I am a 47yr old male, approx 10+ years of training/racing. I’ve dipped in and out of TR over the years and have to say I’m loving the workouts that AI is serving.
I had some erratic behaviour/bugs when I first started my plan. My previous detected FTP changed after a reset from 272w to 258w. I actually would have estimated my FTP to be around 255w ish. So the second figure made a lot of sense. But from the beginning my predicted FTP seemed high and pretty consistently trended upwards by a few watts over the course of the 28day window. The very last prediction was 291w and low and behold the detection was 291w
This would pretty much equal the highest FTP I’ve ever had and seems unrealistically high compared to the feel of recent workouts. For example a Threshold workout from last Saturday, 2-3 days ago. This was 3x20min at approx 257w and HR was at threshold BPM, approx 170bpm, indicating that FTP wasn’t that much higher than the approx 260w
You did a threshold 7.5 and rated it moderate and a vo2 max 9 with a hard rating. I’m not surprised you got a large bump. It might be worth accepting your FTP and using the power graphs on your upcoming workouts and check the power numbers they shouldn’t be that drastically different as you’ll be working less time in zone. Or something along those lines.
Agree with this. I’d also note you did the ‘easier’ iteration of the same threshold workout just a week earlier (96% vs 98%, with much longer recovery intervals) and rated it ‘hard’. Make sure you’re being consistent with how you rate your workouts.
Also look at your 10 minute power for 2026 278. With your new FTP and 10 minute sweet spots with rest intervals would be at 273. So I think you’d be more than capable.
Don’t think of the FTP as something you can hold for 60 minutes, 40 minutes or whatever. Throw that out of your mind. Use it as a training number to get faster and stronger.
I have been. It was definitely on the edge of moderate to hard. SST has always been a strength compared to VO2. So once the hard start settled down and lactate cleared it felt OK.
Yes, agreed I don’t generally think of it as 60min power. Those numbers were more for reference. I do t think I’ve ever help an FTP number for 60mins.
We are back to that discussion of wether it was appropriate for TR to call it an FTP rather than a some variation of training number/intervals level etc
I would first ask myself what kind of FTP I actually want.
Do I want a TrainerRoad (TR) functional FTP—set at a level that makes the workouts achievable and progressive, so I can complete and rate them consistently, as others have already pointed out? Or am I targeting a more duration-specific FTP, such as a 10-minute, 20-minute, or 40-minute FTP?
At some point, there will naturally be some overlap between these approaches. But being clear about your objective helps avoid confusion in competitions—like wondering why you can’t hold your previously accepted FTP for 30 minutes.
That situation is especially likely if you’ve defined FTP primarily as a functional number for completing TR workouts. And that approach is perfectly fine—as long as you’re clear about what that FTP represents for you.
In my case, for example, the FTP bump was 12%, and I knew that I could maintain this new FTP for 25 minutes. This didn’t suit me, because I do longer events like XC marathons and Gran Fondos, and as a result, I want to be able to maintain my FTP for 40-60 minutes.
I signed back up to TR last night and was very surprised to see this whilst going through the onboarding. Really think that TR needs to rethink how they’re using the term FTP, because at the moment it seems to mean different things at different times, which isn’t helping anyone.
In this case, it may seem straightforward because TrainerRoad provides workouts that are data-driven and automatically scaled to your FTP. However, increasing your FTP number shifts all training zones upward, and that creates potential issues.
For example, the mathematically defined endurance zone may no longer reflect your true metabolic, physiological endurance zone. Likewise, what is labeled as anaerobic work might not actually correspond to your real anaerobic capacity.
You must consider your individual rider phenotype (e.g., diesel vs. punchy, high fractional utilization vs. high anaerobic contribution) and your specific training goals. It is very easy to move in the wrong direction: you receive a workout scaled to your updated FTP, but physiologically it may not match reality. For instance, a prescribed endurance ride at 0.65 IF could effectively feel like 0.70 IF for your body. Over longer durations, that difference becomes significant and can materially affect recovery, durability, and adaptation.
Agreed one of the things that does concern me is that my endurance workouts have moved from about 170 W to 200 W. I will certainly see a significant amount more cardiac drift at 200 W. Also fatigue levels will be higher after endurance rides which may affect my ability to complete the harder workouts.
I found a similar issue on endurance rides and fatigue - moving the endurance training approach slider down a notch or two works pretty well to back things off.
Keep in mind that we don’t support Ramp Tests as the best way to find FTP anymore.
I’ve personally never tested well with them, and while they can be okay at ballparking fitness for some athletes to get their training started, it can be hard to compare results from a ramp test to others..
