I alluded to this above, but the backend is evolving to the point where workouts could be structured fluidly rather than having discrete ones that the system has to match up with…i.e., analysis indicates the best guess at a dose for next workout, and a custom workout is created to best meet that. They will be very similar to what’s in the library, but have more flexibility. Then the user has the ability to adjust within the workout, and a post-analysis grades the actual work done for detecting the next dose…
yes, because everything sports science has learned over the last ~50 years about cycling performance is wrong. Moar moar moar TR Training Power (TTP™)! A foundation of endurance/zone2 training is boring and outdated! 
But natively a new user who boots up TrainerRoad is going to default into an ecosystem of planbuilder and progression levels and adaptive training, where the “FTP” number may or may not correspond to 60 minute lactate threshold, right?
So then a new user should be onboarded to understand that ecosystem?
If that user decides instead to forego plan builder/adaptive training/predictive FTP and instead put a polarized plan on their calendar and do 60 minute FTP tests, they may do so, right?
Given some of what has been written, perhaps a good first step is for TR to stop using the term FTP?
What I do know is that a user doesn’t need to pay any attention to progression levels. What a user needs to learn is how to get in touch with their feelings and rating workouts. If progression levels and workout levels weren’t displayed, would anything really be lost? You would still have a list of alternative workouts ranked by achievable, productive, and stretch.
3 Likes
I tried this out two weeks ago, and my last two Threshold workouts have absolutely cooked me ( I’ve had to reduce the effort mid workout both times).
This could be unrelated to the estimate, but is unusual for me. The bump I got was double what I was expecting 2% versus 1%. Using the ramp test I often felt like I over tested there a well (VO2 is relatively easier for me).
As a future enhancement could I get to choose to select a lower increase? Going back to ramp test experience my train is just much more effective if I shave a few FTP off my ramp.
My plan has adapted to the ‘failed’ workouts, which I really like. Maybe with consecutive intenisty fails, it could offer to lower FTP.
RTFTP? Read The Fine Training Plan?
My vote goes to TR Training Power (TTP™). What Nate wrote above was both interesting and, well, I don’t know what else to say for fear of sounding critical. But I know one thing, pre-AT the basic approach of TR Build without enough endurance riding left me crashing and burning. So I suppose AT is a gentler, kinder way of pushing hard?
TR now has AI FTP, Ramp Test, 8-min, and 20-min tests in the library. With AI FTP, and Nate’s comments above and other threads (FTP isn’t clear), I really think its best to use TR Training Power (TTP™) to avoid confusion. And then AT and threads can wander down discussions about AT/PLs/TTP without any confusion.
TTP™ is greenfield and no baggage from the past.
1 Like
Blog post! Blog post!
So what’s the purpose of AI FTP detection? What can it do better than an actual test? It seems redundant to actual FTP testing. Are there any papers or science that says AI FTP is better than actual FTP? I don’t get the hype 
Just finished Build 1 (MV), so used the autodetection feature and moved from 356 → 365. Makes sense- I started TR roughly Nov1 with a 315 FTP and have been picking up 20w/ 6wk block (11/2, 12/21, 2/1, and now 2/28), so 10w/ 4 weeks seems about fair.
Progressions unchanged, though.
Not everyone wants to actually complete a ramp test… some would rather accept an AI “best guess” and go on with another recommended workout
4 Likes
- It can give you a reasonable FTP estimate for use in training with the TR workouts & Plans.
- Not necessarily “better”, but it removes the need to test, and allows for replacing that test with an actual workout, that may be more “productive” in the direction of the training plan goals.
- Reduces / Eliminates test anxiety that is real for many people.
- It also seems decent at catching declines with lack of training for a range of times and reasons.
- Again, it does this without testing and doesn’t even require “maximal efforts” as is the case with other FTP detection methods.
- It’s only redundant if you continue to test. Some will, some won’t.
- Several people have done the Detection, and then a test and found a range of result. But many have seemingly backed up the detection that I have seen. So, validation in a sense, at least in N=1 for bits of this topic.
- None that TR has shared.
4 Likes
I agree on both these points.
I am a big fan of what PL provides to my training experience, but the least important part is the number. I can look at what is recommended and decide with pretty good accuracy on how doable it is. The bins you note are the key part.
Same experience. The key for me with AT are two things:
-
I have a better sense of minimum effective dose
-
I have zero fear about mucking with what is suggested and diverging from my goals.
Part of this is that I was just starting to figure things out on my own from mistakes pre-AT. But I still find it very easy to navigate through things and not stress as much if I am doing what I should be to get stronger.
The analysis can and should get a lot better. But it’s already a huge improvement for me. And it’s not from pushing harder - more the opposite. Not trying to drill myself every workout.
1 Like
Minimum effective dose is an interesting discussion, I wrote up a few thoughts here Sweet Spot Progression - #2478 by WindWarrior and after 2 years of using a “traditional modern” approach to training on 8-12 hours/week, I have a very different opinion on minimum effective dose. All I can say in summary vs TR AT approach, is that I’m doing a bit more weekly time and a lot less intervals (I last looked at TR AT plans 4 months ago). These types of comparisons are always difficult, but this approach I’ve nearly reached peak from fitness from 2017 (before TR).
It sure seems there is a lot of individual response to training, and requirements for dose and recovery. I imagine a ‘more is more’ approach might work if my aerobic capacity was higher, and I rolled out of an off-season with high fitness that just needed 6 hours/week of mostly intensity to quickly push it back up. But I’m not that athlete, and my aerobic base always requires a lot of boring work before I have enough of a foundation to layer on the really hard top-end aerobic power work.
So much to unpack here and not an easy problem to solve given the heterogeneity within demographics
Very nice. There are a few layers to MED, and I should emphasize that what I meant was I was messing up the most basic aspect - that it’s not a great idea to completely shell myself every workout. The goal for a hard workout is that it is hard - not very hard or all-out. Better to err on easier side than harder side often too.
Hence, I’m not advocating for any level of intensity that TR is giving compared to other coaching systems. can say that I find myself doing better on less intensity and more volume for sure, with intensity starting to be sprinkled in more as I get into specialty. I’ve been doing loads of aerobic, tempo, sweet spot work trying to maximize my volume in the time I have and results have been very good.
Some folk test high with the ramp, similarly some folk test low and a lot of folk don’t want to test, especially during the season.
1 Like
Not to start a philosophical battle, but any “FTP” is just a stand-in for workout / ride completion power. That is: FTP is a metric used to pace, figure out how hard to go in training, how much training stress you’ve put on your body, etc. Otherwise, besides purely bragging rights, how else is “FTP” used in a practical basis?
7 Likes
Super important point…it’s morphed into a bunch of uses. And it isn’t particularly great for any of those things either.
2 Likes