Ultimately the number doesnât really matter, but some consistency across platforms would be nice. TR knowingly inflating FTP numbers as part of their workout selection seems a bit silly.
3 Likes
It doesnât always inflate it - itâs just different - sometimes the new number is lower.
Itâs AI finding the best number to train to - rather than trying to be consistent with anything before.
Iâm coming round to itâŚ.
2 Likes
Whilst I get where the idea is going and honestly I have found more arguments to remove ftp from most cyclists vocabulary, my concerns come with any other platform.
As a long time TrainingPeaks user this in essence makes the performance manger a bit of a mess. We all know that TSS is not created equal and my âdietâ does not relate to yours but have a general grasp on your fitness and fatigue is a good marker.
I guess the only way is to completely remove all numbers and just âmake line go upâ?
2 Likes
I mean in the end faster is faster I get that. I just canât for the life of me see whatâs better about âyouâre at the bottom of a staircase that leads to 306â rather than âyouâre on stair 298â. And thatâs the best way I can interpret this new system. The problem is you can never really know where you are in between. But then again thatâs probably within the margin of error anyway (as well as fluctuations in fatigue, sleep, etc) so maybe thereâs no point in worrying about it.
ya I got a 16 watt boost this morning - and right before over-unders! - so thatâs going to be pleasant.
But Iâve watched more than a few people in the beta thread wonder about this and @Nate_Pearson has been on here going through their rider profiles and it seems like people have been able to complete workouts that they thought they wouldnât be able to.
So I dunno if I survive it, I guess Iâll report back!
2 Likes