This exactly answers what i was wondering about. So my thought about your FTP going down while in a recovery week is probably correct. But as @jjmc says, estimating FTP on the day you would normaly ramp test is still the best moment to establish the new baseline for the upcoming phase.
I added in a ramp test today just to see what it would come up with and it gave me a +8 points after 2 weeks of build on a nice round number of 260. I have a minor case of OCD on round numbers so I was hoping to get this number after recovery week, but concidering both your answers it’s probably going to be like 258 or 259 after next week. Not that it matters, a few watts won’t make a world of difference.
That’s not what I was saying. I don’t think it matters much at all what day you do it. There are reported fluctuations that are likely due to inherent noise in the ML model.
Not really any reason to do it more than 1x every 4 weeks, but not really any harm to doing it more or less frequently either. Shouldn’t matter if you do it at beginning or end of deload week (or any other time). Numbers will change if you check them more frequently, but that shouldn’t affect training in a significant way since PL adjusts for those variations.
That said, there is evidence of kinks in the system that challenge that thinking. Like what @MI-XC has reported, and may be related to a timing nuance of some sort. I don’t have any explanation of seeing a change like he did that seems as not a good estimate to accept.
I did it on release day and then 2 weeks later just to test a hypothesis that it doesn’t matter much. But I don’t plan to make this a regular thing. It’s not a useful thing to spend much mental energy on really.
I did a ramp test and it was 1W lower than the AI FTP prediction.
Folks, take that ramp test on the same day for a proper comparison.
I’m squarely in the camp that a ramp test result matching the FTPD should not be used as a validation. Nor should any other FTP estimatation method or test. Doesn’t mean these won’t often be close.
FTPD is all about trying to best set training intensity. Hard Stop.
My concern is that if we take the mindset that test results like you indicate are the standard of validation - rather than tracking what really matters, long term performance gains - we will distrust the approach just based on if it doesn’t match. And there are many reasons why that might occur that have nothing to do with its utility.
@jjmc Thanks - makes sense! Reason I asked was because I was curious today and used FTPD and it gave me a 10 watt increase on my last result, two weeks ago. Seems a big increase for two weeks’ work so I’m sticking with my old FTP for the rest of my training plan…
@DewiJ for some reason there is a bug where often when I quote it immediately edits and deletes the quote. Anyways…
Yes, I got the same thing as you - a large bump after two weeks that I think was a stretch at best. And accepted it just because I continually argue that PLs correct for large variations in FTP input.
Results are early, but thus far this has held true.
So statements like “I accepted and my workouts are spot on” are less a validation of FTPD and more about AT setting PL extremely well over a wide margin on FTP input.
The goodness of the FTPD will take much longer, and be much harder, to flesh out. That can only show up through tracking progress through different ways of setting FTP, or more generally, if there are ideal PL ranges in different zones for different goals or individuals. I don’t think that is generally true, but there are likely special circumstances where it is for sure.
FTP (whether from ramp test or AI detected) is just putting me in the right ball park, AT will then adjust things so I’m playing with the right team. I don’t think you can really use one without the other.
Interestingly Intervals.icu currently has its guess at my FTP at 274W as opposed to TR’s 297W, most likely because I haven’t done any of the 3 minute plus hard efforts for a while that it bases its calculations on.
My first workout post AI determined FTP was Keith-1, basically four mini ramp tests with surges! That was hard and I needed a back pedal in the final two blocks but I’d have struggled at my previous FTP of 288W as well, maybe not quite as much. I do seem to struggle with that style of workout - continuous ramping up of effort with no breaks, I struggled with the Basin series a while back as well.
Extremely well stated! And FTP input is meaningless in AT without also comparing against PL.
Regarding workouts, the levels are not as accurate as one would believe based on the granularity in the scoring, and my hunch is that it comes down to accuracy in the FTP input. I get a workouts scheduled I scratch my head at and/or the workout level doesn’t jive. But by and large I just ignore them. Part of it may be that volume and intensity/recovery is not being handled explicitly by AT yet. So it is up to the user to either do the workouts and struggle and system to correct, or user to proactively correct through selecting alternates. Additionally, it could just be my own personal strengths and weaknesses with certain workout structures. Likely a combination of the two.
That’s interesting because I find workout levels to be quite accurate and one of the best additions of all the recent updates. Within the same training zone the workout PL has greatly improved my training. Not to mention, has helped me understand why I struggled with some workouts in the past prior to PLs.
Workouts’ PLs are such a better why to judge difficulty over IF, TSS, duration and/or % of FTP.
I agree on all that. Accurate is a funny word without qualification. I just mean they aren’t perfect for a few different reasons. But they are a huge huge improvement that is my favorite part of AT by far.
So everyone was doing meaningless training before AT? What about all that stuff that Coach Chad said and wrote about the importance of having an accurate FTP? It’s all meaningless huh? I don’t think you realize the implications of your statement.
Some interesting points of view in that series of posts.
Yeah, agree on the oddity hiding in that statement.
AT (and the related PLs) are just new tools that largely replace the old advice and recommendations of watching our workouts and making tweaks to suit our needs in each moment.
AIFTPD is just an easier tool to getting a Ramp Test value. It didn’t rewrite what FTP is or how it is leveraged in TR.
The mix of the two may allow for more margin of error in ways, while still getting the rider to move in a positive direction, which is beneficial. Notably it is essentially automatic so it removes most of the need for the rider to do the research (via TR resources as in the past) and makes it darn simple.
I love the combo and it’s working well for me, but it’s not like these changes moved us from the stone age to the bronze. It is still leveraging the same basic principles that TR used for years in the old days.
I didn’t write my statement precisely and have edited accordingly. But I strongly disagree with this statement. TR AT system is a much more blurred approach to classical use of FTP. That’s what leads to a lot of the debate.
I’m not saying that’s good or bad. But if you use the system as it is set up now, one is very possibly not in classical Coggan zones. That may or may not be the goal and it may or may not be good. But it is the reality.
I’m not updating, but I am logging it every two weeks versus WKO5’s modeled FTP and the FTP I’m using for workouts. I’m doing an N=1 science experience
My assumption is that AI FTP detection provides a number that replaces the result of a ramp test.
Therefore running both tests in parallel (AI FTP & Ramp Test FTP) would indeed be the A/B comparison needed to validate AI vs. Real correlation.
FTP is just a scalar number whereas Progression Levels are more like a vector. I believe your bone to pick would be with Progression Levels and perhaps a future feature: AI Power Curve Prediction
That was the subject of many threads before AT, PL, etc. So that was true in the past with ramp test overestimated FTPs. One point of AT was to fix that problem, and bring the athlete back into classic zones, at least for threshold and sweet spot.
Coggan dropped vo2max and anaerobic zones over 5 years ago, no need to create a debate of what AT is doing above threshold because you shouldn’t be using Coggan classic zones above threshold.
Well obviously my new FTP has revealed my true awesomeness! Went for a ride and I broke the drive side crank off!
Fortunately (I always look for the positives) I was only 50m from the top of the last hill after which it was almost all downhill to get home, just a further flattish 150m section I had to walk. Once I’d washed the crank off (this was on the MTB) and I had a look at the break it was the tensioning bolt that had broken. The cranks are the newer style RaceFace AEffects. Need to have a closer look to see how fresh various parts of the break are, it’s likely that some part of the fracture has been there a while.
FTP input is meaningless in AT without also comparing against PL.
