Possibly! We have it internally, but we need to do more testing on it to be sure that not only it works well, but also that we can clearly communicate the implications of that data.
9 Likes
I am still wondering if you couldn’t use the system exactly as it’s used now to prescribe workouts, but keep the AI FTP value internal and just show a 40 minute estimate as FTP to the user while still picking the watt by watt same workouts like now when the AI FTP value is visible to the user.
Maybe that could have led to less confusion? Did you test this internally? But I assume you deliberately decided to show the AI FTP value to the user because of the paradigm shift you pointed out:
Thanks for your post on this forum, it helps to understand the thinking behind all this.
One last question: how do you show predicted difficulty for new users or users with minimal data? Do you blend this with the average predicted difficulty of all users until you have enough RPE data from the individual user? Or don’t you show predicted difficulty for users of which you don’t have enough RPE data.
2 Likes
We probably could, but not sure that would be any more clear for athletes?
It’s kinda wild, because when you look at data (performance data, testimonials, feedback on social channels, company metrics, etc.) this is a SUPER popular release and athletes are loving it. But the forum demonstrates the opposite of that. We’ve never seen such a polarized response like this before from the forum, but the confusion only represents a very, very small portion of athletes.
Our forum users are usually our toughest critics and they are also the ones who tend to more closely represent the power-user phenotype, so we take the feedback seriously and find a ton of value in it.
That said, FTP is a hot topic with lots of opinion surrounding it, and forum users tend to be more opinionated, so I think this just strikes a chord.
We just show the individual’s data. Usually a lack of data results in more noise / less certainty, but it doesn’t take long for athletes to get locked in. I’m always impressed to see it happen even after 1 or 2 workouts. Super cool!
5 Likes
Some are the toughest critics and some are the toughest lovers and some are both at the same time 
!!
Good to hear and Yes. I made this survey (which you marked as solution ) that showed no matter what the AI FTP value is (in relation to old FTP or 60min or whatever) vast majority of users acknowledged that the prescribed training was about right!
It’s just this edge cases that us power users sometimes have a hard time wrapping our head around like this:
That’s pretty wild for this user to see 352 AI FTP with 20min PB 326. Maybe have a look there.
I like your deep dives into those user profiles to understand more, which often turn out that the user only told half the story or gave some inconsistent RPE and I was just shaking my head and did not envy you and the support team. (But that does not seem to be the case for that user … as he showed PDC and told about very hard RPE ratings)
And looking forward to seeing the new UI that Nate showed that helps us better understand the power of the workouts vs 6 week PB or so.
1 Like
I appreciate you going through the workouts. Like I said in my original post, I have completed all my workouts and haven’t failed any. I do think there is a difference between being able to complete the workout, opposed to the workout being in the correct zone during the working sets. I’m also totally fine just doing the watts and see where I end up at this point.
Before the AIFTP, my detected FTP always felt bang on, and the SS workouts given to me felt like SS - for me I would rate them at moderate and felt controlled, and the o/u workouts felt like unders on the under portion where I was actually recovering before hitting the overs again. These workouts have not felt like that. I’m really seeing a difference between the RPE on the new system compared to the old for a given zone.
I agree that I could do my recovery intervals a little lower, but that won’t significant affect the efforts in the working sets IMO.
The other consequence is the z2 rides are much more challenging, which I actually like - I always felt they were too easy before.
All this to say, my plan feels like one longer threshold session, and one over / at threshold session. This may actually be a good thing as I haven’t done intervals this hard during base before. I’m def not doing a proper SS and o/u session though - at least not how any coach I’ve had in the past has described them. I’m just coming off a rest week, and my AI FTP is 5w higher now, wish me luck! I may even have to stick to the proper recovery watts between sets!
Edit to add: what is the ML seeing that it thinks I could add another 11w to my AIFTP at the end of this block? I know that won’t happen, but can you reveal in a general way what the logic is to come up with these predicated watts?
3 Likes
@Jonathan thanks for the clarification(s). What I’m not understanding is why then TR has deprecated the old AI FTP detection. Personally I found that it was a good estimation of my own FTP. It was much more convenient than doing the TR Ramp Test or other testing methods.
1 Like
Thank you for the input, @Jonathan
And biggest promoters! Devotion is a double-edged sword.
Thank you for the analysis of Bones’s January. I’m not going to say “do mine” because I already did it at length here:
So, if you need to see failed workouts to be convinced, you’re welcome to have a look at my calendar. I can follow up on my analysis on Reinstein-2 done in the linked post with an example from 05.02 - my last OU workout done with manual FTP setting - Emerson-2. The OU watts (Emerson-2 335/371) are mostly the same (Reinstein-2 337/373), but the duration of the OU block on Emerson in 10min vs the 12min on Reinstein. So I finished an objectively easier workout, rating it very hard, after an extra 10 days of training, meaning that I was always expected to fail the Reinstein-2 10 days prior. I’ve since looked at HR data, too, (before and after the new AIFTP) which strengthened my conviction that the AIFTP is messing up my zones.
It turns out that I am just too sensitive to intensity. Other people manage to complete such workouts, but that does not mean that they are appropriate. 10 or 12 minutes at threshold is supposed to be achievable, but varying the intensity within the interval does not make it an OU automatically, if there’s no semblance of recovery, yet it doesn’t necessarily make it a failed workout, too. Just renders it inappropriate in my opinion.
All being said, I understand that I’m in the minority, but unlike Bones, I’m not willing to crash and burn with the new AIFTP for the sake of science (I was for one training block, now I’m out of time). Using manual FTP is a solution, but I’d like it to be a short-term one. The minority of users thinking that the new AIFTP is too high and is rendering their workouts too intense is not negligible as per Rizzi’s poll:
I still believe there’s improvement to be made in these cases and I’m willing to bet my house that you, yourself, would’ve told me “your workouts are too intense, maybe you need to reduce your FTP” if I had sent my January 2026 training block to the AACC podcast back in Jan 2025, complaining about failed workouts.
3 Likes
I am very much an edge case as a user anyway. I don’t follow any TR plan precisely, I do a lot of long endurance using “Free Ride”, and also go to long cross country ski sessions. I like to pick suitable TR workouts based on their difficulty rating and my long experience from TR workouts and endurance training in general. For my use case, AI FTP before the update worked amazingly well.
I mostly struggle with the fact that the legacy AI FTP gave very accurate numbers for me, even though I train a lot outdoors and didn’t follow plans properly. It literally gave me exact same FTP value compared to 20min FTP test, just hours before the test.
It would be interesting to find out what is the reason behind my obviously too high new FTP AI estimate.
4 Likes
Hi, first thank you for a great product…I have been using it for many years, but I admit, properly not as strict as some. My challenge is the new AI FTP detection, The old one had me on 415W, and the new took me down to 400W and then gave me sessions that were way to easy. Took a ramp test that put me at 425W and settled at 420W, and it works…though I am now at Sweetspot 8.8 and Threshold 5.5, so might need to go to 425 soon. But the AI keep wanting me to be at 400W…why, this is not a new scale thing, this is just wrong…..It also want me to start my Build Phase with VO2MAX 10.0 (+5.5) - which is impossible for me to do. Is there a trick to tweak it? Kind regards
2 Likes
There have been suspicions that 400W is a maximum value for the current AIFTP. Nobody has reported a higher prediction/detection yet. I guess you should go manual once you’re over 400.
2 Likes
That actually might be….because it also predict my FTP to be 400W in four weeks, even though I do hard sessions….thanks for the reply.
Hey @John_Barclay I would also agree that a 2 watt difference is only minimal, hehe. But it does make sense for your training between AI FTP Detections. You were sick for a good chunk and bounced back the last week and were able to fully complete 3 interval workouts which helped with your FTP.
Your training between detections:
All that said, the new AI FTP Prediction looks promising! However, I see that on Feb 9th you’re already feeling Sick again. So I’d just be mindful and listen to your body first before chasing watts
2 Likes
I can confirm there is no maximum value set in AI FTP Detection. Predicted FTPs above that are certainly going to be quite rare, but human physiology (not the AI) is to blame 
3 Likes
Ok Sean, Thanks for the answer…. but that doesn’t solve the the fact, that it insist on wanting me to be at 400W and gives me a VO2MAX level 10 to begin my build face ;)…..I did a TH Level 6 (420W FTP) yesterday, no problem. And it still want me at 400W. Maybe I just don’t understand it…..I will give it a chance till next detection.
You’ve been here long enough to know that no one understands it. 
Every 3rd post degenerates into the definition of FTP, AIFTP not withstanding. There is not one concensus on FTP, if there was, we wouldnt be here now 
4 Likes
I’m not either anymore! I barely made it through my SS workout yesterday - no 5x10m SS workout should be that hard (rated it very hard). I didn’t have the best legs, becuase I did something similar a couple of weeks ago and I didn’t’ struggle as much. My legs weren’t bad though - this kind of highlights the issue even more - def not SS effort, and my legs are going to have varying levels of fatigue, so the workouts can’t be near my limit all the time as my legs are never going to be consistently good.
Rather than crash and burn, I have decided to lower my FTP 12 watts. At the current AIFTP, I’m honestly not sure if I could hold it for more than 10 minutes which really doesn’t make sense to me. Hopefully this gets me back to a more sensible training plan.
The only downside is with my crazy predicted AIFTP in 25 days, and if I was able to lose 2.5kg, I’d be at the magical 5kg! This is why the number is a fantasy lol - this fantasy may have been the subconscious reason I wanted to keep going…
5 Likes
I do wonder what TR sees in some of us to give us the bump in FTP.
I asked that question to Jonathan, but he didn’t respond. I honestly have no idea - it could be looking through my training history from years ago when I raced as a Cat 1, and was at 5w/kg, but that was in 2013 and I’m now in my 50s. Those days are gone IMO.
1 Like
Not applicable to me. I’ve never been faster on a bike in my life, it’s all uncharted territory. I’m not in my 50s, but not in my 20s either. At 36 yo I can’t imagine progressing by 3-5% per month with a few years of cycling under my belt.
2 Likes
I was hoping that since TR has said aiFTP and FTP are not the same we would get them to define what they consider aiFTP to be. Would help clear things up imo.