Great to hear @Jonathan talking about a PMC in the recent podcast. This would be a nice addition to the TR platform.
They were talking about TrainingPeaks, not about adding it to TR.
Career>Training Stress is basically the PMC
I think there is definitely room for some more data. @sbright let me know what specifically you find useful and I’ll share it with the team.
Sorry to hijack but if you are gathering data points.
Power zones
HR zones
Session Efficiency factor
Session Aerobic decoupling
Session Workout reserve
With other platforms offering PMC’s, I’m curious what you all are using for the FTP value necessary to get those charts to calculate.
Prior to the AI FTP Prediction/Detection changes I had been using the TR-Calculated value, primarily because I tend to let the intrusive thoughts win during a ramp test and bail out early, hating myself for it every time. Intervals.icu’s eFTP has me a good bit lower than TR’s AI FTP, and conversations I’ve recently had with the athletedata.health AI coach suggest that the eFTP is closer to reality for me given RPE collected from my Garmin and as input on TR.
I recognize that a proper FTP test is the best way to find the value.. but have any of you been using the AI FTP Detection value instead? If so - why? If not - what are you using, short of a 20min test or a full on 60min test/time trial? I prefer to ride outdoors especially in the summer months, especially given a history of early failures on indoor trainer tests.
(If there’s a better thread for this to go into, apologies - and would appreciate the redirect. I promise I searched)
Personally I’m not using the new AIFTP as it doesn’t align to either my fitness or workout levels. Funnily enough I’ve built my own AIFTP computation based largely on the OG TR AIFTP. It’s tracking really well and dishing up the right workout levels! 
I’d use a real world tested FTP. Otherwise, your TSS, CTL, etc. are all going to be off and you can’t use them to compare to historical values.
I’m having an issue with my FTP alignment across platforms. I’ve been letting TrainerRoad’s AI FTP Detection sync to Strava and Intervals.icu, but the numbers feel off.
TrainerRoad AI FTP: 262 W
Intervals.icu (from an indoor Zwift race): 248 W
My estimated FTP: ~250 W
My concern is that TrainerRoad workouts are calibrated around its AI FTP model; if I lower it in TR, workouts might feel too easy.
Should I set my FTP in Intervals.icu and Strava to 250 W (my actual estimate) while keeping TrainerRoad and my bike computer at 262 W for TR workout?
What is driving you to estimate your FTP at 250?
I think that’s important to know before deciding how to move forward.
I’ve not properly tested it in a while.
These are my power stats for the last 84 days of both indoor and outdoor (so with some variability due to 2 different power meters).
My estimate is mostly driven by feeling. If there was a climb of 20-30 min, and I wanted to do it as hard as possible, I would probably settle in the 250-255 avg.
Open to suggestions
You don’t have to worry - if you manually adjust your FTP lower then the workouts will not become easier - the “workout level” will increase so that the RPE stays the same (correct). I.e. the workout difficulty in raw power terms is independant of the FTP value you set.
I’m very much in the same boat as this (and Zwift’s estimated FTP is lower too). However - the reason I believe this happens for me is that I rarely do an all out effort below 20 minutes as everything is based on repeated intervals. All the eFTP models I’m aware of rely on having data from max efforts in those durations, without them they’re not seeing the while picutre, whereas I trust TR’s AI to account for this better.
Your situation may differ, but if you primarily do TR workouts and don’t go flat out on those durations, the power curve the eFTP models are working with isn’t your true power curve. TR may still be high, but they may be low too.
Food for thought maybe
Would you advise doing so even if I consistently find TR workouts appropriate to RPE?
The RPE should be constant regardless of FTP setting - so it’s up to you.
If you put the FTP far to high or far too low then TR will struggle to find productive workouts you can do - but for me at least the range in allowable FTP values is pretty large.
I.e. TR doesn’t complain if I set my FTP anywhere between 300w and 360w - hard workouts are still hard and moderate workouts are still moderate.
I’d say my real FTP is around 315w and my AIFTP is 335w.
I’m currently using 335w and am happy.
Lower FTP I get workouts with more time in zone (and tend to get extended) and higher FTP tend to be more intense - but RPE is constant.
Coming back on topic a little 
… using an FTP that isn’t aligned to the legacy definition does have a knock on effect to performance management charts.
Higher FTP setting means lower TSS, lower FTP means higher TSS for the same actual work done.
This also trips up TRs fatigue management. It doesn’t negatively affect the AI system which manages load in a more nuanced way - but it can trip up the legacy “yellow/red” day system that runs alongside and isn’t AI based.
The “yellow/red” system seems to be based at least in part on TSS… so if you use a low FTP you end up with more yellow and red days and the opposite is true if you use a high FTP.
True. I have been dealing with this. I use intervals and also have just gone with what TR’s AIFTP gives me. For training, it has been great. But for my fatigue and form, it often has me fresher than I actually am. There are times where I’m pretty smashed and it thinks I’m fresh. So obviously my real FTP is not as high as my AIFTP.
I guess I should put a different FTP value on intervals, but I’d either need to figure out how to estimate that or do a test every so often.
If you’re one of those folks who don’t like to test, the easiest way to do that is to set the minimum interval time for eFTP detection in Intervals and then let it give you its estimate
It also messes with all of your historical records. If your FTP has traditionally hung around 250 and then you use the TRAIFTP that sets it at 200 or 300, then “FTP improvement” as a way of comparing seasons goes out the window. I’m not saying that’s the best way to judge fitness, but all of the “my TRAIFTP is the highest my FTP has ever been” posts tell me people ARE doing it.
Very much my situation. I will likely try to use eFTP for intervals.icu in Intervals and Strava, while keeping TR aiFTP for training. I feel like this could give a better estimate of TSS and time in zone, as well as progression during the season.