I suppose it is possible that the slope is similar for a wide swath of people and yet the offsets are different. But the correlation is amazingly tight. I’d like to see others post such graphs. (I’m too early in the game to have any data - only been doing traditional base since activating AT, and had just 1.0 for PL until current block.)
If they can it predict your future FTP given your plan can it show how different training plans will impact us? (low volume, mid, high, pol,…) Based on today’s podcast I think so. If it can do that, can it handle adding extra workouts to the calendar? Say I’m on a low volume plan and do extra endurance workouts in the morning before work, if I add those to the calendar allowing trainer road to know what I plan to do. Just telling plan builder I have more time to do a workout isn’t the answer in that I don’t have time for a longer workout so much as I usually wake up early enough for an endurance workout before work (i.e. not too hard before work)
1 Like
If your FTP is set at 258W and you are training in the 3.4-4.4 range you are actually under the midpoint of the scale for that FTP. At 3.4 that would be ~246W and at 4.4 ~252W. Don’t know how you got to 6%
You follow a TR Plan and replace Ramp Tests with Train Now Workouts?
Is this graphic TR official?
So i am not sure if it is 100% correct, because the Delta is different beetween 95% and 100% ?
90% FTP = 2.1 PL
95% FTP = 3.9 PL 1,8 Delta
100% FTP = 5.5 PL 1,6 Delta
105% FTP = 7.3 PL 1,8 Delta
110% FTP = 9.1 PL 1,8 Delta
PL = your Progression Level
That means with a 5.5 Progression Level i am exactly on my FTP that is used in TR?
or when i can finish a 7.3 SweetSpot Training without any probs but not easy, my FTP could be 105% instead of the FTP is used in TR?
Or just kind of make up their own definition it seems.
2 Likes
This would solve a lot of problems if TR had a range listed rather than a line.
1 Like
I would not conclude that at all.
1 Like
I think this line is oversimplified. It might represent you and where you’re at right now.
Let me explain, when you’re a new rider, gains come quicker and that line would have a much steeper slope. For example, I took 6 months off the bike and retested in November at 262W. All my PL’s were set to 1 and by the end of the first block of base, my SS PL was 5.9. Your graph would suggest I was in for a ~2% FTP bump, yet I got a whopping 10%! And I would bet that this is representative of newer riders, or riders returning from long breaks. Gains come quicker - the PL level doesn’t necessarily represent where their FTP is as that graph shows.
On the other end of the spectrum - riders who’ve been training for a long time and very consistently often see their FTP gains come slowly and in smaller steps. I would think the slope of that line is much flatter for those riders. I’ve read too many posts on this forum about riders who are at 8-9 PL’s for SS and aren’t getting FTP bumps (I’m sure they’d love a nice 7-10% bump as that graph suggests).
I like the concept of your graph but I think it’s more nuanced that you suggest. The slopes vary for every rider. I’m not even sure it would intersect at 100% FTP and 5 PL for each rider either. Maybe this is what you’re saying already? The trick in FTP estimation, IMO, is TR ML trying to know where every rider is at on their own journey at that moment - no small feat.
5 Likes
yeah I’m one of those (currently 9.2 sweet spot) but I’ve increased my FTP manually by just 5w over the past year. And I’m ok with that. I just thinking it’s laughable that so many folks automatically think high SS level equals needing to increase FTP as opposed to just getting really good at muscular endurance. Now, if I saw my average HR at long 90% intervals fall by over 5bpm as a trend, I may consider the need to raise FTP, but simply accomplishing higher level sweet spot workouts doesn’t mean much to me besides being in good shape to do long efforts.
4 Likes
Yup. I did a 120 minute block at 90% (PL 10 as a custom workout), and my FTP at the time was not in need of significant adjustment.
I think it’s to make their product more marketable to a wider, lesser experienced user base. Which is kind of unfortunate really. Coming from a non-endurance background cycling training and racing is the most physically demanding endeavor I’ve ever done. Why does
well stated 
well stated except for the laughable part. This is where PLs can be confusing, and I think redlude’s reply above puts things into context. I’d also add that if you start hitting high fractional utilization, doing longer and longer sweet spot intervals are unlikely to deliver FTP gains (I’ve been there, done that).
1 Like
Great comments, let me respond.
Just to clarify, the graph says nothing about your specific ramp-test result (or any other form of FTP testing). That would be awesome, but don’t think anyone can predict your performance on that day, the amount of sleep you had, your fueling, fatigue, motivation, etc. It does describe how AT responds to your FTP change. Your SS PL likely went from 5.9 at 262 to ~2.2 (would accept some rounding error) at 288W (+10%). Let me know if that is what happened.
Now hypothetically, you continue training from SS PL of 2.2 and bring it up again to 5.9. At this point you manually increase your FTP by 10% (or magically hit 317 on the ramp-test), and AT will again drop your SS PL to 2.2 (this is not hypothetical, it is simply their linear algorithm). Over time your accumulated increase in SS PL will show that linear correlation with gained FTP.
And if you had access to the TR database, you would find that exact correlation between the total FTP gain and total SS PL gain of all AT users over time.
Your comment triggered another thought to test this. My performance is somewhere in the middle of the two groups you described. Had not thought about this before but the TR system does allow me to change my weight, and so did the same test at 5W/kg and 2W/kg. Agree that this would represent ‘new riders’ and ‘experienced riders’? Turns out that the slope is exactly the same for all three scenarios.
I totally agree with you that experienced riders will see slower gains in FTP. The graph simply shows these riders will also have slower gains in progression levels, as the name suggests.
IMHO, a lot of the angst around what FTP is could be cleared up if we just agreed it was a measure of 60 minute MMP. I think all the TTE stuff just muddies the water.
1 Like
and break the hearts of thousands of TR users that think their 25 min power is their FTP… 
2 Likes
8 min power
Surely its Fifty Two Parasecs 
I would assume that 99% of the users simply don’t want to do such a workout.
2 Likes
What did you find worked for you in that situation? More VO2max work?